Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves Information

From Wikipedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RM

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.)

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

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

Undiscussed moves

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

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

  • To list a technical request: 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 ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 12 April 2021" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

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

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

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| 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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

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

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

is incomplete. Such malformed requests are usually easy to repair. Editors can learn from the repair and improve their format when a later page move is requested. A neutral note in the fixed request and, if deemed necessary, on the requestor's talk page can help. As a malformed move request, it may be subject to early closure on procedural grounds; however, that should only be done as a last resort.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{ subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links  talk 
Requested move 12 April 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example ( talk) 02:51, 12 April 2021 (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 12 April 2021

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example ( talk) 02:51, 12 April 2021 (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 12 April 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example ( talk) 02:51, 12 April 2021‎ (UTC)

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



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

{{ subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 12 April 2021

– why Example ( talk) 02:51, 12 April 2021 (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 12 April 2021

– why Example ( talk) 02:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 41 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

April 12, 2021

  • ( Discuss) SlaveyDeh cho (people) – It's nonsensical that such a name is used primarily; imagine if all the conquered people historically were called this, but they're not, and since a native name exists why not use that? Otherwise we might end up with a situation where 99% of people are called this and only the 1% aren't, which would be a disambiguating nonsense to say the least... 2.97.151.50 ( talk) 01:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

April 11, 2021

  • ( Discuss) Władysław III of Poland Władysław III Jagiellon – This article is about a Polish King, the Supreme Duke of Lithuania, King of Hungary, and King of Croatia, so such title as "Władysław III of Poland" is misleading and exaggerates Poland for no reason. I suggest moving and renaming his article to Władysław III Jagiellon. This way he would be called identically as his brother Casimir IV Jagiellon, who inherited his titles after his death, and would be neutral, presenting himself only as a member of the Jagiellonian dynasty. Name Władysław III Jagiellon is widely used in the English language texts (e.g. HERE). -- Pofka ( talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Airavata → ? – For some reason, there is practically 0 instances of "Airavata" in this article; they've been changed to either "Airavatha" or "Airavaatha". UltimateKuriboh ( talk) 03:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Nontransitive gameIntransitive game – The term "intransitive" is more commonly used than "nontransitive" according to Google Ngram Viewer, which is likely to make "intransitive" sound more natural. Additionally, the article on the main topic is located at Intransitivity. I do think the current title is also recognizable, precise, and concise, making this move not urgent. Ilzolende ( talk) 01:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

