This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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 25 April 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 25 April 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 00:01, 25 April 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 25 April 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 00:01, 25 April 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 25 April 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2019‎ (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 25 April 2019

– why Example (talk) 00:01, 25 April 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 25 April 2019

– why Example (talk) 00:01, 25 April 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

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.

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

April 24, 2019

  • (Discuss)Faxa BayFaxaflói – Faxaflói or Faxaflói Bay is by far the more common name in English-language sources. "Faxa Bay" exists in some (mainly older and outdated) English sources, but it is incorrectly anglicized and not in common use. The Google Ngram data is not relevant, since no Ngram exists for Faxaflói to compare this with the data on Faxa Bay. A review of the Google Books data shows that the quality of the data is extremely poor. A few results for Faxa Bay do actually refer to the bay in Iceland, but a significant number of these search engine results are also irrelevant. Since 1990, about 258 scholarly articles in English on Google Scholar give the name "Faxaflói Bay" but only 79 "Faxa Bay". Sylgja (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KurmanjiKurmanji Kurdish – The main reason that I request a move is partly because some users are exploiting the last name change to push for their POV which is removing the word "Kurdish" from the page (the user who requested the last move was indeed blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and vandalism, including for his edits on Kurmanji). Furthermore, calling it "Kurmanji Kurdish" is common in academic works[3][4][5] and the name of this page was also "Kurmanji Kurdish" before 2015. I get that "Northern Kurdish" is less used academically, but there should be no contestation with this name move. Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23, 2019

  • (Discuss)ChimpChimp (disambiguation) – This would free up the title "Chimp" to be redirected to Chimpanzee. Chimp is short for Chimpanzee and readers are probably searching for the species when using this term and should not have to run into a disambiguation page. In addition, type "chimp" in google and the Chimpanzee article is the first search. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Air Force Central F.C.Air Force United F.C. – Air Force United had end of contract with the main sponsor "Central Group" in 2019, so that they have renamed back to Air Force United football club and changed the text on the club's logo. Referenced from the club's Facebook page [9], pictures from the latest match (21/4/2019) against Samut Sakhon football club [10] Gunkiet (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Independent Group → ? – "Change UK – The Independent Group" or "Change UK" could be possible titles for this page, depending on what editors believe the common name is. Due to a recent name change due to becoming a political party (which has been updated on their website), it would be a good idea to discuss now. I hope sometime later to be able to find how reliable sources name the party after the news today (23 April) they're launching their European election campaign. --TedEdwards 12:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Murdo Mackenzie → Murdo MacKenzie (minister) – This article is currently disambiguated from Murdo MacKenzie, a different person, who was proficient as a cattle owner. I think the spelling difference "MacKenzie" vs. "Mackenzie" is not enough to differentiate between the two, as the text of both articles seems to vary between the spellings "MacKenzie" and "Mackenzie" pretty much randomly. A clearer disambiguation is needed. The cattle owner could be left as the main topic as that article has more incoming links. JIP | Talk 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)M3 Scout CarM3A1 Scout Car – The M3 Scout Car was a limited production (only 64) armoured vehicle that never saw service, the M3A1 Scout Car was a significant upgrade of which 20,894 were produced during WWII and saw combat service with over 30 nations. This article is about the M3A1, 100% of the information in the infobox is entirely about the M3A1, the history section contains very little information about the M3 (originally called the M2A1 Scout Car), whilst the combat history and former operators sections is 100% about the M3A1. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22, 2019

