Administrator instructions

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; for example, 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 and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be 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.

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

• Making an uncontroversial move – if you can, be bold and do it yourself! If you can't, see § Requesting technical moves.
• Renaming a category – propose the move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.
• Renaming a stub template – propose the move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.
• Renaming an image or other file – see Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving a file page.
• Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
• Merging two articles – make a request at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, or be bold and do it yourself.
• Splitting an article – make a request at Wikipedia:Proposed article splits, or be bold and do it yourself.
• Requesting that page histories be merged – list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
• Contesting a move request close – use the Wikipedia:Move review process.

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 previous 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 a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. 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.

Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any reasonable possibility that it could be opposed by anyone. Please list new requests at the bottom of the list in this section and use {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} rather than copying previous entries. The template will automatically include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required. If you object to a proposal listed here, please re-list it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. If you support an incomplete or contested move proposal, please consider following the instructions above to complete the proposal, and move it to the "Other Proposals" section below, normally under the earliest date on which all instructions have been completed. Proposals that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

• Star Fox (SNES) → Star Fox (video game) - No one seems to oppose it. As it stands, Star Fox (video game) is a disambig page between two articles - one is only notable because of its relation to the SNES game, and the other is the SNES game, and is a highly-regarded, award-winning, best-selling video game released by a well-known publisher for one of the most well-known systems ever made, spawning several sequels, most recently for the Nintendo DS. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to discussion? Parsecboy (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Media Player (Microsoft) → Microsoft Media Player — Simplicity. — Techmdrn (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested. JPG-GR (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Juanita Stokes → Smooth (rapper) Better known as Smooth. Originally was created as Smooth but a seperate article was created and Smooth (rapper) was redirected for some reason. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article indicates she now performs under "Nita S"; does it make sense to move the article to an outdated pseudonym? Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• War in Afghanistan (2001-present) → War in Afghanistan — Unnessary year per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Year should only be used if another qualifier is needed.--Patton^t/c 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should happen to War in Afghanistan, then? Sam⁵ (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the obvious reasons found in the War in Afghanistan dab page. Propose using the process below. — AjaxSmack 02:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purge the cache to refresh this page

10 January 2009

• Cyber (subculture) → Cybergoth —(Discuss)— No sources are provided for the subculture "cyber", which is vaguely defined and supported by original research, whereas "cybergoth" is supported by sources and has a clear genealogy. Aryder779 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 January 2009

• Merovingian → Merovingians —(Discuss)— The plural form seems more natural when dealing with a group of people, seemingly in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)'s exceptions, and matches the article's content. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Republic of Ireland-UK border → Ireland-UK border —(Discuss)— A more accurate and neutral title. --AEHAS (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Western Pacific Cordillera → ? —(Discuss)— The current title is original research, it does not exist. A simple Google search only returns hits from Wikipedia —76.66.198.171 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Robertian dynasty → Robertians —(Discuss)— Robertians beats Robertian dynasty by a country mile on Google books and Google scholar, and this used to be called Robertians until moved without discussion 18 months ago. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eurasian Black Vulture → Cinereous Vulture —(Discuss)— More common name, and IOC World Name List preferred name. ---- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bosonid dynasty → Bosonids —(Discuss)— I can't recall seeing anything but "Bosonids" in print. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• South West Africa People's Organization → SWAPO —(Discuss)— Everybody knows this party as SWAPO, not South West Africa People's Organization. Even the media refers to SWAPO. It would be better if we use the acronym. The page would also display better. --Slapsnot (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Psychological Propaganda Set M-91 → Psihološko propagandni komplet M-91 —(Discuss)— Foreign albums' names should not be translated, per WP:OR (no original research), WP:ALBUM ("The article name should be the title of the album"), and WP:UCN (use common names). Album articles are at the title of the albums, not at a translation of the title. Wikipedia doesn't allow for editors to unilaterally translate titles of any works with prior establishment of usage on the album itself. --Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Orca → Killer Whale —(Discuss)— In a nutshell, per current consensus to use MSW3 names. --Tombstone (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 January 2009

• Danah Boyd → danah boyd —(Discuss)— There are multiple reliable sources that use each capitalization but the MOS clearly states that we should use the subject's preferred orthography in these cases. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Financial crisis of 2007–2008 → Financial crisis of 2007–2009 —(Discuss)— The financial crisis is still not over, and we're in 2009. --Eivind (t) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lovisa of Sweden → Louise of Sweden - (Discuss) - per Wikipedia:Common usage - This queen is known as Louise in English (the only relevant language when it comes to this Wikipedia), Danish (language of the country she was queen of), and Swedish (language of her homeland), therefore I have no idea why this article is called Lovisa of Sweden. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Doctor Who DVD Files → Doctor Who DVD Files —(Discuss)— No 'the' in title. There has been a good faith attempt to move this page by cut and paste, which I've undone. However, that has left a history on the target which means that an admin now has to move it. --Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Indo-Greek Kingdom → Indo-Greeks —(Discuss)— Whether this was one kingdom or several kingdoms is uncertain, and very likely varied over time. No objection yet, but the target has been edited. --Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Bridalveil Fall (Yosemite) → Bridalveil Fall —(Discuss)— unnecessary qualifier...name is unique, without plural --emerson7 13:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wallaby Test Match Results → List of Australia national rugby union team test match results — (Discuss) — Should be moved to be in line with parent article Australia national rugby union team. Naming it after the teams nickname, even if very common, seems wrong. EA210269 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 January 2009