April 10, 2021

  • ( Discuss) 2021 Canadian Open (tennis) 2020 Canadian Open (tennis) – The entire 2020 Canadian Open article was moved to 2021 and then some stuff added to the redirect so it can't be moved back. I went to add something to the 2020 article yesterday and couldn't because of the undiscussed move. There are sources that say it was canceled and sources that say it was postponed. That's semantics... the same thing happened to all tournaments not played. The 2020 version was sponsored by Rogers but not so the 2021 edition. If it was truly postponed there would be two events this year, are there, no. And then 2021 would need to be postponed till 2022, and so on. It's one thing to redirect the 2020 article to 2021, but another to move it. Now if I want to create info for the 2020 event, the history is in the wrong place. This is not what we did to 2020 Wimbledon Championships and 2020 BNP Paribas Open. We should move this article with its history back to 2020 and create a brand new 2021 article. I tried speedy move but an admin says since it's been moved for a month he considers it stable... so I have to do this formally. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Ikon Ikon (disambiguation) – Given that the computing/UI sense is, for many years now, by far the primary meaning in Enlish of icon (and always with a c), that ikon with a k is increasingly used for the religious term as a form of natural disambiguation and was the original spelling anyway, and that subject is by far the primary meaning of ikon with a k, the present three article names make no sense at all and don't comply with WP:AT or WP:DAB. I think this proposed rearrangement would do so, and would generally be helpful. I found it downright weird that Ikon was a disambiguation page rather than the religious images article, that that article was at Icon and that the latter didn't go to the computing topic which is what the word means to about 95% of readers, most of whom don't even now that the term originated from small Orthodox Christian paintings. To the extent the average reader even has any sense of another meaning of icon wit a c, it's another derived and figural one ("pop icon", "iconic film", etc.) With a k, though, the religious paintings are obviously the primary topic for that spelling.  —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Alex Rutherford Diana Preston – Diana Preston has written at least 15 books, most of them under her real name "Diana Preston". She used a pseudonym "Alex Rutherford" for a fictional series, but she is best known for her non-fiction works as Diana Preston. This is easily demonstrated by library holdings and user holdings. Whoever created/named this article appears to be only interested in her fiction work and mostly ignored her non-fiction which make up the bulk of her writing. Her biography article should be a normal biographical article under her real name. She also published some books with her husband, but most were done by her alone. Once renamed, I will begin to build a proper biography of Diana Preston, and include information about her pseudonym and co-authors. Green C 03:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Relisting.  Vaticidal prophet 06:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Triple X syndrome Trisomy X – Three years ago now, this (as bundled with the pentasomy X move) closed as no consensus. I think it's time to revisit the topic again, considering recent work on these articles, the longstanding name consistency for the other disorders, and the nuances of WP:COMMONNAME. The matter of "what's the single most common name for this disorder?" (which is a slightly different thing to the COMMONNAME policy, which explicitly discusses both ambiguity and contexts where a less common name is appropriate) is ambiguous, but points overall to trisomy X. NORD, Orphanet, and AXYS use "trisomy X". Mayo, Medline, and Cleveland use "triple X syndrome". Unique uses both. My consistent impression is that patient organizations have a strong preference away from 'triple X syndrome', and this is reflected in much of the literature, which for sex chromosome aneuploidies is intertwined enough with those organizations that it's difficult to draw a fine line. The publications of the researchers most preeminent in this field trend towards trisomy X, see e.g. Tartaglia (random papers drawn from that sample: 1, 2). Trisomy X is the term used by the eXtraordinarY Kids Program, one of the major evaluation and treatment programs for sex chromosome aneuploidies. Overall, although "triple X syndrome" has nontrivial use, the preference in recent years and amongst those who work directly in this field is away from it and towards "trisomy X". In addition, there's the consistency argument. Tetrasomy X and pentasomy X have been at the polysomy titles for four and three years respectively without issue, and standardizing the set by having all three in the same place can only be a positive. There's also an argument for conciseness here (two words over three). Overall, I think our article policies point strongly in the direction that "trisomy X" is the preferable name. It's the preference amongst patient and support organizations, at worst equal to the current title on the grand scale, and consistent with our other usage. It's also, well, a much less awkward phrasing, which doesn't hurt. Vaticidal prophet 06:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Pod people Pod People – The titles of all three articles currently listed on this disambiguation page have a capital "P" in "People", so shouldn't this disambiguation page also have a capital "P" in "People"? Zzyzx11 ( talk) 01:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

April 9, 2021

  • ( Discuss) Totem tennis Swingball – Swingball seems to be the more common (and frequently lowercased) generic trademark name for this game, from a news search. Australian news sources use both "swingball" and "totem tennis", possibly leaning more to the latter, but the game doesn't appear to be Australian in origin. (The article was created in 2005 by an Australian IP editor.) Lord Belbury ( talk) 17:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Bob Willis Trophy2020 Bob Willis Trophy – As the Bob Willis Trophy is taking place again this year (under a new format) this should probably be a general page for the Bob Willis Trophy as a whole, with separate pages for the 2020 Bob Willis Trophy and 2021 Bob Willis Trophy. Alternatively as this year's trophy is just a single game it could go on the 2021 County Championship page, but I think this page should still specify 2020 for better disambiguation (and 2021 can redirect to the CC page). Mpk662 ( talk) 14:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Tenth Amendment Tenth Amendment (disambiguation) – In my assessment, Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the primary topic here. This page should thus be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it; the disambiguation page can be linked via a hatnote. The US amendment is primary with respect to all of the factors listed at WP:DPT. Pageviews: The US amendment has received north of 98.9 percent of all traffic in the last ninety days and 98.7 percent of all traffic over the last year. See [5]. The percentage is thus very high and very stable. Usage in reliable sources: By my count, 100 of the first 100 Google Scholar results and 99 of the first 100 Google Books results appear to the US amendment. Therefore, its long-term impact is likely greater as well. Links: There are almost twice as many links to the US amendment than to all others combined, although this figure isn't very useful because most of the links are template-based. In sum, the US amendment is clearly primary, and so this page ought to redirect there. (We've done the same for First Amendment and Second Amendment. While the Tenth Amendment may not be as subjectively "famous" as those, the evidence above is more than sufficient that it's still primary.) Charges of "Americentrism" are in my view unavailing since the vast majority of readers worldwide are looking for the US amendment. See WP:READERSFIRST. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Nina Ansaroff Nina Nunes – Not much to discuss. Name changed on ufc website, espn, sherdog, tapology, and social media. Not sure why we’re gate keeping this change when every reliable source has changed it. Sdpdude9 ( talk) 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 8, 2021