  • (Discuss)Jack and Coke → Bourbon and cola – A "Jack and Coke" is just a name-brand version of a well-known drink of the American South: bourbon and cola. Considering the effect of the combination of ingredients, it doesn't really make a big difference which brand of either ingredient is used, and the double-branded version (as well as the single-branded variation marketed as "Jack Daniel's and Cola" and sold in cans outside the United States, as well as the other single-branded variation known as "bourbon and Coke") can be discussed within the article on the more generic beverage. (For those who think that Jack isn't bourbon, which is an incorrect notion promoted by the manufacturer of the Jack Daniel's brand, please read the legal definition of Tennessee whiskey and the discussions and citations about that issue in the Jack Daniel's and Tennessee whiskey articles; by law, Tennessee whiskey is required to meet the legal definition of bourbon whiskey.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane talk 19:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MalwareTechMarcus Hutchins – After the last move request he was arrested, indicted and plead guilty. In all this news he is referred by his real name. So I believe the reasons for the last move are no longer valid. I think it's time to rename this article back. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Veracity of statements by Donald TrumpFalse statements by Donald Trump – This move was done without RM here, but the guidelines at WP:RM#CM require an RM in this case. No editor can reasonably claim that this move is not "controversial [or] potentially controversial". "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." My starting this RM does not constitute support for the move, and I may !vote later. Per MrX here, please !vote only Support or Oppose for the new title, and propose any other alternatives in separate RMs, bearing in mind that only one RM can be open at a time.Mandruss  12:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

April 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)Chinese white dolphinIndo-Pacific humpback dolphin – The Chinese white dolphin is a subspecies of Sousa chinensis. The Taiwanese population also covered here is another subspecies. Ergo, this page should be moved to describe Sousa chinensis. The linked page refers to a different species of dolphin sometimes referred to as the Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin. The IUCN, scientific literature, the Society of Marine Mammalogy, ITIS and others use Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin for Sousa chinensis. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shlomo Karai → Shlomo Karahi – Perhaps the name of this article would be Shlomo Karahi, because of the letter ע (Ayin) in "קרעי". On Facebook he called "shlomo karhi". ידידיהצבאן (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CS Universitatea Craiova → Universitatea Craiova (football) – This club has become known as "Universitatea Craiova" in a significant number of relevant English language sources: *Uefa.com *Soccerway.com *Eurosport.com *Goal.com *Espn.com. The article Universitatea Craiova is a disambiguation article, as there is already an article about the University of Craiova (the educational institution). Thus, a "(football)" mentioning is necessary in the title. The title "CS Universitatea Craiova" is no longer accurate or correct, as the club has changed its full name to "U Craiova 1948 CS". BaboneCar (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Conservative (language) → ? – The title is currently an adjective, which is generally proscribed per WP:NOUN. I WP:BOLDly moved it to Linguistic conservatism but was reverted by Nardog, so I'm bring it here for further discussion. I have several proposals: * Conservatism (linguistics) * Conservativeness (linguistics) * Linguistic conservatism * Linguistic conservativeness * Conservative language * Conservative and innovative languages The first four are all abstract nouns, which are often preferred over specific nouns when both essentially deal with the same encyclopedic concept. They diverge on two axes: one is "conservatism" vs. "conservativeness"; conservatism is a far more common word and should be used if it means the right thing (which Nardog is contesting). For the other part, a WP:NATURAL disambiguator (putting "linguistic" in front) is preferred if its prevalence is greater than or within an order of magnitude of the plain, ambiguous form; otherwise parenthetical disambiguation is fine. The last two are less aesthetically pleasing but benefit from not having to determine the noun form of "conservative". The first of the two is a short, simple solution, while the latter is a common way of covering antonymous concepts (e.g. Centum and satem languages). The downside is that "conservative" can refer to things which are not languages, as detailed in the article. King of ♠ 03:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Flaxen geneFlaxen (horse) – No flaxen gene has actually been found, and as the article says there might be more than one anyway. Flaxen color is definitely a thing that exists, so if we move to Flaxen (horse), it can be about both the color and the speculated genetics like it already is, while being titled after a thing that definitely exists. This wouldn't be inconsistent with all the pages like Dun gene or Mushroom gene, because those are known or suspected to be a single gene, while this is suspected to be multiple. It would be almost consistent with Sabino horse. Alternately, rename to just Flaxen to be consistent with the pattern groups Splashed white and Overo, but there's a disambiguation page there right now. If this goes through, I would also want to move Sooty (gene), for all the same reasons. Iamnotabunny (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lake Michigan Conference (defunct) → ? – There has to be a better disambiguator than (defunct), but I'm not sure what it is. (Wisconsin) might