Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page; however, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, 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.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves


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

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
  • 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 ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • 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. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

@Vchimpanzee waiting on sources for these three ASUKITE 15:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only provide this article and the call sign request here. And I don't know why the other call sign requests aren't shown with the other stations.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging resident expert @Sammi Brie: as this all looks rather messy. 162 etc. (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests


Primary topic grabs are not uncontroversial. I've reverted the undiscussed move. Please see WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikckyy there has been a lot of back and forth between these titles, so I don't think this can be considered as uncontroversial and requires a formal WP:RM Polyamorph (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was initially under Andhra cuisine but was moved without consensus to Telugu cuisine, which is misleading. Andhra cuisine belongs specifically to the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Telugu cuisine is an umbrella term for both Andhra and Telangana cuisine. Since there is already a dedicated page representing Telangana cuisine that belongs to Telangana state, the page that was moved should logically remain dedicated to Andhra cuisine, which represents the culinary identity of the state of Andhra Pradesh.
The term 'Telugu cuisine' is an unofficial term used to encompass both regional cuisines. Furthermore, all the sources and information currently on the Telugu cuisine page are primarily about Andhra cuisine. Therefore I propose the page be moved back to Andhra cuisine. We can then hold a separate consensus discussion for developing a dedicated Telugu cuisine page or using a redirect for the umbrella term. Vikckyy (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikckyy This page is only for uncontroversial requests, and since this request is controversial, you need to open a WP:RM (see WP:RMCM) to get consensus to move the page. HurricaneZetaC 16:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but this page was moved from 'Andhra cuisine' to 'Telugu cuisine' to start with, without consensus. So If the page can be moved back to 'Andhra cuisine', I can then open a request at WP:RM to gain consensus for the creation of a separate 'Telugu cuisine' page. Also the entire article is about Andhra cuisine, but it is incorrectly titled 'Telugu cuisine,' which the content does not fully represent. Can you please look into this once? Vikckyy (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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. 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

"WP:RSPM" redirects here. For entries on the perennial sources list that start with "M", see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/5.
Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 11 December 2025" 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 affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia 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)}}

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, 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).

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 | current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved) | 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, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. }}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

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 11 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 11 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 11 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2025‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 11 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 11 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

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

Closing 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

Shortcut

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 should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, 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 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.

Notes

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

Current discussions

Shortcut
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. 89 discussions have been relisted.

December 11, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Parliamentary procedure → Legislative procedureLegislative procedure – Parliament, a congress-type legislature, and a supreme state organ of power are not the same. A parliament, if we are strict here, implies the fusion of power and exists within a parliamentary system. A congress-type legislature (an article we are currently missing) exists within presidential system and is organised on the separation of powers. A supreme state organ of power exists in communist states and is based on unified power. However, they all have their distinct procedures. A distinct article on parliamentary procedure should and could be created, but this article about legislative procedure more generally in all states, whether they practice the fusion of powers, the separation of powers or unified power. The article title should reflect that. I have a distinct feeling someone will say; not all parliaments are based on the fusion of powers. That is true, in some African states that originally practiced a parliamentary system (with the British monarch as their monarch) have instituted separation of power systems, or that some refer to their legislature as parliament. Therefore, one confusingly has a term that can entail everything and one specific thing (parliamentary fusion of power systems). However, legislature, uncontroversially, encompasses a parliament, a congress-type legislature, a supreme state organ of power or any other form of legislative body. That is uncontroversial. So let's pick a name that is both accessible and most correct. TheUzbek (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of Armenia → Arab invasion of Armenia – The current title doesn't follow WP:NPOV with respect to scholarship on the topic, which eschews the language of "Muslim conquest" in favour of "Arab invasion/conquest". This is clear from the Ngram, which producss nothing for the current title, and from the RS that support the page, which reference in turn: "The Arab Period in Arminiyah" (Dadoyan), "The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni" (Nina), and "The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia" (Ter-Ghewondyan). The sourcing (and WP:NPOV) doesn't really support an alternative to "Arab invasion/conquest", with "invasion" seemingly having the slightly greater RS profile of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – LuniZunie(talk) 05:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 10, 2025