  • ( Discuss) The Mick (TV series) The Mick – Currently The Mick serves as a redirect to Mickey Mantle. That page averages 2000+ hits a day, but the redirect only gets 5. This shows that most people looking for Mickey Mantle are not using "The Mick" to find him. The TV show, although altogether less notable (600 hits/day), is more closely associated to the term "The Mick", and should be its primary topic. 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Enfield Town Enfield, London – The subject of this article is the entire town of Enfield, however the current name of the article, "Enfield Town", refers only to a specific part of Enfield. My view is that the name ' Enfield, London' would be more appropriate. The page located there is currently a redirect to the London Borough of Enfield article, which I would strongly argue is not the primary topic for 'Enfield, London'. It is merely a local government district containing Enfield, along with other areas. The name "Enfield" refers to the area covered by this article. I previously proposed that this article be moved to "Enfield" as the primary topic, however consensus amongst participants was that it did not meet WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. This move request focuses on the main issue with the name of this article. Brimsdown, for instance, is in Enfield, but not in Enfield Town. PlatinumClipper96 ( talk) 16:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Women's British Open AIG Women's Open – Name of article should be changed on the basis that the tournament is now called the AIG Women's Open, it will be called that for at least four years and it is primarily referred to as such in contemporary news coverage of the event. This is in accordance with naming guidelines - "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.” [2]. My sources for such an assertion are as follows: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Note that these are fairly recent articles, talking not just the 2020 competition but the competition in general, and as such I believe the intention of major news outlets is to continue using the name 'AIG Women's Open' for the foreseeable future. I also believe these are all reputable sources with large audiences. Therefore, I believe that the name of the article should be changed to 'AIG Women's Open' to correspond with the new naming convention adopted by the mainstream press.

References

  1. ^ Patrick, MAJ Shawn M (2010). Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited The Uyghur Movement China's Insurgency in Xinjiang (PDF). School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. p. 27.
  2. ^ https://webot.org/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title
  3. ^ https://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12176/12254535/aig-womens-open-ra-expect-to-welcome-back-fans-for-tournament-at-carnoustie-in-august
  4. ^ https://www.lpga.com/news/2021/popov-at-home-near-the-top
  5. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/junior-golf/walton-heath-host-junior-golf-championship-2021/
  6. ^ https://golf.com/news/why-amateur-wont-be-at-anwa/
Elprez10102 ( talk) 12:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lepage-Boily, Élizabeth (8 April 2021). "L'animateur du jeu musical Qui sait chanter? enfin révélé". Showbizz (in French). Happy Geeks Media. Retrieved 8 April 2021. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter ( link)
Saisønisse ( talk) 07:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) 2019–2020 Chilean protests2019–2021 Chilean protests – I think the article refers to the social phenomena that includes protest, as well as many other manifestations and events, thus the article should be renamed as in the spanish (and original) version of the article, called "Estallido social", meaning Social outbreak or outburst. By the other hand the protest have continued since october 2019 and probably wont stop until president Piñera leave the office no sooner than march 2022. 2019-2021 Chilean protest or Chilean social outbreak should be the correct name. Thanks. 137.189.204.51 ( talk) 05:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