work except not all the schools were in Wisconsin. (NCAA) or (college conference) probably would work, but I am also not a topic expert so I would like some advice. I caught this oddball while looking for radio stations using this disambiguator. The other article with a similar name, Lake Michigan Conference (Michigan), relates to a conference of high schools; it's probably the primary topic, as it is pulling more than twice the pageviews. Raymie (tc) 02:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)Gehaz El Reyada Stadium → Military Sport Apparatus Stadium – The stadium's name in Arabic is ستاد جهاز الرياضة العسكري; and by transliterating that name it would be Gehaz El Reyada El Askari Stadium, or simply Gehaz El Reyada Stadium. However, by looking at Category:Football venues in Egypt, I think that the article's name should be changed to a different name per WP:CONSISTENCY. Therefore, I propose moving the article to something like Military Sport Apparatus Stadium if that's the correct translation of the name. Ben5218 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ÚtilaUtila – I was unable to do this on my own. The correct spelling is Utila, not Útila; that accent has no business being there. In Spanish, accents mark stress, so it would move the stress to the first syllable, which would be an incorrect pronunciation of the name. Mpaniello (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Simi Valley → Simi Valley (valley) – The city is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Simi Valley", so "Simi Valley" should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Simi Valley, California. While the city may have been named after the geographic valley, the city has now become what most people consider to be "Simi Valley". A simple survey of Special:WhatLinksHere/Simi Valley will show that a vast majority of links to Simi Valley are currently mistargeted, and people actually intended to link to the city. The valley is also not a useful WP:CONCEPTDAB as it is more or less coterminous with the city limits, and people generally think of the cultural and societal aspects of "Simi Valley" before before the geographic feature ever crosses their mind. King of ♠ 20:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Li Zicheng (politician) → Li Zicheng (PRC politician)Li Zicheng, a 17th-century Chinese rebel leader (also ancient Chinese politician) who established Shun dynasty and overthrew Ming dynasty in 1644, has a primary-topic article in Wikipedia. This article is about a People's Republic of China politician who formerly served as deputy mayor of Huaihua, Hunan, with the same name "Li Zicheng". Thus, it is a good idea to move this article to Li Zicheng (PRC politician), in order to have a precise disambiguation with the primary-topic article Li Zicheng in Wikipedia. 117.136.38.155 14:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Russian Bible Society → The Bible Society in Russia – 1. 'Российское Библейское Общество' (The name of the organization in Russian, the original language) founded in Russia does not translate their own name into English as 'Russian Bible Society', they translate it as 'The Bible Society in Russia'(See official website of the organization: [www.biblia.ru] ). The English version of the name 'Russian Bible Society' actually belongs to another unrelated organization called 'Русское Библейское Общество' founded in the United States (see the official website of the organization: [russianbiblesociety.com] ). 2. The difference in the names of the organizations in Russian (original language of both) is 'Российское' vs. 'Русское'. While both adjectives are often translated into English as 'Russian', each of the words in Russian language has a distinct denotation . 'Российское' suggests belonging to the country of Russia, while 'Русское' suggests belonging to the Russian people or culture. 'The Bible Society in Russia' is a closer translation of 'Российское Библейское Общество' (which is what the organization calls itself in English) than 'Russian Bible Society' (the name incorrectly chosen by the author of the article). Ivanchenkova (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Battle of PressburgBattle of Brezalauspurc – There are specialists of the history of the period who do not associate Brezalauspurc (as the venue of the battle mentioned in the primary source) with Pressburg, but with Mosaburg, consequently the present name contradicts WP:NPOV. (For further details, I refer to Bowlus, Charles R. (1994). Franks, Moravians and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3276-3., and to Szőke, Béla Miklós (2014). The Carolingian Age in the Carpathian Basin. Hungarian National Museum. ISBN 978-615-5209-17-8.) Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ontario Line → ?Canuck85 moved Relief Line (Toronto) to Ontario Line. I checked their contribution history and could see 0 sign that they discussed this idea with anyone, prior to making it. This is counter-policy. There has already been some attempts to update the article so it reflect the new name. However, the basic premise behind this renaming is highly questionable. This renaming should never have been made, without a prior discussion. For weeks Premier Doug Ford has been saying that, once the Province takes over the TTC's subways, they will use "new technology". So, the Ontario Line will not use the rolling stock that was going to be used for the DRL. Neither is it going the route the TTC's planner spent years mapping out. I strongly urge contributors to stop trying to update this article, to reflect the new name, until we discuss, and sort out, whether we should have two articles, or one article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Papal diplomacyNuncio – The article was moved without discussion 3 years ago, but if this is an article on Papal diplomacy it's pretty weak. It is in fact just an article on the office of nuncio (and similar offices). Contrast Byzantine diplomacy. