Gpedia:Requested moves

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Gpedia. (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 Gpedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

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

When not to use this page

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

Undiscussed moves

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

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

  • To list a technical request: 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. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 23 February 2020" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

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

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

{{subst:requested move
| 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 Gpedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Gpedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Gpedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

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

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

is incomplete. As a malformed move request, it may be subject to early closure on procedural grounds.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 23 February 2020

Gpedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 23 February 2020

Gpedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 23 February 2020

Gpedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2020‎ (UTC)

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 Gpedia's policy on article titles.
Any additional comments:

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

{{subst:Requested move |new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 23 February 2020

– why Example (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move |new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 23 February 2020

– why Example (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

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

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Gpedia: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 Gpedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Gpedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

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

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

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

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


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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 54 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

February 23, 2020

  • (Discuss)TehilaTehila (LGBT support group) – Tehila is a common Jewish feminine given name. It is not exclusively and popularly known only as an organization. It is therefore suggested that this page be used as a disambiguation page and the current contents moved to an organization specific page name. Solatido 00:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

February 22, 2020

  • (Discuss)Alessandro Di SanzoAlessandra Di Sanzo – The woman whose bio this is has transitioned many years ago and should not continue to be referred to by her pre-transition name. The Italian Gpedia page for the same person lists her as Alessandra Di Sanzo and the English page should do the same. Pyxl (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DaimyōDaimyo – In 2008, User @Fg2 correctly noted that "Daimyo" (without the macron) is an accepted English term and moved this article from Daimyō to Daimyo. In 2016, with no explanation, user @Gryffindor moved it back. "Daimyo" (no macron, no italics) is the correct title for this article, just as Tokyo does not take macrons. See: the manual of style for Japanese terms, which specifically says that accepted English terms should be spelled as in English, even if this differs from Japanese: [1] For dictionary references, see: [2], [3], etc. In addition, only transliterated terms should be italicized. "Daimyo" is not transliterated; it is an accepted English term. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Jerm (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fox Broadcasting CompanyFox (American TV network) – Per WP:NCDAB and WP:COMMONNAME. Although the article titles guideline does prefer natural disambiguation over others, it also states that the natural disambiguation must be "unambiguous, commonly used, and clear". "Fox Broadcasting Company" fails the "commonly used" criteria, as the network is referred to on-air and almost-exclusively by reliable sources as simply "Fox" rather than by this formal name. While there has been an increased use of "Fox Entertainment" since the Disney sale, this actually refers to a parent division encompassing Fox and its new in-house entertainment operations since the sale. See also the rejected move of Amazon (company) to its formal name, Inc., as "Amazon" is overwhelmingly the name used by reliable sources (contrast Apple Inc., which actually does have enough use to support the use of this name). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