April 7, 2021

  • ( Discuss) 2021 Andalucia Open → ? – I know for sure that the page name must be changed, but I hesitate when it comes to choosing between alternative (a) and alternative (b). The word Andalucia as such is incorrect in any way you look at it –it simply does not exist. The correct and reasonable options are, as far as I understand, only two: (a) 2021 Andalusia Open, and (b) 2021 Andalucía Open. Andalusia is the exonym for this Spanish autonomous community. Andalucía is its endonym. The way I see it, option (a) seems to be the most appropriate. It is in line with the prevailing pattern (so to speak): Vienna Open (instead of Wien Open), Cologne Open (instead of Köln Open), Lisbon Open (instead of Lisboa Open), Serbia Open (instead of Srbija Open) and so on. However, you can also find some odd cases, such as the Open Sud de France (Open South of France) and the Open Castilla y León (Open Castile and León). And what's more: what about the 2021 Andalucía Challenger? And, alas, I also came across the Andalucia Tennis Experience. Thoughts? WTC7812 ( talk) 21:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Revenge bedtime procrastinationBedtime procrastination – "Bedtime procrastination" is the broad name for the phenomenom. It is the one used in real scientific papers (e.g. Herzog-Krzywoszanska and Krzywoszanski, 2019) while the term "revenge bedtime procrastination" does not. The Sleep Foundation source used for the current version of the article talks about the "revenge" part very briefly. It does not make sense that this specific subtype of bedtime procrastination has a page and the broad phenomenom does not. After the article has been moved, there should be a section specifically about the revenge subtype. But the article itself needs to be about the broad phenomenom. Mateussf ( talk) 19:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) 124 East Bay Street River Street Inn – The historic building or building complex has multiple street addresses including 115 East River Street and is generally known as River Street Inn, its major occupant. There currently is no source at all in the article referring to the building as "124 East Bay Street". First results from searching on that term are only this Wikipedia article and webpages about the River Street Inn. Where did the "124 East Bay Street" term come from, anyhow? By the way the article was originally created as "River Street Inn", in the version now at River Street Inn; this version is in fact a fork, while in fact the draft should have been moved to mainspace and developed instead. I don't care particularly about not getting "creator" credit for the article in mainspace. However, the main thing is that the article should be at the correct name. The Historic Hotels of America article about it describes River Street Inn as a "former cotton grading and storage facility". The historical marker on the building gives name "River Street Inn" and address 115 East River St. It is not a problem that certain other tenants also exist in the building; we call the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in NYC by the name of the hotel without sweating the fact there is a Cellini Jewelers store in the building, too. -- Doncram ( talk) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting.  No such user ( talk) 09:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Soroko (surname) → ? – I think that this page should be changed to either "Soroka" or "Soroka (surname)" because there are significantly more Wikipedia article about people surnamed "Soroka" than the combined number for other spelling variants mentioned in the lead. Half of the 10 people mentioned were Sorokas before my additions of other people surnamed "Soroka" to this page (see Special:Diff/995449456/1016242788). There were no Sorok(k)os or Sarokas to add. Apparently, the dab page was created ( Special:Diff/751846093) in 2016 with four people all surnamed Sorok(k)o, and would be out-numbers by Sorokas added by Special:Diff/751846093/833503033 and by me. I believe it is time for a change to reflects the addition of Sorokas. (added 06:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC))
  • ( Discuss) Sabrina satana musician Sabrina Satana – 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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. Garthchesney ( talk) 05:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Milwaukee Road – Clear WP:COMMONNAME by a factor of multiple hundreds, thousands even, during the peak of the railroad itself. See here just for ngram stats alone. We're talking about real major issues of failing the recognizability criteria for all except subject matter experts. The fact that "Milwaukee Road" already redirects here shows that we expect someone searching for the name to be looking for this railroad, and with it clearly being the far most dominant name in common use, there's really no justification for keeping it at a technical name that was and remains largely unused by reliable sources. oknazevad ( talk) 00:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