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Allspark (company)Hasbro Studios – Name change has not been verify nor found to be the common name. Just because Hasbro Studios' website name is current allspark.hasbro.com is not enough to determine that is its common or even current name. This could a temporary site, while a permanent site (studios.hasbro.com or hasbrostudios.com perhaps) is redone. The about page on the current website is titled "About Hasbro Studios" and the head of the studio's bio still has him leading Hasbro Studios while co-superivising Allsparks Pictures. Basic the prior move from Hasbro Studios to Allspark (company) is premature. Spshu (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)Tik Tok (song)Tik Tok (Kesha song) – Though Tik Tok (song) is at its current title due to a move request that closed literally 5 minutes ago, I noticed a concern when I was looking at Tick tock#Song where both of the nominated pages are currently listed. The confusion comes into play regarding WP:NCMDAB, specifically the part that states that "...If the title of a musical group or a recording does not share its title with any other topic in Wikipedia, use the base title". Well, technically, at the present time, both of these articles meet the aforementioned guideline due to their unique spellings, and since there is no other article for a song tiled "Tic Toc" or "Tic Tok". However, this is where there is a WP:SMALLDETAILS concern: The last letter of the words in the nominated articles' titles ending with a "k" and a "c", respectively. I do not believe that the differentiating spellings of the last letters of the words in the titles are distinguishing enough for readers to automatically assume that the title with the words ending with "k" is for the Kesha song and the title with the words ending with "c" is for the Lords of the Underground song. (In other words, I believe that WP:SMALLDETAILS beats WP:NCMDAB in how to title the articles in this case.) For this reason, I believe that to best guide our readers, these articles should be retitled as proposed and both leftover redirects (Tik Tok (song) and Tic Toc (song)) retargeted to Tick tock#Songs. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alice's Restaurant MassacreeAlice's RestaurantWP:COMMONNAME. At the opening of the song (in the 1967 album version), Guthrie says three times that the name of the song is "Alice's Restaurant". It is also the title track of the album, which is entitled Alice's Restaurant, with that phrase appearing in huge letters on the cover. The word "massacree" may be found in the printed list of songs on the album, but it is not part of the common name of the song. The phrase "Alice's Restaurant" is spoken and sung over and over perhaps 20 or more times in the song, but never only once with "massacree" appended to it. There was a previous RM in 2008 that decided not to append "Massacree" to the article title, but somebody added it anyway around Thanksgiving Day of 2017‎, saying "actual name". That undiscussed move should be reverted. Please also see the previous comments of the RM in 2008 and the subsequent complaints about the undiscussed move that were recorded on the Talk page just after the move in 2017. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Augment (linguistics) → Augment (Indo-European) – I don't see why the first move failed, as having Augment (Bantu languages) alongside Augment (linguistics) is silly (not to mention a bit Indo-European-centric?). The article itself already clearly states that its scope is the Indo-European languages, and since there are multiple linguistic articles about phenomena called "augment", there is no reason at all to keep this at its current name. Rua (mew) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pedj BojićPedj Bojic – per WP:COMMONAME, the article subject is known in reliable sources as Pedj Bojic. Additionally, his verified Twitter account uses a version of his name without the diacritic. Hack (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Outlook on the webExchange Online – There are various articles for Outlook: Microsoft Outlook and Outlook.com, all these creates so much confusion. While this current platform was once named "Outlook on the web", I noticed that the current name has already been changed to "Exchange Online" (website inside infobox), while the Exchange Online namespace was linked to a section in Microsoft Exchange Server. I believe it has already become the common name, and it should also be changed to prevent confusion between multiple Microsoft email services. I hope to have everyone's input in case I have mixed up different services or platforms. Cheers. Wefk423 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)This Person Does Not Exist → StyleGAN – This website is only one of many sites showcasing fully automated human image synthesis with StyleGAN and therefore it would be more