February 21, 2020

  • (Discuss)Tuxedo Park, AtlantaTuxedo Park neighborhood – Neighborhoods are not, stylistically, in any formal style guide, placed before city names offset by a comma in the same fashion that city names are placed before states. Beginning a new naming practice here, besides defying broad stylistic conventions (and making the encyclopedia look less encyclopedic), will disrupt various geographical scripting efforts which extract information based on consistent use of text strings in relation to place names. The new proposed title, Tuxedo Park neighborhood, actually captures content revealed in the lead opening of the stub article now appearing for "Tuxedo Park", and so is the more accurate. If another similarly named neighborhood were to appear—Tuxedo Park in New York is the formal name of the town, unlike here—the names can be made distinct at that future point in time. If it is insisted that Atlanta should be kept in the title, at least recognize and use the more accurate (if more cumbersome) proposed variant, Tuxedo Park, Buckhead, Atlanta, Georgia—where Buckhead is the formal, longstanding district/section of Atlanta seen in maps wherein this more recently, popularly named neighborhood is situated. Otherwise, to any with geographical knowledge, the current name looks as ill-informed a usage as writing Chicago, U.S.A. (i.e., naming city and country, omitting the intermediate municipal unit, the state of Illinois). In short, follow some convention and acknowledged style, rather than creating a novel one, perhaps only used in web advertising. 2601:246:C700:19D:C44D:DFBC:DBFC:110A (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ice age (disambiguation)Ice Age – Per WP:DABNAME, the title of the DAB page should reflect the majority of entries. In this case, all entries are capitalized/proper names except for mention of the common term ice age. Ice Age is currently a redirect to the common term, but really should not be used as such because of the ambiguity. -- Netoholic @ 20:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2019 Jamia Milia Islamia attack2019 Jamia Milia Islamia violence – The prior usage of the word "attack" in the title is too heavy and misleading. The police entered the campus during a confrontation with protesters that started outside the campus. Violence followed. That the violence was committed by the police is clearly mentioned in the article and not disputed. Violence would be a better word. DTM (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HBO (Asia)HBO Asia – This article is really an incoherent mess. I'm not sure if the article is about the company "HBO Asia", or the channel "HBO" which shows in Asian territories, or the other Asian channel "HBO South Asia", or about something else. However, if all these are in the same article, then the article should probably be named after the company, which according to [5] says it's called "HBO Asia". Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KrasniqKrasniqi – 1)Krasniq is an indefinite form and Krasniqi is the definite form in Albanian. For consistency reasons I propose to rename to the definite form as all other articles about tribes use the form in definite Albanian: Hoti instead of Hot, Gruda instead of Grudë, Triepshi in stead of Triepsh/Triesh, Koja e Kuçit instead of Kojë etc. 2)Definite forms as in all other cases are used more frequently in English. In this case, even more frequently. For example, if you search the phrase "Krasniq tribe" - used on this wiki article - on Google Books it yields zero results. On the other hand, "Krasniqi tribe" is frequent and is also the preferred term in specialized bibliography in 21st century. In fact, even the bibliography of this article doesn't use Krasniq but Krasniqja tribe. 3)A minor point. Krasniqi and Krasniqja are not referring to the same thing. Krasniq(i) is the fis/tribe name and Krasniqe/Krasniqja is the geographical region name after the tribe. Maleschreiber (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)EpcotEPCOT (theme park) – On October 1, 2019, Disney officially unveils a new logo known as "EPCOT" in all-caps. As the time progress, many Disney cast member started refer to the theme park as "EPCOT" in all-caps. This RM hasn't requested since logo and park name changes, which happens 4 months ago. In order to disambiguate from EPCOT (concept), the (theme park) word was added after EPCOT name because neither has a Primary topic. This RM can be changed as just EPCOT (in all-cap letters) if this article is primary topic. (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rafeiro do Alentejo → ? – Per WP:USEENGLISH we should not have this at the Portuguese name when formal English ones are available and well-attested. However, in this case, we have a tough choice. While Alentejo Mastiff is used by one American kennel club, the international one, Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), uses the "Portuglish" Rafeiro of Alentejo, which isn't really ideal, though FCI is a more reliable/influential/reputable source than a single national registry with no connection to the native country of the breed nor with any efforts at the breed's establishment (possibly important is that the Portuguese Kennel/Cynological Club, who developed the breed standard, is an FCI national affiliate). However, rafeiro is technically a misnomer, meaning 'mongrel' or 'mutt', and refers to the original foundation stock being landrace animals with no pedigree history. Another American registry provisionally recognizes the breed under its original Portuguese name, Rafeiro do Alentejo; but provisional recognition is basically meaningless, and breed names often change by the time they are fully accepted (if ever; given the low breeding numbers of this variety, never is actually fairly likely). At first, I leaned toward Alentejo Mastiff as more precise in a sense, as well as a bit more concise, but in the end I lean more toward FCI as simply a more important source of names, with international standardization, and because the misnomer isn't transparent in English and only matters to people fluent in Portuguese. This is obscure enough a topic that I don't think a typical WP:COMMONNAME analysis can reliably be done; there will be a lot of statistical skew due to online dog forums and so forth being pro- or anti- particular kennel clubs, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DMOZCurlie – This is years out of date, and wrongly states that the site/project/service/community is gone. It has simply moved to This article (especially its lead and infobox) needs to be rewritten with a perspective about an active website index presently named Curlie and formerly named DMOZ (among several other names), and use present tense, and re-structure the historical material a bit. These are not distinct enough topics for separate stand-alone articles. Was going to add a Template:DMOZTemplate:Curlie move, but it's already been done.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