• North Albanian Alps → Prokletije —(Discuss)— Prokletije is better known name of this mountain. On [google] search, prokletije gives 69,300 hits, while "North Albanian Alps" gives only 2,410. The name North Albanian Alps is also controversial and is never used in Serbia, while the name Prokletije is more neutral. --Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Proprietary software → Closed source software —(Discuss)— The current biased name, and mixed definition creates a situation in which the actual idea (closed source) is not being represented by the article. See Talk Page for details. --Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• TCDI - Technology Concepts & Design, Inc. → Technology Concepts & Design Inc —(Discuss)— This is the company name. TCDI is a frequently-used acronym. Per WP:ACRONYM, the full name is preferred except where a subject is "well-known" by the acronym. While possibly notable, I do not think this company could be argued to be "well-known" like e.g. NASA, which is found under the acronym. --82.43.209.193 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ø Story → ? —(Discuss)— Current name violates WP:TM. The official site uses "0 Story", but the title is supposed to mean "Love Story" (which would need to be disambiguated to "Love Story (video game)" —TJ Spyke 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted. Still a puzzler.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 January 2009

• Twa → Twa (people) —(Discuss)— I agree with several posters to the article's talk page that the most probable reference for "twa" or "Twa" on the English Wikipedia is to the airline. I therefore feel that taking the article through the formal process is appropriate. Along with the move request, I'm proposing (in case it isn't obvious) that Twa should become a redirect to Trans World Airlines, as TWA already is - I don't think it's appropriate to distinguish between any articles solely by capitalization. I also note that the name of the reference photo for the current article is "Batwa2.jpg" - a move to Batwa would be an alternative. --Tevildo (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Tevildo (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Roma people → Roma (people) —(Discuss)— Current title grammatically incorrect. New article refers to a sub-set of Romani people. RashersTierney (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Autorun → AutoRun —(Discuss)— Article has been scratch rewritten to be a solely Microsoft article which answers the previous controversy. No doubt about the capitalisation of the official name, as the References section will clearly illustrate. --Carveone (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Solar core → Stellar core —(Discuss)— The article should have more general scope. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• English Rugby Union Leagues → English Rugby Union Leagues 2008-09 —(Discuss)— An article of this title should detail the structure of the English Rugby Union Leagues with a proper history. This is just a collection of the current season's tables and should be an individual season article. --Dancarney (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Danny Hall → Danny Hall (footballer born 1983) —(Discuss)— There are currently 5 different people on Wikipedia with the name Danny Hall, plus several Daniels and Dans. There is also another footballer Danny Hall (footballer born 1981). There is no evidence that this Danny Hall meets the requirements for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC i.e. no clear superior notability or popularity compared to other Danny Halls --Tassedethe (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• English Qabalah → Latin alphabet gematria —(Discuss)— The current name seems inaccurate and fuels sectarian conflict. --Dan (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STAR TV (Asia) → STAR (broadcaster) or Star (Broadcaster) —(Discuss)— The company is now simply known as STAR. [1] However, I don't know which is proper. —JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 January 2009

• Huỳnh Công Út → Nick Ut —(Discuss)— Naming conventions, name by which he is generally known, clearly so stated in text, clearly used in the sources. Previous undiscussed, unreferenced move from what was proper as alternative English name Huynh Cong Ut and resulting edits to redirects prevent move. --Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Twelfth Night (holiday) → Twelfth Night —(Discuss)— This disambiguation is not required, this article should be moved to Twelfth Night, and the article on the play should either be moved to Twelfth Night, Or What You Will or Twelfth Night (Shakespeare play) or something like that --ViperSnake151 15:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• HSH Nordbank Arena → Volksparkstadion —(Discuss)— This famous German football ground must surely more commonly be known by its unsponsored name. --Dancarney (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commerzbank-Arena → Waldstadion —(Discuss)— I'm pretty confident that this German football stadium is much more commonly known by its unsponsored name. --Dancarney (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghost Hunt → Ghost Hunt (manga) —(Discuss)— While searching for info about the New Zealand paranormal TV show, also titled "Ghost Hunt", I could only find this page on wikip. A disambig page would perhaps be better, allowing for the construction of an article about other subjects using the title. --86.172.122.85 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Association football in South Africa → Soccer in South Africa —(Discuss)— article page names generally reflect common over formal usage, and association football is commonly refered to as soccer in South Africa Mayumashu (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC) --Mayumashu (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (June 11 or older).

• Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) → Chinese Invasion of Tibet —(Discuss)— Common Name --Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC) - See discussion on the article's talk page Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of birds in Canada and the United States → List of birds of Canada and the United States —(Discuss)— Move inline with every other bird list --Jack (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Controversies concerning the word "niggardly" → Controversies about the word niggardly —(Discuss)— As the talk page shows, there was a discussion in '07 on the name, and the compromise reached was the one I want to go back to. Another editor changed the name recently without consensus. Rather than just change the name back, I'm hoping a consensus can be reached quickly at Controversies concerning the word "niggardly"#Recent name change. The (previous) name was shorter, simpler and just as clear, and it had consensus; but discussion may come up with yet another name, so let's wait and see. If the move is back to the previous name, we'll need an administrator to do it, which is one reason why I'm posting this here. The subject has been controversial and the article has, too. Noroton (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC) --Noroton (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Michałowo, Podlaskie Voivodeship → Michałowo —(Discuss)— Michałowo is now a town; all the other Michałowos are small villages, so the town should be the primary topic. — Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Multiple options —(Discuss)— Events have changed with a ground invasion. --Cerejota (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]