beneficial for Wikipedia, its editors and readers to have info on the underlying algorithms and their various use cases instead of just promoting one of many sites where results obtained with StyleGAN are presented to the public. StyleGAN is not limited only to generating images that look like portraits of non-existent human faces unassisted, but could and likely will be used for much more sinister ends. Redress perhaps (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Luna-Glob → ? – The page title and the content do not match. This page describes the robotic lunar exploration programme of Russia, yet it is titled Luna-Glob, which is just one (Luna 26) of the numerous probes that are planned. A possible solution to this discrepancy is to rename this page Russian Moon exploration programme or Luna programme (Russia). Other paths forwards are listed below. Hms1103 (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Danski454 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hurricane preparedness for New Orleans → ? – The current name is somewhat unfortunate. Although obviously meant in the sense of "as for New Orleans, hurricane preparedness", in haste I always see it as "preparedness of a hurricane for New Orleans" (rather than the other way around). I'm not sure whether to go with Hurricane preparedness in New Orleans or Hurricane preparedness of New Orleans. The "of" version is more logical to me since we're talking about preparations by the city and it's governing bodies, but the article already uses "in" in prose and I'm not a native English speaker. DaßWölf 21:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 18, 2019

  • (Discuss)Shaybanids → Abu'l-Khayrids – According to Encyclopædia Iranica, Shaybanids is an obsolete name for the dynasty that is now, and more correctly, referred to as Abu'l-Khayrids:

    ABU’L-KHAYRIDS, the name used for the dynasty that ruled the khanate of Bukhara in 906-1007/1500-99. Until recently, this dynasty was incorrectly called in Western literature “Shaybanids” (or “Shibanids”).[19]

KoberTalk 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.   samee  converse  23:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • (Discuss)Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection → Sentri – or perhaps SENTRI, per WP:COMMONNAME. The unabbreviated name has clearly been designed to produce a catchy abbreviation. I'm willing to bet that hardly anyone who uses this program could tell you what the letters stand for, and this is obviously intended to be pronounced as a word, not spelled out letter-by-letter. The logo of the program itself, as shown at the top of the article, uses "Sentri", as proposed. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Running Up That HillRunning Up That Hill (A Deal with God) – I want to bring this back up, as the initial vote was turned down with one opposing reason. Based on everything I have seen, "Running Up That Hill (A Deal with God)" is the full title of the song, even as a single since 1985. JE98 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NEXUS (frequent traveler program) → Nexus (border control program) – Per MOS:ALLCAPS / MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM, ordinary English formatting should be used rather than promotional all-caps styling. The name is obviously intended to be pronounced as a word, and no unabbreviated form of an initialism is evident. I notice only two independent (i.e., non-government) sources that are cited either in the article or here on the talk page: this and this. Both of them use "Nexus", not "NEXUS". Also, it is a government-operated border control program, not a frequent flyer club. The program is based on filling out an application, passing a background check, and paying a fee – not how frequently someone travels. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ordre des Technologues Professionnels du Quebec → Ordre des technologues professionnels du Québec – The French syntax requires that no capital letter be used with common nouns except on the first word of the organization's name (the rule is a bit more complicated but it works in the present situation), plus Québec requires an accent ("é") in French Muad (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Iyami AjeAje – As the introduction says, "Iyami Aje is a Yoruba term of respect and endearment used to describe a woman of African ancestry who is considered to be an Aje..." However, the bulk of the article is actually about the concept of aje, which is mentioned 66 times. This includes the titles of books used as sources, none of which use the phrase "Iyami Aje" which is used only 11 times in the article.} We'd have to rename the dab page of course. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ian Alexander (actor)Ian Alexander – The article for the actor Ian Alexander seems to literally be a thousand times more popular than the other Ian Alexander pages. The actor got over 100,000 views in the past 30 days vs. less than a 100 each for the politician or the footballer. In addition, the article for the actor cites 13 sources vs. just 2 for the footballer and 4 for the politician. It's silly that searching for the name takes you to a disambiguation page and it's likely just because the actor is young and only became notable recently. I've already moved the disambiguation page from Ian Alexander to Ian Alexander (disambiguation) and I've added a disambiguation hatnote to the actor's page. (Obviously if the RM fails I'm fine with those changes being reversed.