February 20, 2020

  • (Discuss)The Room (2003 film)The Room – This film has much more long-term significance than the other topics with this name, being an infamous cult classic that is still often shown in cinemas around the world today, and also spawned an unofficial video game adaptation as well as a book and film about its creation, plus Google mostly brings up results related to this film. However, when the all-time view counts are compared, this film only comes in fifth, though this may be due to this article being moved to its current title literally two weeks ago (not too sure how that gadget works in regard to recently moved articles), especially since the view counts for the past twenty days tell a different story. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Forte Oil PLCArdova Plc – Following the purchase of the company from Nigerian Billionaire, Femi Otedola in 2019, the company has changed its name to Ardova Plc. In December, at an Extra-ordinary General Meeting, the company's shareholders approved a change of name from Forte Oil PLC to Ardova Plc. News coverage of this can be found in Nigerian leading newspapers Punch, This Day, Business Day, etc. The formal public launch of the new name and logo was also covered in Punch, This Day, Vanguard, etc. Mstariah (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dhauwurd WurrungGunditjmara – Much more commonly used, and recently esp. with interest in the Budj Bim heritage areas (still a WIP by me), eel traps, etc. This (and "Gunditjmara people") are currently redirects, with far more articles linking to this than the actual article name. (It would need to be requested as a technical move, because of the redirect page.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

February 19, 2020

  • (Discuss)A-Channel (Craig Media)A-Channel (TV network) – The current title is uncommon disambiguation not supported by WP:NCBC. According to the article, The A-Channel is a television system. According to television system in Canada, a television system is a group of television stations which share common ownership, branding and programming, but which for some reason does not satisfy the criteria necessary for it to be classified as a television network under Canadian law. As the term "television system" has no legal definition, and as most audiences and broadcasters usually refer to groups of stations with common branding and programming as "networks" regardless of their structure, the distinction between the two entities is often not entirely clear; indeed, the term is rarely discussed outside the Canadian broadcasting enthusiast community. Seeing as how the article says that the definition of "television system" is rarely discussed outside the Canadian broadcasting enthusiast community, that seems like using "television system" as disambiguation would be MOS:JARGON and per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY should be avoided. So per WP:NCBC "(TV network)" is the better option. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pink Season (Pink Guy album)Pink Season – Excluding an EP that consists entirely of remixes of some of this album's tracks (and doesn't have the exact title Pink Season), the only other topic listed at the dab page is another album. This album seems like a primary topic compared to the other album; for starters, the Apink album only charted in Japan, whereas the Pink Guy album made eleven charts in seven countries. Also, when the view counts are compared, the Apink album's measly 21,589 since this album was released doesn't even come close to the Pink Guy album's 364,506. Finally, Google Trends shows that while interest in the Pink Guy album has dropped significantly since it peaked at release in 2017 (the only argument against this album being the primary topic I've found so far), and the Apink album is a popular search term in a few (mostly non-English-speaking) countries, this album is still far more popular.ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bad Girl (Rihanna song)Bad Girl (The Pussycat Dolls song) – The whole premise of creating this article has been on the basis that this is a song recorded by Rihanna. However, the song was ultimately released by The Pussycat Dolls as part of the Confessions of Shopaholics soundtrack and therefore they are the predominate and primary artist. Although the leak happened before the release of the soundtrack, the song charted after the soundtrack's release and the subsequent attention that it drummed up. The Rihanna version of the song is not available to legally purchase or download anywhere- it is an anomaly that it exists as a chart listing and Billboard rules no longer allow leaked/bootleg recordings to chart. Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TylerTyler (name) – The name cannot be considered the WP:PTOPIC for "Tyler". Going by page views from the previous 365 days, Tyler, Texas gets more than six times the page views of this article about the name. Thus the article about the name fails the "usage" criterion for PTOPIC; considering that the city in Texas was founded in 1846, long-term significance for the city is unlikely to be low either. In addition, you also have other competitors for primary topic status, such as Tyler Technologies whose page views are close to that of the name. feminist (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Japanese dialectsVarieties of Japanese – Most Gpedia articles on linguistic variation use the title "varieties of"... For example, Varieties of Chinese, Varieties of French, Varieties of Arabic, etc... For the sake of consistency, "Varieties of Japanese" would be the better title. I think that the main reason so many other Gpedia articles use "varieties" is because the word "dialect" is considered derogatory by certain people. That's just another reason to consider the page move that I am proposing. Hko2333 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ryan O'Reilly (ice hockey)Ryan O'Reilly – Ryan O'Reilly is a Canadian ice hockey player who currently plays for the St. Louis Blues of the National Hockey League (NHL). He has won a Stanley Cup championship, a Stanley Cup playoffs MVP and multiple individual league awards, such as the Conn Smythe Trophy, Frank J. Selke Trophy and Lady Byng Memorial Trophy. I believe that the "(ice hockey)" should be removed from the article title, as other people with the name of or similar to Ryan O'Reilly with Gpedia articles include: "Konnor (wrestler)", who previously used the name Ryan O'Reilly as a wrestling name, but was not well known by that title until he changed his wrestling name to Konnor. The other is a fictional television character named "Ryan O'Reily" with only one "L". I know that Ryan O'Reilly is distinguished enough from these other articles to warrant changing its title. Moka Mo (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Adaptive Combat RifleRemington ACR – Following up from the section above, I figured doing a proper move discussion would be the best way to resolve this, given that, nicest will in the world, me pinging the editors involved was ignored. As with the previous move discussion, I don't actually have a preference, just think it should be properly discussed, given that the undiscussed move was less than 18 months after a discussed move. Also, this article has been moved an almost excessive number of times over the last 3 years, so can we pick one name and stick with it, unless there's a darn good reason to move it again in the future! Cheers, RadiculousJ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1932 Salvadoran peasant massacreLa Matanza – I'm fairly certain that ALL major works of scholarship on this event refer to it principally as La Matanza, not unlike, to refer to a similar event, La Violencia. To give a few examples, Thomas Anderson's definitive work on the subject is entitled, Matanza: El Salvador's Communist Revolt of 1932. The relevant chapter in Christopher White's History of El Salvador is "La matanza and beyond". The book To Rise In Darkness also calls it La Matanza, with one chapter entitled Memories of La Matanza. There is no other commonly accepted name. Currently, our Gpedia article uses two different names, "1932 Salvadoran peasant massacre" and "1932 Salvadoran farmer uprising", neither of which are used frequently by scholars. If anyone thinks La Matanza might be too generic, the next best title would be "La Matanza (El Salvador)". LoosingIt (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pink Lady (band)Pink Lady (duo) – The prior RM was declined (I think appropriately), but Netoholic pointed out that the page more properly belongs at Pink Lady (duo), given the guidance at WP:SINGERDAB; both "(band)" and "(duo)" are allowable, but "(duo)" is more precise. I'd be bold and just move it, but in light of the prior discussion, I think it's more appropriate to air the idea first. TJRC (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