April 6, 2021

  • ( Discuss) Emerald Waterways Emerald Cruises – Emerald Waterways has merged with Emerald Yacht Cruises and is now rebranded as Emerald Cruises. The old brand name "Emerald Waterways" needs to be updated to Emerald Cruises while retaining all the authority gained by the old page. ArchiveVig ( talk) 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Woman on top → ? – Works regardless of gender; LGBT people exist. This has already been discussed to death before, with the consesus generally going along the lines of " WP:OR, may be relevant elsewhere" with little more. I feel a less heteronormative title may be necessary, though I fear I lack the knowledge on sex positions (spare me the jokes) to find a better suited title that isn't WP:OR Orcaguy ( talk) 11:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Born Slippy .NUXX Born Slippy Nuxx – Brilliant song and but rather awkwardly named, and rather title-MOS unfriendly. The name "Born Slippy" refers to a completely different song so should not be used, to avoid confusion. The suffix "Nuxx" is a stylisation in all-caps and with a full stop, the 2003 re-release simply named it "Born Slippy Nuxx"; and it is named "Born Slippy (Nuxx)" on digital and streaming services. As it seems to be part of the title, I am in favour of the former, though the latter is more acceptable as a title than the current one too. Lazz _R 04:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

April 5, 2021

  • ( Discuss) War in Donbass War in Donbas –   After the move of “Donbass” to “ Donbas”, this descriptive name for a conflict in Ukraine should be updated for wp:CONSISTENCY. A G Books Ngram chart shows this war is variously named and capitalized. Unlike, for example, World War II which is always capitalized, names of this subject are not universally recognized as proper names. Individual searches in the corpus of reliable sources show that the current phrasing and spelling Donbas War is probably the most wp:COMMONNAME out of these variations. Google Advanced Book Search of English-language pages, with quotation marks, and excluding Wikipedia, per WP:SET, 2014–2019 (accurate estimate of results is only at the top of the last page of results, when you hide the “Tools” menu). Total hits about 8,980: * W/war in Donbas*: 1,700 to 1,620 (+5%) * W/war in the Donbas*: 1,950 to 1,820 (+7%) * Donbas* W/war: 1,310 to 841 (+56%) Google Scholar Search, with quotation marks and excluding Wikipedia per WP:SET, 2014–2019. Total hits about 3,147: * W/war in Donbas*: 1,050 to 730 (+44%) * W/war in the Donbas*: 518 to 367 (+41%) * Donbas* W/war: 282 to 200 (+41%) Summing up all of the above, Donbas beats Donbass by 6,810 to 5,578 (+22%) The total numbers are not huge but the results are consistent. If they are unconvincing, then we should fall back on consistency with the main article and others, and rename anyway.  — Michael  Z. 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) High-concept High concept – I'm not a native speaker of English, but unless I'm mistaken, the phrase should only be hyphenated if used as an adjective before a noun. So, we could have e.g. a high-concept work that is high concept. 143.176.30.65 ( talk) 11:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting.  Vaticidal prophet 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Genesys 600 → ? – Current title is misleading, as this year's event is scheduled to consist of two separate races, named "Genesys 300" and "XPEL 375", respectively. Furthermore, common convention has been to not include sponsors in article title. However, I have no idea where this article should be moved to. I just know that the current title is inappropriate. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 20:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