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tour of the Basque CountryItzulia Basque Country – As far as I understand, the race was officially rebranded as 'Itzulia Basque Country' in 2018. This is also the name registered in the UCI calendar for the current event, as well as last year's race (going back to 2017, the race was registered as 'Vuelta al Pais Vasco). More importantly perhaps is that the organisers use the same new name in all languages - there isn't any Tour or Vuelta in their press material in English or Spanish. It's also the name used in all language versions of their official website), and on screen graphics in the international broadcasts. Just 'The Itzulia' and 'La Itzulia'. Media seems to be aboard the train as well. I don't think this is a controversial move, but as there been an earlier discussion on moving the article I put this as a requested move. Kittens n thugs (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BroccoliniBaby broccoli – This is a request move from amending the current article title for Broccolini to the general industry term for the vegetable/product, which is Baby Broccoli. This request does not concern whether the industry name given to “baby broccoli” makes actual sense. Instead, this request concerns the precision of the article name when readers view the page. In support of the move, I have provided links showing direct evidence that vegetable producers and average consumers alike refer to the vegetable as baby broccoli and not by the trademarked name Broccolini. MWMDL (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PoopPoop (disambiguation) – Feces is the primary topic for poop. Under this proposal, “poop” would redirect to “feces”. The disambiguation page would be hatnoted at the top of the feces page for those redirected from a search for “poop” who are looking for other meanings of the word. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)E-ZPass (Indiana)i-Zoom – The name i-Zoom may have been retired in favor of E-ZPass, but articles for other ETC systems that have been folded into E-ZPass still maintain their original names, including Fast Lane (E-ZPass), Smart Tag, and M-Tag. I think this article should follow the same rule. Another option would be to merge this article and the three aforementioned articles into E-ZPass. Needforspeed888 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)WPNT (Indiana) → ? – There are major problems with this article's title as it currently stands. The station that is the subject of this article, which was licensed to South Bend, Indiana, never broadcast with the call sign WPNT. The call sign was assigned when the station was silent and it never used it on the air. Another defunct station in South Bend, Indiana did actually broadcast with the call sign WPNT. This makes (Indiana) an inappropriate disambiguator. When someone from South Bend would hear the call sign WPNT, they would most likely think of the station that actually broadcast with that call sign, not a station that only held it while it was silent. An active station should always be titled by its current call sign, but this is not an active station, and thus WPNT is not this station's current call sign either. *Proposal 1 **WDND (1490 AM) This is the last call sign that the station actually used on the air, and is the option I personally prefer. Far more people would know the station as WDND than would know it as WPNT. The last media coverage that the station received calls it WDND. The station does not appear to have received any media coverage after its call sign was changed to WPNT. *Proposal 2 **WPNT (1490 AM) This uses call sign the station held while it was silent, prior to the license being deleted. It adequately distinguishes it from the defunct AM 1620 in South Bend, which also held the call sign WPNT. This page was recently moved to this title as the result of a recently closed discussion, so I am pinging the editors who were involved in that discussion to get their input @Stereorock, Neutralhomer, Gonnym, SMcCandlish, Imzadi1979, Bkonrad, Trystan, Amakuru, Born2cycle, MB, Levdr1lp, Raymie, and StraussInTheHouse. Tdl1060 (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hoody → Hoody (singer) – For English speakers, it is probably a WP:SURPRISE that at the present time, when looking up "Hoody", they arrive at this article instead of Hoodie, the article about the article of clothing. For that reason, I'm proposing that this page moved, and Hoody be redirected to Hoodie as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series → NASCAR Premier Series – When seeing links to this article, even from historical articles predating the Monster sponsorship, the title is retconned to imply Monster sponsorship. This appears to me as blatant advertising. See also [en.wikipedia.org]. Some pages with links to "NASCAR Sprint Cup series" end up redirecting to "Monster cup series" which is inaccurate. I would recommend changing the title to "NASCAR Premier Series" as the article then steps through the history of the different sponsorships. Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eurobond → External bondEurobond (i.e. Eurodollar bonds) can be used in the plural, and Eurobonds (i.e. eurozone-issued bonds) can be used in the singular, making plurality entirely useless for distinguishing between the two topics. The first one is easy, as "External bond" is mentioned in the article as an alternate term, unambiguous and perfect for WP:NATURAL disambiguation. The second one I'm less sure about. The article says "European bonds" but that is ambiguous because it can refer to any bond issued in Europe. "Joint Eurobond", "Eurobond proposal", or "Proposed Eurobond" all sound fine to me. Happy to hear others' ideas. At the end of it, we should turn Eurobond into a disambiguation page and redirect Eurobonds to it, as neither topic is primary. King of ♠ 02:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tian GangGang Tian – Virtually all the references cited use Western name order (as is customary for modern era mathematicians that have published in Western journals). There have been several moves in both directions before, all without prior discussion, so maybe we should discuss this to settle it. Note the talk page discussion from 2008 where consensus is also on the side of Western naming order. —Kusma (t·c) 19:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fate/Grand Order (anime) → Fate/Grand Order (franchise) – While the current lead text seems to suggest that this article is about the anime television adaptation, the entire article and infobox actually talk about the whole franchise except the video game Fate/Grand Order (but does mention another video game). Since it serves as the franchise article, it should be named as such per WP:NCTV. Also, as a side note, even if this was the page for the television series, it would have been "(TV series)" per both the television guidelines and the anime-project ones. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April 17, 2019

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Death of Joseph SmithMurder of Joseph Smith – Proposed new page name is a more appropriate title that better reflects the identity of the article. Smith’s death was clearly and undoubtedly a murder, and typically when there is a Wikipedia page about a death by murder of a person, it is titled “Murder of (person’s name)” instead of “Death of (person’s name)”. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) → Dragonstone (Game of Thrones episode) – To distinguish from the location in the show and a Song of Ice and Fire. The ordinary reader can't tell if they will go to the article about the location or the episode by looking at the present title. --TedEdwards 23:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves → ? – Clean Cooking Alliance. We have recently undergone a branding change and have changed our name from the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves to the Clean Cooking Alliance. You can find proof of this by visiting our website which is listed above in the body where you can see this name change is legitimate. Jborbee23 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wells Gray Park Cave discovery → ? – The current name of the article is not attested in any of the sources. Instead, there are two names attested in the sources. (1) Sarlacc's Pit cave is the name used in media articles about the cave, such as [31], [32], [33]. (2) Wells Gray Cave is the name used on the provincial park information page [34]. As reported by the media sources and mentioned in the article, eventually a proper name will be determined, but until that happens the sources we do have are calling it either Sarlacc's Pit cave or Wells Gray Cave. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 12:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dakarai GwitiraDakari – This is the correct spelling of his preferred professional alias. The current article title is a misspelling for one, and it incorrectly applies his last name as well 808sjake (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gränby IshallarGränby Ishall – Changed name to "Gränby Ishall" per [35]. The linked page says under the A-hallen section: "During the 2009/2010 Kvalserien to Elitserien it was named Zellout Arena before returning to Gränby Ishallar. [...] Now the arena is named Gränby Ishall". The title of the page confirms it and the text in that section makes it clear that it talks about the entire complex with multiple rinks. "Gränby Ishallar" is the entire complex with multiple rinks because "Ishallar" is plural for "Ishall". 37KZ (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. KCVelaga (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reiwa periodReiwa – See Use of "period" for modern 元号? -- for three of these, the disambiguation is redundant because the base title redirects to the era name. Per some GBooks searches, "period" is actually rarer than "era" for several of these anyway, but it actually doesn't matter since they're quite close; more important is consistency with the pre-Meiji era names, all of which are disambiguated with "(era)" when such disambiguation is necessary. Having an unparenthesized "period" appears to contribute to the misconception that these eras are named for their emperors and not vice versa, and also seems to imply that these are less "official" government designations than the work of scholars as part of the periodization of Japanese history [ja] like Heian period and Edo period, but historians seem to prefer to talk about either the "modern period" (from 1854 or 1868 to now) or kindai (1868 to 1945) and gendai (1945 to now). (We definitely should not be speculating that historians will put the "Reiwa period" on a level with the "Kamakura period".)