February 18, 2020

  • (Discuss)Andrew SabiskyAndrew Sabisky Appointment – This article should not continue as a biography of a living person (BLP) because of the 1 event rule (WP:BLP1E). However, the appointment of Andrew Sabisky to an adviser role within the Prime Minister's office and the controversy which ensued leading to his sacking/resignation has been a significant, notable event within UK politics. The appointment (and not the person) does merit an article and that is why I am proposing this move. (I have made a similar argument under the current AfD discussion). Oska (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SpaceX StarlinkStarlink – Because the satellite constellation is the primary topic and because "SpaceX Starlink" is not its official name and is rarely, if ever, used in references. Looking at the pageviews of all the "Starlink" articles makes it clear that this page gets way more traffic than any of them, with nothing else coming close (look at both Starlink (satellite constellation) and SpaceX Starlink together since it was recently moved). In addition, there are more pages linking to it (637) than all the other Starlink pages combined (504). These two points easily make it the primary topic according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it is the primary topic with respect to usage because it is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. It will also only become more popular and better known as the service grows and starts being used by consumers. Furthermore, "SpaceX Starlink" is not an official name that is used in sources. The article was moved to this name recently in a batch with other SpaceX articles (mostly their rocket engines). The move made much more sense for those other articles because they are less well known by their mononyms and that brought them in line with the convention of other rocket engine articles, but I believe Starlink was erroneously lumped into this group. The result of that discussion was "Consensus for the Starlink move is weak and participants suggest it may need renamed in the future" so even in that discussion there was not strong agreement for the move. Yarnalgo talk 18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Family Channel (American TV network) → ? – also The Family Channel (United States). These two networks/channels called "The Family Channel" are for two different networks, by two different entities that operated in the United States in different time periods. However, while I realize this is not a standard proposal, as one is an article and the other is a redirect, almost all the google search results I get when searching for "The Family Channel" are for the 1980s-1990s channel. Even when viewing the Page views one can see that the page History of Freeform (TV channel) gets much more page views. While by itself not enough, looking at how high the page views are for The Family Channel, the dab page, which even it has a higher monthly view count than this page (and the dab page doesn't even link to the history page), suggests that readers are not landing on the page they are looking for. This scenario while not standard, is causing harm that a hatnote cannot solve. Not only can readers be confused (see WP:ASTONISH), even editors are incorrectly linking articles to the wrong "The Family Channel" - Solid Gold (TV series) links here instead of to the original network, and Category:The Family Channel original programming is meant for the original network as well. All this points to me that the title "The Family Channel (American TV network)" and it's derivatives (including "The Family Channel (United States)") are ambiguous (see WP:INCDAB) and should be further disambiguated to differentiate between the two, and the title redirected to the dab page. This will allow easier finding for readers, and allow bot warnings for editors linking to the incorrect page. Regarding the proposed names, I really have no clue what the optimal names should be as Gpedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting) does not give an example for such situations. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BarnwalBaranwal – This page has been made Barnwal by mistake, as Barnwal people write their surname Baranwal Harsh Barnwal 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC) --(Harsh Barnwal 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC))
  • (Discuss)The Key to TimeDoctor Who (season 16) – Per very clear and long-standing guidelines at WP:TVSEASON (which I clearly didn't regard back in 2012 above): A consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show: if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages. Furthermore, "The Key to Time" name is never used on-screen and article offers no indication it was referred to as such at time of broadcast, or that it's used more substantially than "season 16" in secondary sources. Many DVD releases use alternative umbrella/collection titles; only difference here is that it's a complete season in one set. More recently, The Trial of a Time Lord arc has been released on Blu Ray titled "season 23" only. U-Mos (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kim–Xi meetingsKim–Xi Summit – Now, it combination of official and non official summit between DPRK and China. even half an hour meeting USA-DPRK in DMZ : we called 2019 June DPRK-US summit . several days of the leaders official meeting between DPRK and China: it should be defined as a summit with any potential naming: Kim–Xi Summit or DPRK-China Summit [1][2]