Backlog

  • ( Discuss) BBC KidsBBC Kids (Canadian TV channel) – Almost the entire edit history of this article is about the Canadian channel. The current article is unbalanced because editors shoved in the Australian channel into the Canadian article, instead of moving the Canadian channel, and creating an overview article for the "BBC Kids" brand, leading to a new Australian channel article, ending up with three articles. I propose the Canadian article be restored with its edit history at the new location, clearing way for a new article on the brand at this location. The short Australian section can remain as is, while a new summary of the Canadian section is built for the new article at this "BBC Kids" location, and a rollback to the old Canada only article appear at the new "(Canada)" location -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 11:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) A Negress Murzynka – There doesn't appear to be a source for the idea that A Negress is the common name of this painting in English. In the absence of such a translation consistently used by reliable sources, WP:UE suggests we should stick with the original Polish name. – bradv 🍁 03:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 08:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Antique (film)Antique Bakery (film) – English Wikipedia's naming conventions for films favour using the title a film is released under in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and/or New Zealand. Out of those countries, the only one it has been widely released in is the UK, where it is titled Antique Bakery (see the DVD cover on Amazon.co.uk). The film's official English title in South Korea is just Antique, but English Wikipedia's rules are to prioritise what the film has actually been released as in a majority English-speaking country. Tempjrds ( talk) 02:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting.  Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Reuse of excretaUse of animal waste – Excreta, as defined here, is the same as manure is defined in that eponymous article. The inclusion of human manure make this article more wide ranging and connects it with a number of other articles on sanitation, but it is still the same material with the same potential uses and the same risks and opportunities. Excreta is " metabolic waste (which) is eliminated from an organism. In vertebrates this is primarily carried out by the lungs, kidneys, and skin" and does not include faeces, menses, vomit etc. which are all components of manure. Excretion is a scientific term with a precise meaning which, in this article, is being unduly expanded to include all wastes produced or ejected from the mammalian body. The use of the word Excreta seems to me to be used here as a euphemism, and Wikipedia has no truck with euphemisms.   Velella   Velella Talk   18:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) CD AD San Fermín Puente Genil FC – The name of the team's article is outdated used, the team changed its name in 2018, it's now called Salerm Puente Genil FC and it on the team's website, twitter account and RFEF results table. I think this is more evident than the other case, let me know what you think.  Viktorcc ( talk) 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC+2) *@ Viktorcc and Kj cheetham: queried move request Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Mérida AD AD Mérida – The name of the team's article is not currently used, the team changed its name in 2015, and the name is on the team's website, twitter account and RFEF results table.  Viktorcc ( talk) 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC+2)  :This is a contested technical request ( permalink). Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 23:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) AutocephalyAutocephaly and autonomy (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches) – The article currently covers both subjects, and both subjects are closely related. The concepts exists in both churches, e.g. ROCOR and Jacobite Syrian Christian Church.
    Moreover, it will be useful to have a page which explains what the autonomy of a Church means in the E. and O. Orthodox Churches. Currently, the article explains what autonomy in the EO and OO Churches is (the concepts, as far as I know, are the same in both churches so by describing the concepts as seen by the EO Church we have the description as understood in the OO Church); despite this, there is no go-to article to explain the concept of autonomy in this context, due to the name of the article.
    The word "autonomy" can mean numerous things, this is why I believe it is important to add "(Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches)" next to the title, and also because of WP:PRECISE. Veverve ( talk) 19:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Orthographic ligature Typographic ligature – Apparently the article was boldly moved from "Typographic ligature" to "Orthographic ligature" a couple years ago, and I don't think that was well founded. Not all ligatures are orthographic. The ligature "fi" and the non-joined "f‌i" are mere variants and neither is more "correct" than the other (unlike "œ" vs "oe" in some orthographies). If the concern is that "typographic" excludes handwriting (though I doubt it does), we could instead choose Ligature (writing) or something to that effect. Nardog ( talk) 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 05:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Camilo CatrillancaDeath of Camilo Catrillanca – Camilo Catrillanca is primarily known and notable for they circumstances of his death. His prior life and activism is as far as I am concerned totally unnotable for Wikipedia. Note that "Mapuche activism" is also a very vague category and that unless the activism has gained some notoriety should not be enought to give some kind of notability to a person. Dentren | Talk 17:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Relisting.