  • (Discuss) – House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies → House of Bourbon – Two Sicilies – or House of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies. The hyphen seems grammatically incorrect. An unspaced en dash would also not be correct, as this is not expressing a "between" relationship, but rather a context of this being a branch of the House of Bourbon that is from the Two Sicilies. I also see the suggested alternative with "of the" in some cited sources. I also found "House of Bourbon Two Sicilies" (with a space and no punctuation) in some sources, but that doesn't seem correct either. Some constructions seem to imply a House that is of a place or lineage called "Bourbon Two Sicilies", but this is not about "Bourbon Two Sicilies" or "Bourbon-Two" Sicilies. It is about a House of Bourbon in the Two Sicilies. There are also 22 other Wikipedia articles that have "House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" somewhere in their titles that should presumably be moved too, but I thought I would just start with the main topic's article title and then worry about the others. I took a look, and the 23 articles seem to generally have almost no English-language sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 9, 2025

December 8, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Pattullo Bridge replacement → ? – The Government of British Columbia officially unveiled the official Indigenous name "Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" and the official English name "Riverview Bridge" at a press conference. The current title no longer reflects the established official naming. Admin assistance is required due to the blacklist. Efuture2 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Libyan civil war (2014–2020) → Second Libyan Civil WarSecond Libyan Civil War – Multiple high-quality academic, policy, and journalistic sources already refer to this conflict as the Second Libyan Civil War, using the same retrospective naming conventions that Wikipedia applies to older multi-phase civil wars (e.g., First/Second Boer War, First/Second Sudanese Civil War, First/Second Congo War, First/Second English Civil War). Numbering civil wars after the fact is a standard historical practice once multiple related conflicts have occurred, and this conflict has fully concluded. At this point, reliable sources such as Brookings, Chatham House, International Crisis Group, RAND, various peer-reviewed journals, and major international newspapers routinely use the “Second Libyan Civil War” terminology. Wikipedia’s current naming (“Libyan civil war (2014–2020)”) is an internally-created date-based disambiguation that was appropriate during the conflict but is no longer consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of comparable cases. Once a sequence of civil wars exists and widely-used retrospective names appear in the literature, Wikipedia typically adopts the standardized proper-noun naming format. Renaming to Second Libyan Civil War improves clarity, aligns with reliable sources, and brings Libya into consistency with Wikipedia’s established naming conventions for multi-phase civil wars. Prestdobmei (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)|2=LLM content}} — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. x2step (lets talk 💌) 22:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – KEXP-FM → KEXPKEXP – The WP:COMMONNAME for this station/organization is obviously "KEXP" without the "-FM" suffix. The Wikipedia:Article titles policy would support to using "KEXP". WP:RADIONAMING is a Wikiproject home page, not a policy document. It links to the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), which states:  :Articles in [...] the United States are almost universally call sign-titled—that is, the title is the current call sign issued by a national regulatory authority. In these countries, all such stations are issued a call sign. There may, of course, be cases where a group of stations has a common name title. (emphasis mine) The guideline has a clear provision to allow common name article titles even in regions where call sign titles are the norm. A move to "KEXP" would use the common name title while still utilizing the shortened, more common form of the callsign. The suffix present in the official call sign is not needed for disambiguation. "KEXP" also better represents the overall parent "arts organization" described in this article that happens to run two radio stations; "KEXP-FM" and "KEXC" could exist as sub-sections in the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mar-a-Lago face → Republican makeup – I merged Mar-a-Lago face into Republican makeup per the discussion at § Distinction from Republican makeup, but the direction of the merge was contested. Since a RM was proposed during the merge discussion itself, and the consensus on the target wasn't clear, i think a proper move discussion is needed. I'm personally open to alternatives but for now I consider Republican makeup to be a better target, as was very nicely explained in this comment by @Herostratus:

    "Republican makeup" is more or less value-neutral while "Mar-A-Lago face" is lowkey insulting, inflammatory, and female body-shaming (even tho "Republican makeup" is intended to be pejorative, it's not that bad; you can certainly envision someone saying "I'm proud of my conservative dress and Republican makeup" straight-up but not "I'm proud of my Mar-A-Lago face" so much except as an asteism (rather than rejecting an insult, transforming it into a badge of honor) which is not the same thing at all).