    I would like to ask commenters to please !vote on these proposals individually, or treat Reiwa/Heisei/Taishō as one group that doesn't need its redundant disambiguation and the rest as another. Please don't uniformly "oppose" the whole group because you don't like one or two of them Shōwa (era, 1926–1989) -- I'm not even particularly hot on that one myself, and would be happy to discuss it further at Talk:Shōwa period or Talk:Shōwa (Kamakura period) if my interim proposal turns out to be unpopular.
    Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC) (Modified Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC))
  • (Discuss)Patrick Moore (environmentalist) → ? – This is a procedural nomination as a result of the move review and the resulting no consensus closure from the previous discussion. In that discussion, several alternatives with different amounts of support with varying argument strength were mooted. These were (including the original nomination): *Patrick A. Moore *Patrick Moore (lobbyist) *Patrick Moore (businessman) *Patrick Moore (consultant) *Patrick Moore (author) *Patrick Moore (writer). Pinging previous participants. Please include whether you support or oppose a move at all, and if you support a move, please state which of the options (or another one if you want) you prefer and why. I am neutral on this issue. SITH (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)WLQR (AM) → ? – This one is confusing for people without a background in radio, so let's try and explain it simply. In 2010, Cumulus Media, a large owner of radio stations, sold a station known as WTOD in Toledo, Ohio. It desired to keep the WTOD callsign, so it parked it on the former WHSC in Hartsville, South Carolina, which it owned. In March 2016, the South Carolina station switched callsigns with 1470 AM in Toledo, then known as WLQR, and then a week later surrendered its license, having used the WLQR calls for just a week. Six months later, the Toledo AM station followed suit after trading its calls with an FM station (creating a WLQR AM which went defunct and a WTOD FM which is still around). The result: two defunct stations, including one article with an unusual nonstandard disambiguator. Proposals I'd like to consider: *Proposal 1 :*Defunct Ohio station: WLQR (Ohio) :*Defunct South Carolina station: WLQR (South Carolina) *Proposal 2 :*Defunct Ohio station: WLQR (AM) :*Defunct South Carolina station: WTOD (South Carolina), last callsign used for more than a week *Proposal 3 :*Defunct Ohio station: WLQR (AM) :*Defunct South Carolina station: WHSC (Hartsville, South Carolina), using the station's only callsign until it was used to warehouse calls for Toledo (it was used for 64 of the station's 70 years of broadcasting) I'm not sure which is right, but something has to be better than the current placement. Raymie (tc) 05:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lost children of Francoism → Stolen children of Francoism – This would make the translated title more into line with the literal translation. It is also factually inaccurate as it stands. The children were not "lost" but were taken over the objections of their mothers as a result of Hispanic eugenics policies that said they if they remained with their mothers, they would become opponents of the regime. The children were kidnapped, and put up for adoption. --LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wager Mutiny → ? – As I explained, in October 2018, whether the incident was an actual mutiny is questionable. {| class="wikitable" | : This article's most cited reference is Stanley Walter Croucher Pack's 1952 book, entitled "The Wager Mutiny", which seems to characterize the events, after the wreck, as a "mutiny". I think this is highly misleading. It is not just that officer's authority over seamen ended when their pay stopped, when the ship was sunk, but officer's commission were also only for the ship, and ended when the ship was laid up -- or sunk. Similarly, the Navy regulations contained the same loophole. : I think including the word "mutiny" in this article's name lapses from WP:UNDUE, as does its focus on the chaos following the wreck as a mutiny. As per WP:UNDUE more focus should be given to (1) recognition that those who stopped following orders weren't necessarily mutineers; (2) Anson's reforms to the Navy's regulations to close the loophole that stripped officers of authority over ratings, when their ship was lost. |} So, I suggest that an article titles like HMS Wager incident, or Wreck of the HMS Wager would better serve our readers. Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References


See also