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 00:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Cleveland, England → ? – discussing Cleveland (county) re-merging ended as declined, I would to request a move from ‘’Cleveland, England'' to ‘’Cleveland, Yorkshire'' or ‘’Cleveland, North Yorkshire''. The article is about an area purely in North Yorkshire/Yorkshire and better disambiguates between this article and Cleveland (county), the county’s former area presently crosses North Yorkshire and Durham. This Cleveland predates North Yorkshire county by a long stretch, so “Cleveland,Yorkshire” is my preference. Chocolateediter ( talk) 17:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Yardımlı Yardimli – Move to "Yardimli" per WP:UE/ WP:COMMONNAME/ WP:ENGLISH. Proof of anglicized name being the common name: Results from Google News: Yardimli: 340 Yardımlı: 0 Results from Google Scholar: Yardimli: 121 Yardımlı: 74 Individual reliable sources referring to the city as Yardimli: Institute for War and Peace Reporting This is the same name but an anglicized version. Unlike other small villages, this is a fairly large town, which has made a lot of appearances in English-language media, in most of which, "Yardimli" has been used much more, establishing its WP:COMMONNAME. I'd also like to ask the closing admin to give more attention to the arguments being made rather than the vote counts, as there are people who go over each RM and repeat unrelated policies as an "Oppose" argument. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 17:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Catalan vaultTile vault – Because the current title of this architectural technique is neither neutral nor accurate (does not describe the technique itself) but geographical, and was created with political connotations, so the current title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. 88.22.228.43 ( talk) 16:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting.  Jack Frost ( talk) 11:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) N ray N rays – The standard usage in discussion of this is of the plural form, as in "scientists believed they had discovered a new form of radiation, dubbed N rays." Even this article's lead uses only the plural form. In fact, the singular form appears just once vs. the 35 uses of the plural form in this article. See also: List of experimental errors and frauds in physics. RobP ( talk) 03:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Fez, Morocco Fes – The city isn't called Fez, it sounds nothing like the real name, the name Fes is widely used in the real world and sounds like the Arabic name. This would also be less confusing because there is another article called Fez which is about the short cylindrical hat. Mhd240 ( talk) 16:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Romanian Television Romanian Television Society – even if "Romanian Television" is the common name, I think it's too general considering that there are many other television channels in Romania. This name may confuse readers into thinking that they are reading an article about television in Romania when reading the title. The official name of this channel, "Romanian Television Society", is more appropriate in my opinion and is not too long. Super Ψ Dro 11:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Shots FiredShots Fired (TV series) – There is now an article for the song Shots Fired (song), so it will probably be necessary to disambiguate this page and add a hatnote to both pages, as I don't think either article will be the primary topic. I could possibly have been bold and done this myself, but I'm not sure if this is the correct disambiguator to use here, so I'm looking for consensus for the disambiguator and to make the move. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) 2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion and inclusion plebiscite2001 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite – To align with the 2019 Bangsamoro autonomy plebiscite, a pithier title than this one. That 2019 plebiscite replaced the political structure created by this plebiscite, plus giving a definite name for the region: " Bangsamoro". In 2001, the " Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" already existed; curiously, you can't call it simply as "Muslim Mindanao", but either by its whole name or by "ARMM". (I believe local media and Wikipedia has mostly followed this nomenclature.) In 1989, when the ARMM was made, there was an understanding that no plebiscite can ever be inclusive to merit the simple name of "Muslim Mindanao", hence they used "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" instead of "Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao" (compare "Republic of the Philippines") as there would always be parts of Muslim Mindanao that is not included in the ARMM. Now, while this plebiscite includes places outside of Mindanao (primarily Palawan), the WP:NC of this exercise was that it happened mostly in Mindanao. Once the 1989 plebiscite is created, if the RM is approved, it should also also be named as " 1989 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite". Howard the Duck ( talk) 18:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Beechcraft King AirBeechcraft King Air 90 and 100 – Textron Beechcraft recently discontinued the C90GTx and is thus no longer producing any King Air 90/100 series aircraft. The 200/300 series remains popular, and for the past 25 years, it has been marketed solely as the King Air rather than the Super King Air. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the 200/300 series should be called by the name that the manufacturer now uses, and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the default "King Air" page should not discuss a discontinued aircraft rather than the popular current-production aircraft. The relationship between the aircraft would be explained with hatnotes, and I propose that the search term "Beechcraft King Air" would redirect to the current-production 200/300 series, although I would be open to other suggestions. This proposal replaces a previous merger proposal that I've withdrawn because it proved unpopular. Carguychris ( talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Mya Thwe Thwe Khine Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine – Personally, I found that the AfD to be confusing since there was a page move from Mya Thew Thwe Khine to "Death of..." at the start of the dicussion and a move back to the subject's name right before the end of it cuz TheAafi commented with a keep that the move was 'undicussed'. Now the consensus is to keep the article, I would like to move this to back "Death of..." title with the rationale of WP:VICTIM/ WP:BIO1E since this article is primarily about her death during the protests, and not her life. – robertsky ( talk) 02:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) SədərəkSadarak (town) – Move to "Sadarak (town)" per WP:UE/ WP:COMMONNAME/ WP:ENGLISH. Added (town) to avoid confusion with Sadarak District. Proof of anglicized name being the common name: Results from Google News: Sadarak: 251 Sədərək: 1 Results from Google Scholar: Sadarak: 133 Sədərək: 15 Individual reliable sources referring to the city as Sadarak: New York Times, Anadolu Agency, OC Media This is the same name but an anglicized version. Unlike other small villages, this is a fairly large town and an administrative centre, which has made a lot of appearances in English-language media, in most of which, "Sadarak" has been used much more, establishing its WP:COMMONNAME. I'd also like to ask the closing admin to give more attention to the arguments being made rather than the vote counts, as there are people who go over to each RM and repeat unrelated policies as an "Oppose" argument. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 13:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Kiçik Qarabəy Mokhratagh – This is a difficult move to argue for or against due to the lack of significance for the settlment and a lack of sources discussing this vilage at all. However, my main argument for making this move is that Mokhratagh is the name used by the actual residents of the village, both historically and currently. Furthermore, I can't find any referenece to this village being called "Kiçik Qarabəy" by the de-jure Azerbaijani authorities, whereas Mokhratagh is the name used by the de-facto Artsakh authorities. Finally, the change would reflect the need for using anglicized names. Achemish ( talk) 19:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Kahramanmaraş Marash – Overwhelming common name in English-language sources, according to NGRAMS. WP:COMMONNAME should be used instead of WP:OFFICIALNAME when there's a conflict. It would also be an improvement to rename to "Maraş" as even that's significantly more common than the official name, but "Marash" is twice as common as "Maraş". ( t · c) buidhe 16:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting. — Nnadigoodluck 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Kürdəmir Kurdamir – Move to "Kurdamir" per WP:UE/ WP:COMMONNAME/ WP:ENGLISH. Proof of anglicized name being the common name: Results from Google News: Kurdamir: 1,210 Kürdəmir: 0 Results from Google Scholar: Kurdamir: 229 Kürdəmir: 25 Individual reliable sources referring to city as Kurdamir: EurasiaNet, RFE/RL, BBC This is the same name but an anglicized version. Unlike other small villages, this is a fairly large town, which has made a lot of appearances in English-language media, in most of which, "Kurdamir" has been used much more, establishing its WP:COMMONNAME. I'd also like to ask the closing admin to give more attention to the arguments being made rather than the vote counts, as there are people who go over each RM and repeat unrelated policies as an "Oppose" argument. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 13:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ( Discuss) Balakən, Azerbaijan Balakan, Azerbaijan – Move to "Balakan, Azerbaijan" per WP:UE/ WP:COMMONNAME/ WP:ENGLISH. Proof of anglicized name being the common name: Results from Google News: Balakan: 1,210 Balakən: 1 Results from Google Scholar: Balakan: 253 Balakən: 45 Individual reliable sources referring to the city as Balakan: Human Rights Watch, RFE/RL, RFE/RL, OC Media. This is the same name but an anglicized version. Unlike other small villages, this is a fairly large town, which has made a lot of appearances in English-language media, in most of which, "Balakan" has been used much more, establishing its WP:COMMONNAME. I'd also like to ask the closing admin to give more attention to the arguments being made rather than the vote counts, as there are people who go over each RM and repeat unrelated policies as an "Oppose" argument. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 06:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References


See also