Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
"Wikipedia:RFPM" redirects here. For the place to request the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
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:

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

The Move review process can be used to contest a move. It is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

When not to use this page[edit]

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, 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[edit]

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below.

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist| old page name, without brackets | requested name, without brackets |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.
  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is another page in the way, you can ask for the deletion of the other page. For example, if the other page is currently a redirect to the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. To request the other page be deleted, add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
    {{db-move| page to be moved here | reason for move}}
This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Sr/Jr comma moves[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

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 article 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[edit]

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 present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing 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 30 June 2016" and sign for you.

Use the code |talk=yes to add separate locations for survey and discussion.

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[edit]

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 present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing 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.

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. It is a place for rational discussion of whether an article should be renamed.

There are a number of practices that most Wikipedians use in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., Support or Oppose, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
  • Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per WP:AVOIDCOI.
  • Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. To understand the situation, it may also help to look at the history of the article. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior Requested Moves. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates 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.
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "• Support Oppose".

Also, just a reminder that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of 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 a dispute resolution process outside the current Requested Move process.

Closing instructions[edit]

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.

Relisting[edit]

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. 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 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 to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Applicable WikiProjects can often be determined by means of the banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request.

Current discussions[edit]

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.

June 30, 2016[edit]

June 29, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Kevin Walker (footballer, born 1989)Kevin Walker (Swedish footballer) – Let's forget about his singing career for this discussion, WP:NCSP states: If there are multiple footballers with the same name, use the most conclusive of the following steps: a. If the footballers were born in different years, use the year they were born. b. If the footballers have different nationalities, use their nationality in the disambiguation. User:Qed237 takes that to mean 2a is the standard and 2b is only used when 2a fails. My interpretation differs. I think it's more conclusive to use nationalities in this case, as the Swedish footballer was born in Sweden and played entirely in Sweden, and the Kevin Walker (Scottish footballer) was born and played his entire career in Scotland. (And the American football players didn't play in either country.) Timmyshin (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Internal MarketEuropean Single Market – "Internal market" is a highly generic endonym, that is not only used in other parts of the world for their own "internal markets", but even within the EU is too unspecific to be widely understood, unless the EU context is specifically given. Even though it might be mostly used in an EU context, this context is not given within Wikipedia. The sheer number of Google hits is therefore not sufficient to determine the suitability as a Wikipedia article's title, unless the respective contexts of these Google hits are evaluated.
    The proposed, unambiguous term "European Single Market", on the other hand, is widely established as the name of this particular single market, both inside and outside the EU. It is even used by EU institutions, see for example this European Commission page. PanchoS (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dusk... and Her EmbraceDusk and Her Embrace – I'm opening this on behalf of FamblyCat94, who had requested a page move to Dusk and Her Embrace, which currently serves as a redirect, with the justification "Both MusicBrainz and Discogs treat this album as Dusk and Her Embrace, and Dusk... and Her Embrace is not currently supported by any references". For some reason Wikipedia isn't allowing me to post this with my original post, so I'll make a quick post and then add my response afterwards. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fry (Futurama)Philip J. Fry – It's pretty disappointing to see that the above move managed to succeed, considering how "Philip J. Fry" isn't even close to being an obscure name for the character - it gets 60~ hits a day and is used in the title of several episodes - and how "Philip J. Fry" is clearly the better WP:NATDAB alternative. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TarantinoTarantino (surname) – the primary topic for Tarantino is Quentin Tarantino, and it should redirect to his page. Anyone saying "Tarantino" almost undoubtedly means QT, and the name is frequently used with no qualification and is immediately recognizable as referring to him. Note that when The Hateful Eight came out, pageviews for "Tarantino" skyrocketed, and continued to stay highly for quite a while as award buzz picked up. So, yes, people are searching just "Tarantino" to find Quentin's article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 04:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)David Wu (American actor)David Wu (TV personality) – The so-called American actor self-identifies as a Hong Kong entertainer on Chinese social media (see [5] in Chinese), not to mention the majority of his acting career has been in Hong Kong, see [6] (Probably the only American film he's ever done is Restless (1998 film) which was completely filmed in China.) Since he's clearly a HK resident, and the second guy a naturalized Canadian, the