  1. ^ China's Xi Jinping to make first state visit to North Korea
  2. ^ "Xi Jinping to make first official visit to North Korea". CNN. Retrieved 2019-06-17.
Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shetland ScotsShetland dialect – The name of this article was last discussed in 2012, and the consensus reached was Shetland Scots, a name that, while used by some linguists, is totally unfamiliar to the vast majority of native Shetlanders. I'd like to quote from [this paper], by linguist Viveka Velupillai (which, for full disclosure, I was personally involved with) that, from this Shetlander's perspective, gets the terminology and reasoning behind it exactly right:

    The traditional variety spoken on the Shetland Islands has been referred to by different names. The term "Insular Scots" is sometimes used by scholars to indicate the affinities between the varieties spoken on Shetland and on Orkney (see e.g. Johnston 1997; Millar 2007, 2018). The speakers themselves, however, refer to their language as either "Shetland dialect", "Shetland" or "Shetlandic". The latter is controversial and seems to be disliked by most speakers, who tend to prefer the term "Shetland". In this article, I will use the neutral, and by the speakers themselves accepted, term "Shetland dialect" to differentiate between the language and the place.

    I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment - that the terminology of a handful of linguists should not override the terminology of the thousands speakers of the dialect. While it appears that more folk to tend to search for terms like "Shetland Scots" and "Shetlandic" here on Gpedia, I suspect that most of these searches come from those who are generally unaware of the terminology used here, and therefore search statistics should not be taken as gospel for what is most commonly used to refer to it. In person here in Shetland, I have never heard it naturally called Shetland Scots. A point brought up against a name similar to this previously was that it doesn't address the question, "dialect of what?" In my mind this is not terribly relevant - there is only one Shetland dialect, which is a dialect of Scots, and that will become immediately clear upon reading the first sentence of the article. The only possible point of confusion is the Norn language, which was its own language and has its own name (mostly) sorted out (and there's a "Not to be confused with" link at the top of the article already). There aren't specific dialects of Scottish Gaelic, Norwegian or anything else like that attributed to Shetland. See other articles such as Suzhou dialect - it's not "Suzhou dialect of Chinese", that's not necessary. The only other criticism I can think of for this name is that very occasionally, some folk in Shetland like to point out that using the term "Shetland dialect" over just "Shetland" implies that it is somehow a lesser variety of speech - while "Shetland" could be considered a language, "dialect" is taken as an insult. While I understand this reasoning, I think it would be needlessly confusing (as said the previous paper quoted) to have both the place and the variety of speech using the same name in this article. WP:DIALECT advises that "The term dialect should only be used for distinct but mutually intelligible varieties of a language". This is an accurate assessment of Shetland's variety of speech - it is mostly understandable by Orcadians and to a lesser degree Scots speakers on the Mainland. The proposed title is recognisable, natural, precise enough, concise enough, and most importantly respects the name used by native speakers - which the current name does not. Griceylipper (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Queen's University at KingstonQueen's University (Kingston, Ontario) – While I'm not opposed in principle to the legitimacy of moving this to a disambiguated title, the title that actually resulted from the earlier discussion is not the right one on WP:ENGVAR grounds. "Queen's University at Kingston" is not its proper name, or even its common name, in any context whatsoever, so it's not the right choice on "proper name" grounds — but even if "at Kingston" is meant purely as a disambiguator, that's a characteristically British construction not reflective of Canadian speech. Canadians never speak of "[Institution] at [City]", except in a couple of very isolated unusual cases where that actually is the thing's proper name — if we have to disambiguate something by location, we say that it's in the city, not "at" it. So the appropriate new title here is parenthetical disambiguation by location, not an inaccurate proper name with an "at" in it. I accept that it was a good faith request by a speaker of British English, but as a Canadian university this article's title and text should preference Canadian usage over British usage. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