    [...] I don't care how many sources use the phrase Mar-A-Lago face. [...] If the article was primarily about the phrase (etymology etc) rather than the phenomenon that'd be different. But it's not.

    FaviFake (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 09:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fixer (person) → Fixer (journalism)Fixer (journalism) – Moving is step one of cleaning this page up, step two being the removal of large amounts of trivial content. This article as it exists currently is a clear example of a DICDEF covering three separate topics at once, only one of which appears to be notable in its own right; a "person who gets things done" is not an encyclopedic topic and we already have an article on match fixing. The usage in journalism is the only one that appears to have the potential for an article of its own (plenty of sources to be found — [5], [6], [7]), and this, I propose that this article be reshaped to fit that purpose. — Anonymous 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Street storming → Đi bãoĐi bão – 'Street storming' is one way to translate 'đi bão', but I much more commonly hear 'go storm', 'go for a storm', 'go make a storm', 'riding the storm' and all sorts of variants of that. It would be best for the article to treat đi bão as a proper noun for a global audience and refer to it as such within the article, since there is no agreed upon English term that can be attested, especially outside of Vietnam. It is kind of like 'nhậu' - the best way to refer to it in English is also 'nhậu' since there is no agreement on an English translation that can capture its nuance. QUYE7 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 7, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Yoshimi P-We → YoshimiO – This name seems to be the name that Yoshimi has used most frequently, and the one that she's currently seems to primarily use. From release credits, she hasn't seemed to have used the "P-We" moniker prominently since the early 2000s.[1] Since then, the YoshimiO moniker seems more prominent, with it being used on her social media[2], on the biography pages of bands she's in[3], recent release credits[4], in the band name YoshimiOizumikiYoshiduO (YoshimiO Izumi Kiyoshi Duo), and in articles referencing her.[5] To me, this heavily suggests it is the name she is most frequently referred to, and known by. JellyfishReflector (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC) JellyfishReflector (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – WWHK (AM) → WWHKWWHK – A disambiguated title is not necessary; this is the only current station with this call sign (the only other station to be WWHK in the Wikipedia era has a hatnote), making it the primary topic (WWHKWWHK already redirects here). However, my attempt to have this moved via G6 was declined because convention is to put an (AM) suffix on radio stations. Again, though, per naming conventions, that is only done if disambiguation is necessary (and it is not in this case), and that otherwise an active radio or television station should be presumed to be the primary topic for the call sign it holds. Due to this decline, we must consider this controversial. The other main complication here is that the history of WWHKWWHK contains an attempted cut-and-paste move at the time the call sign changed from WRNN. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 6, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Anedjib → AdjibAdjib – Within this article, Anedjib is referred to only as Adjib, with the exception of the first paragraph and the gallery, the former of which claims that the more correct version of his name is Adjib. Additionally, the royal titulary section has his name listed as ˁḏ-jb (Adj-jb) with no "n" in sight. The name of the article should match the name used within the article. Veristune (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Camelid → CamelidaeCamelidae – "Camelid" is merely a noun form of the family name. "Camelidae" is the most natural title for this article because it is the actual clade name. As far as I am aware, no other biological family article on Wikipedia uses the noun "-id" form over the full family name when the article is not titled by another common name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 5, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Masha Gessen → M. GessenM. Gessen – Following the June–August 2025 discussion above, significant additional reliable sources now consistently use “M. Gessen” as the subject’s professional and public name. Major RS now using “M. Gessen” include: * The New York Times (current byline): https://www.nytimes.com/by/m-gessen * PEN America profile: https://pen.org/user/m-gessen/ * Bard College faculty listing: https://www.bard.edu/faculty/details/?id=4486 * CUNY Graduate Center faculty page (also using M. Gessen) * MSNBC onscreen graphics and interviewer address These are the subject’s most prominent contemporary appearances in high-quality RS. Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should reflect the name most commonly used in current reliable English-language sources. While book covers and some international outlets continue using the former name for legacy or marketing reasons, the present professional identity used in ongoing journalism and academic contexts is “M. Gessen”. Per WP:BLP and WP:DEADNAME, biographies of living nonbinary individuals should avoid emphasizing former names that are no longer used, except when necessary for clarity. The former name can still be mentioned once in the lead, but the article title should reflect the subject’s current, verifiable public name. Given the clear shift in RS usage since the earlier discussion, I propose renaming the article to align with current sourcing and BLP considerations. Lacanic (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – OKD → OKD (company)OKD (company) – This is a three-letter acronym also used in a wide variety of fields of endeavor, and this mining company does not appear to be the primary topic for it. Per WP:DPT, we can for example look at: * All-time monthly page views comparison between the top two meanings shows that it's unlikely that the average English reader strongly associates this term with the company, when the readership of the article about this and other software is 50 times larger (!) than the readership of the article about the latter * Google Books Ngrams for this and related terms indicate the company is occasionally mentioned, but there's no clear indication that it's the most commonly known topic, let alone more common than all others combined * With a Google Books search for OKD, in the first 10 results I only get 1 that mentions the company, 2 that mention the software, and 7 others I already disambiguated a handful of incoming links and disambiguated it, but the move was then reverted as "potentially controversial". I don't quite see the controversy, but let's have a formal discussion just in case. The other 'issue' was that the OKD software doesn't have a standalone article, but that's not relevant as it meets the standard of WP:DABMENTION. All in all, when even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic, I don't think there can be a genuine discussion about there being a primary topic by usage. With regard to long-term significance, I don't think there can be any substantial advantage for a nationally-known company that is not active in the English-speaking parts of the world, when compared to internationally-known software in English usage. Even if it is technically 10 times older, both are generally recent. Plus the language and the airport in other parts of the world, too. This acronym is simply ambiguous, and we should not risk surprising English readers by presenting them a false lack of ambiguity. Joy (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 4, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Cnut's invasion of England → Danish conquest of EnglandDanish conquest of England – Several books centered on the subject use this expression in their titles: * Howard, Ian (2003). Swein Forkbeard's Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England * James, Jeffrey (2013). An Onslaught of Spears: The Danish Conquest of England * Parker, Eleanor (2016). A Short History of the Danish Conquest It is also used within several authoritative books on the period, like The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Renaming the article would also allow it to cover the entire period 1013–1016, including the invasion of Sweyn Forkbeard. As far as I can tell, historians tend to study both invasions together. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
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.

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Princess Alexandra (born 1936) → ? – "(born 1936)" is only used when disambiguation is needed for two people sharing the same name, and occupation. There is no need for disambiguation here as the subject has a unique name. Now, since there's an issue with this title, maybe it could be moved to simply Princess Alexandra in which case the disambiguation page could be moved to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). Of course, the short description "British princess (born 1936)" would disambiguate it. Spectritus (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Destinyokhiria 💬 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"
  • Talk:KQRY-LD – Pagename to be moved listed below template does not match name in template: KQRY-LD.

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ ""Yoshimi P-We" at Discogs". www.Discogs.com.
  2. ^ "YoshimiO's Instagram". www.instagram.com.
  3. ^ "OOIOO Profile". www.ooioo.jp.
  4. ^ ""YoshimiO" at Discogs". www.Discogs.com.
  5. ^ "Red Bull Academy article". www.redbullmusicacademy.com.
  6. ^ "Al-Qaida in Yemen driven from 2 major strongholds". Deseret News. Associated Press. 2012-06-12. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
  7. ^ Coombs, Casey L. (2013-02-20). "Yemen's Use of Militias to Maintain Stability in Abyan Province". Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Retrieved 2025-11-30.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
13:22, Thursday, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1326810369"