current disambiguators are imprecise; while we could title them David Wu (actor, born 1966) and David Wu (actor, born 1952), I can't find any reliable source that specifically states the second guy was born in 1952. The first guy is actually better known as a show host/VJ, whereas the second guy directed 7 films, wrote 8, edited 70 and composed 73 (see [7]). So I believe "TV personality" and filmmaker are probably the best disambiguators. Timmyshin (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 28, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Draft:Saint KotarSaint Kotar – the game has been featured in many articles on gaming portals. It is still in early development, but loking at the screenshots at the official website, it looks very promising and deserves to have its own article on Wikipedia. Markotomo (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Dark Tower series film adaptationThe Dark Tower (film) – Article is about upcoming film, so should follow naming conventions guideline at WP:NCF. No other The Dark Tower film exists, so "(film)" disambiguation is accurate. Current title is unusual for Wikipedia and inappropriate. What's notable for Wikipedia is the produced film itself, not its long production history (which is covered in the article), and thus the page's title should reflect that. Wikipedical (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NizzaNizza (wine)@Piedmont: To most English speakers, "Nizza" does not automatically imply the Italian wine, nor the city in France or any other place name, as per your rationale above. Therefore the most appropriate option would be to make "Nizza" a disambiguation to all these topics for none of these can claim primary topic status. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SimijacáSimijaca – the old name is correct; the name of the municipality is without accent on the last a, see es:wiki and the munc website Tisquesusa (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:Christian mysticismTemplate:Catholic mysticism sidebar – This consists of two component changes: # "Christian" to "Catholic": Same as User:Chicbyaccident's wp:BOLD, reverted, but entirely sensible move: "According to its contents." I'm actually surprised anyone thought it was controversial. Everything here is Catholic: all content from after the Protestant Reformation is Catholic, all content from after the East–West Schism is from the Catholic side, and the Catholic Church holds pre-Schism and early Christian orthodox (little O) theology as its own. Every item on the list of "Theologies and philosophies" has a history primarily, heavily, or at least significantly tied to Catholicism. There's even a link to Catholic spirituality and a section on "Contemporary Papal views". The only thing I've noticed that's out of place is the link to Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology), which should probably be switched to Divinization (Christian) anyway, regardless of this move. There's an utter lack of any Protestant or non-Catholic Eastern Christian perspective; this template clearly specializes in Catholic mysticism. # Addition of "sidebar": Simply to remove the sidebar–navbox–other guesswork when adding this template. As a sort of un-COI disclaimer, if you will, please note that I have never edited this template, and as such am not POV-pushing for my own edits to be reflected in the name. I'm simply observing the disparity between the over-generalized name and the specialized content. Update: I've followed through on my comment on theosis/divinization by switching them. This remains the only change I've made. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC), edited 16:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reconstruction (Iceland)Viðreisn – The page was moved unilaterally to an unofficial name in a "bold move" without prior discussion. There are several possible translations of Viðreisn and little tradition in Iceland for translating party names directly into English, Icelandic parties rather preferring options that appear more "conventional" in English. The party will decide an official English name within a few months and it is more sensible and less confusing to simply retain the Icelandic name until they do so. There is no rush. Batmacumba (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alice (Resident Evil)Janus Prospero – This is the character's real name which serves as a WP:NATDAB so that we don't need to use an ugly parenthesized title. Both names were introduced in the same film so Alice hasn't been known to the public longer. Even if it is more well-known, we don't have to use it as the primary title so long as the chosen title is appropriate. She's only known as Alice to friends and family so it was a household nickname and not the name she was known as legally or to most of society. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 27, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Jonathan WoodJonathan Patrick Moore – Jonathan Wood changed his name to Jonathan Patrick Moore in 2010. Can all this info be moved to Jonathan Patrick Moore's page? perhaps a link back to Jonathan Wood before the change? It doesn't make sense to continue to update a page as Wood when he doesn't use that name nor is any of the work he does credited to that name Jdub300 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Freeheld (2015 film)Freeheld – Only uses of "Freeheld" are the two films, and page views over the last twelve months strongly favour the 2015 version. I appreciate that this might be considered recentism, but I think objectively a feature film with an A-list cast is always going to have broader appeal than a documentary short. PC78 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 26, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Symbiote (comics)Symbiote – Unnecessary disambiguation. "Symbiote" is a made-up word used only in Marvel Comics fiction to refer to a fictional symbiotic life-form. It does not have any real connection to "symbiosis" outside of that. Just because a sixth-grader might mistake the thing they've been reading about in the comics for a real-life symbiont (ask me how I know), doesn't mean Wikipedia should feed their confusion by redirecting to "Symbiosis" just because it sounds similar. The word "symbiote" doesn't even appear in the Oxford Dictionaries, English or American. Outside of Marvel, it's not even a real word. Any misuse of "symbiote" to mean "symbiont" in real life is due to the popularity of Venom, Carnage, et al. – Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 20:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC), amended with further rationale 05:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reliance Protectron Security ServicesADT Canada – Reliance Protectron Security Services used to be owned by Reliance Home comfort but was acquired by ADT Security Services in 2014. The company has since merged with the Canadian branch of ADT Security Services, ADT Canada. Therefore, the page title should be changed to ADT Canada. as Reliance Protectron no longer exists and no longer belongs to Reliance Home comfort. ADT Canada and Reliance Protectron now form one company with the name of ADT Canada. ADTCANADAMTL (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