February 17, 2020

  • (Discuss)NapoleonNapoleon I – The current title and lead introduction look strange. Additional disambiguation is usually added to the title, just as we have "Clovis I" and "Justinian I" rather than plain "Clovis" or "Justinian"... ("Charlemagne", of course, is already a disambiguation in itself) There's no doubt that the subject of the article is best known for having been emperor of the French (even the lead image shows him during the time he was emperor), yet the first sentence completely eludes this. Instead it starts with Napoléon Bonaparte (not mentioning the contradiction between "di Buonaparte" which is currently in the first note and "Buonaparte" in paragraph 2), only then another sentence mentions his becoming emperor, then there is another flashback to "Napoleone (di?) Buonaparte"... It would be much simpler to present this way:

    Napoleon I (/nəˈpliən/; French: Napoléon Ier [napɔleɔ̃ pʁəmje]; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821) was a statesman and military leader who had risen to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the French Revolutionary Wars, becoming Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814 and again briefly in 1815 during the Hundred Days. Napoleon dominated European and global affairs for more than a decade while leading France against a series of coalitions in the Napoleonic Wars. He won most of these wars and the vast majority of his battles, building a large empire that ruled over much of continental Europe before its final collapse in 1815. He is considered one of the greatest commanders in history, and his wars and campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide. Napoleon's political and cultural legacy has endured as one of the most celebrated and controversial leaders in human history.[1][2] He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte (Italian: [napoleˈoːne di ˌbwɔnaˈparte]), gallicised as Napoléon Bonaparte (/ˈbnəpɑːrt/; French: [napɔleɔ̃ bɔnapaʁt]), in Corsica, which had been newly acquired by France, to a relatively modest Italian family from minor nobility. He was serving...


  1. ^ Roberts, Andrew. Napoleon: A Life. Penguin Group, 2014, Introduction.
  2. ^ Charles Messenger, ed. (2001). Reader's Guide to Military History. Routledge. pp. 391–427. ISBN 978-1-135-95970-8. Archived from the original on 22 October 2015.
PS: I've corrected above the French pronunciation of Bonaparte to [bɔnapaʁt]. (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PlantersPlanters (company)WP:ASTONISH, by long term significance if anything many of the terms titled in the singular would be primary if anything. See similar cases like Bones, Bookends, Cars, Cats, Parachutes and Pixies which no only does the specific meanings not take precedence, the general meanings do. I propose that like Dockers, Cuts and Threads we redirect "Planters" to Planter per WP:DABCOMBINE since there are quite a few meanings that would be on both DAB pages if split. While its true that per WP:PLURALPT users can be expected to use the singular more often they are still full matches and anyway it gives the examples of Cars and Bookends redirecting to the singular named article. Also as noted in the Bookends, Suites, Dockers and Peanuts discussions (and probably others) we can't distinguish between "planters" and "Planters" since the 1st letter is always capitalized in titles even though we can with the likes of Common sense and Common Sense. When I Google "Planters" all the results are for flowerpots. An Images search also similarly returns nothing but flowerpots, a Books search returns some of the topics listed in "Common meanings" as well as the likes of New England Planters again nothing for the company. By PT#2 the company would clearly not be primary. Farmer gets 17,946 views compared to the company's 16,685, Colonization's 12,771 and Plantation's 11,290[[6]]. In the category namespace Category:Planters is about one of the Plantation meanings and on Commons Commons:Category:Planters is about the plant meaning with the company under Commons:Category:Planters (company). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 16, 2020

