Wikipedia:Requested moves

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.

"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect 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. For requesting 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.

For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.

Requesting technical moves

Technical requests

Contested technical requests

• – officially his name is just Chandrashekhar according to his official election affidavit 2409:4063:6C85:81B1:4430:82D1:7A47:5DA6 (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Contesting. Looking at the article's sources, I don't think there's enough evidence that he just goes by a mononym, and the present titles also satisfies WP:NATURALDIS. The common name is probably actually "Chandrashekhar Azad" or "Chandra Shekhar Azad" (possibly with Aazad instead), but we have to decide how to disambiguate with the revolutionary Chandra Shekhar Azad.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• – "Theta vacuum" is the main relevant topic of the page while "Vacuum angle" is a much less common name for what is being described as it is merely the parameter that indexes the various theta vacua. Most common textbooks and papers usually refer to the theta vacuum rather than vacuum angle as well. I cannot make the move myself as Theta vacuum is already a redirect on the page. OpenScience709 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • But see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Theta vacuum. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I've closed that as wrong venue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Contesting - a simple ngram suggests that "vacuum angle" is more commonly used than "theta angle". I don't really know much about this topic, but I think this needs a discussion and maybe some attention from those who know about the matter and to determine the proper WP:COMMONNAME at least.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, however I suspect that there might be a number of reasons for that while theta vacuum is the main topic, one may often want to refer to the vacuum angle more often when discussing it (although even more often it is referred to as the theta angle/θ angle, yet that would be a terrible name for the article due the the commonality of that term). The page itself focuses on the theta vacuum since that is the main topic, while the vacuum angle is just the parameter that describes it. Also I suspect that maybe vacuum angle may clash in ngram with other word combinations while theta vacuum is more specific, but that's pure conjecture and I may be wrong. Anyway. I would point out that theta vacuum/θ-vacuum comes up more often on arXiv titles (30/22 times for a total of 52 times) while vacuum angle only 12 (two of which are theta-vacuum angle). So at least in 1992+ academic papers the former is referred much more often in titles. Up to date textbooks also much more often list theta-vacuum over vacuum angle in the index (such as Weinberg, Schwartz, the other textbooks listed in the Vacuum angle page as references). It's what I found at least while browsing random QFT textbooks when researching for the article (so technically not an objective statement, but the most popular textbooks do use theta vacuum more often). OpenScience709 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2022 (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. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000000A-QINU`"'.
• Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000000C-QINU`"' to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
• The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
• Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

• Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
• Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
• The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
• Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
• Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
• 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. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

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

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

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

See also

• Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts, which includes a list of recently closed, as well as open discussions