June 25, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Bharata NatyamBharatanatyam – Bharatanatyam is the more common name. While Encyclopedia Britannica seems to prefer the current name, they are mostly alone. The earlier move to this name didn't seem to attract any attention, so it happened by default, therefore I'm requesting a move back to the original title. The following table is a comparison of some sources in the different variants of English. Also, MOS:TIES should be applicable here as this is a topic that has a significant tie to the country (India). India's national academy of music and dance -- Sangeet Natak Akademi uses Bharatanatyam almost exclusively. —SpacemanSpiff 14:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rochester Rhinos StadiumSahlen's Stadium – This page was moved to "Rochester Rhinos Stadium" as an "uncontroversial technical request" on WP:RM, but I can't see how this would be uncontroversial. While it's true the new owners of the team refer to the stadium exclusively as "Rhinos Stadium" (not "Rochester Rhinos Stadium", anyway), I haven't seen any official notice that the Sahlen's naming rights have been terminated. Until we have a reliable source verifying the name change, we should not prematurely make the change here. Powers T 01:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Black Magic (Little Mix song)Black Magic (song) – Move to the shorter title, per WP:CONCISE, because we have no article on another song of the same name. Since the previous requested move a year ago, an RFC on our article titles policy talk page found that songs and albums should take the more concise title (using only "song" as the disambiguator, not the artist name as well), and this move would be in conformance to that. While the previous close was confirmed at a move review just a month ago, the reason why it was endorsed was because of timeliness (or a lack thereof), and not because the close was properly made. Calidum ¤ 03:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Devil's BrigadeThe Devil's Brigade (disambiguation) – The title “The Devil's Brigade” has a primary topic (nearly 5000 page views recorded, as does the film about them, while the band, the album and the comic strip get about 420, 115, and 4, respectively), so ought to redirect to the First Special Service Force page, and the current article be disambiguated. The title requested was the original title, but the page was moved after being templated (see above), so a move would require admin assistance. Swanny18 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

June 24, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Thomas Murphy (Irish criminal)Thomas Murphy (Irish republican) – Article was at that location for over a decade, until a pair of editors have chosen to move war to keep it at a new, undiscussed location. Thomas Murphy is notable for being the alleged chief of staff of the IRA, and "Irish republican" is the standard disambiguator we use for, well, Irish republicans. His trial for tax evasion was extensively covered by the media because of his alleged role in the IRA, in fact I am struggling to find a single source that covered the trial that did not mention his alleged IRA role prominently. If he was just a plain old farmer his trial would have got zero to little coverage at all. He is not notable for being a tax evader, he is notable for his alleged role in the IRA. If a politican with a "politican" disambiguator was convicted a crime we wouldn't suddenly move his or her article to a "criminal" disambiguator, despite the fact the trial and conviction would be extensively covered by the media for the exact same reason Murphy's was, that he was notable for being an Irish republican before and after his conviction. Mo ainm~Talk 20:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Arthur Seldon LloydArthur Selden Lloyd – It appears that the "Arthur Seldon Lloyd" page should be renamed "Arthur Selden Lloyd" and that the "Arthur Selden Lloyd" page should be deleted. While some sources list his name as Seldon, a common spelling error, others, including the Episcopal Church website list it as Selden. Also, his mother's last name was Selden, so it would make no sense for his parents to give him the middle name Seldon. 006jas (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)Kosher tax conspiracy theory – This is a procedural nomination arising from the closure of the WP:RfC on the WP:NPOV of this article above. There was a mandate to find the best title, so this is a move request to invite opinions on which title is the best. Note to closer: Given the discussion that led to this requested move, I suggest that this RM be judged without bias towards status quo ante. Should there be a lack of apparent consensus, the title with the strongest support should be adopted. Deryck C. 10:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

June 23, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Football League CupEFL CupThe Football League was renamed at the end of the 2015–16 season as the "English Football League". As part of that rebranding, the league's subsidiary cup tournaments (the Football League Cup and the Football League Trophy) were also renamed as the "EFL Cup" and the "EFL Trophy" respectively. These names have been adopted by the media (see the BBC and the Guardian), and although the public may continue to refer to it as just the "League Cup", and some media will follow suit for familiarity purposes, that name on its own is ambiguous. "EFL Cup" is the only viable name now. – PeeJay 11:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss)Siegfried LineWestwall – First, "Siegfried Line" is ambiguous, and the article has to begin with disambiguation; "Westwall" is unambiguous. Second, "Westwall" seems to be the more familiar name. Any frequency comparison would need to strip out WWI references and Wikipedia clones. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Root-finding algorithmRoot-finding method – (over redirect) Root-finding is usually numerical method rather than an algorithm. Most named root-finders have "method" rather than "algorithm" in their name. For example, the usual names are Newton's method or Brent's method rather than Newton's algorithm or Brent's algorithm. The typical result of these methods is an approximation rather than an exact result; the methods are terminated when the results are close enough; some root-finders may fail on particular inputs and therefore do not compute a result. This requested move is to acknowledge a subtle distinction between "algorithm" and "method". Compare to graphy theory algorithms such as Dikjstra's algorithm that computes an exact result after a specified time. Glrx (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dawn BrancheauDeath of Dawn Brancheau – Article is mostly about the incident. WP:Notability states that if "there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident." WP:BLP1E also supports this move/rename. Life section should be turned into background, death section should be turned into incident, & consequences section should be aftermath. Elisfkc (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss)Rudi Golimo OlsenRudi Golimo – Google's Knowledge Graph recognize this person as "Rudi Golimo", not "Rudi Golimo Olsen". The persons full name is also never used on the bands official website, neither on other pages associated. Suittheday (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

References[edit]

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also[edit]