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Catholic Diocese of Helsinki → ? – This move (and the broader, associated moves), are to deal with a small, but longstanding problem in the Catholic diocese pages. Ever since Roman Catholic Church the move has been to depreciate the naming convention from Roman Catholic to Catholic. However, most of the diocese pages remain as Roman Catholic diocese of X to reflect their identity as latin rite parishes. Thus the name has a functional, (and quite useful purpose). This has been extended to other rites, ie, Byzantine Catholic, and allows for disambiguation, ie, two dioceses that occupy the same physical area, (or city), but differ in their rites. Therefore, I propose this solution. For all Latin rite dioceses that are currently not named Roman Catholic diocese of X per the naming convention, that they will be changed back to Roman Catholic diocese of X. I am happy to do all the moves manually with the help of administrators to deal with the page histories, and with the redirects, etc. When we did this before Anthony Applewhite helped me do this. This would resolve the haphazard approach of previous requested moves that have resulted in some pages being Catholic diocese of X, while 95 percent of the 3k diocese articles are Roman Catholic diocese of X. Unlike some of the other changes which were cosmetic, the naming convention Roman Catholic conveys additional meaning that is lost from the change to Catholic diocese of X. This discussion has long been percolating over individual move discussions, so I think it's finally time to have this discussion here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)New AlternativesNew Alternative Party (South Korea) – There has been an edit war over the formally correct title, the transliterated title, the most commonly-used title, etc. See above, and somewhat less friendly talk at user pages. I am not one of the parties to this discussion, although I have reverted some breaking changes around the periphery (eg. the change of New Alternatives from a redirect (following move) to this page to a disambiguation page). I won't make any recommendation on the preferred article title. Names that have been suggested (and tried, and re-tried!) so far include: * New Alternatives - original article title, possibly preferred by one party * New Alternative Party (South Korea) - preferred by one warring party * New Alternatives (South Korea) - current title (as of me typing!) Please desist from edit-warring pending the outcome of the discussion, and certainly don't move the article during the discussion which will cause immense confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)African U-20 Cup of Nations for Women → ? – Okay so basically there's no trophy, no host country or anything that indicates the existence of a competition called African U-20 Cup of Nations for Women. It's simply a qualifying tournament for the FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and that means the current title should be changed. For me the only suitable options are either African U-20 Women's World Cup Qualifying Tournament or FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup African Qualifying Tournament, despite both might break WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I couldn't think of other possible titles and I wouldn't mind if someone bring up another suitable title, but definitely I'd be against keeping the current title for the reason I mentioned above. Ben5218 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Relisting. IffyChat -- 22:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HindustaniHindustani (disambiguation) – In our article Hindustan, we single out two uses of the adjective 'Hindustani' for mention: the ethnic and the linguistic. However, for only one of these, the linguistic one, do we bother with an article (Hindustani language) -- Hindustani people is just a redirect to 'Hindustan'. Thus the language article functions as the primary topic. Also, although it's a bit difficult to compare, because both uses usually are worded simply as 'Hindustani', Ngram[8] shows that 'Hindustani language' is far more common than 'Hindustani people'. Thus 'Hindustani' should redirect to 'Hindustani language' (with a hat note to the dab page, of course). — kwami (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Loyola FCF.C. Meralco Manila – Provided that legally the club still exists, as just Loyola F.C., I think the article's name should be renamed back to "F.C. Meralco Manila", its name when it last competed in the country's domestic professional league. "Loyola F.C." may be argued to be its "basic name" but it didn't play under the name "Loyola FC" in the Philippines' top-flight (the club was known as Loyola Meralco Sparks FC from 2011 to 2016). Its current reincarnation is that of a recreation/youth football club. See Team Socceroo F.C. which was named under that article name, despite being known as Sigla FC, a vastly different name, while it is not playing in the top-flight. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly incomplete requests


See also

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.