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

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help 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 "The/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.
  • 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

This may require some thought on the definition of "coup d'état" and whether it implies a change in government. If so, neither this 2003 incident nor the similar 1995 incident led to a change in the government of São Tomé and Príncipe so perhaps they were both merely "attempted" coups. However, in both cases the coup plotters briefly took over, received some concessions, then handed power back to the legitimate government. Is that a temporarily successful coup d'état? Frequent use of the word "attempt" at the main Coup d'état article makes this more confusing than it might seem at first glance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me just now that I haven't rewritten the Wikipedia article. The sources cited, and scholarly sources I have read, do describe it universally as a coup and not a coup attempt (i.e. based on reliable sources it is a coup, regardless of editors' interpretations). But until I do a cleanup, rewrite, and expansion like I did with the 1995 article, the only thing other editors have is my word. I am fine with withdrawing the request now and doing a requested move later after my revamp of the article. Yue🌙 00:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Socialwave597 Based on the previous RM that was closed due to sock activity, I am going to recommend another discussion as that is also what the closer recommended at that time. Multiple editors have also appeared to disagree over the title, so a BOLD move would likely be reverted. ASUKITE 15:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "another discussion"? Pretty frustrating that this RM was derailed because of some sock from a very long time ago. Socialwave597 (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magherbin @Srnec, I see both of you have changed the title around a year ago, since @Asukite believes there is a possibility that this RM would get reverted, would you two have any objections to this being the name of the article? Socialwave597 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should remain with the English term Magherbin (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go thru RM. Needs to be explored more fully. Srnec (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elviajero based on the recent message at Talk:Saurashtra script, I am going to recommend a discussion as it appears somebody disagreed with the spelling, meaning a move here will simply get reverted. We are only here to process uncontroversial moves, we cannot settle disputes. ASUKITE 15:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy linking contesting of related move (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KingArti: Hey there! I took a look at your draft and noticed that around 51% of the content appears to be a copyright violation — sourced from this forum page. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to fully access the site due to a block on my end, but I’ve already requested a CV-deletion for the affected version.
Once you’ve made the necessary changes, please consider resubmitting your draft through Articles for Creation. I’ll make sure to review it promptly once it’s submitted. Thanks! — --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  06:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhiimanyu7: This was not a copyright violation of that forum post, which was explicitly quoting what "wikipedia said" and therefore is not the original author. Rather, this was copied from The Fantastic Four: First Steps#Music and should have simply been given attribution in a dummy edit per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. @Nthep: I believe this revdel should be reversed.
@KingArti: You should have just posted your new version of the article again at The Fantastic Four: First Steps (soundtrack)The Fantastic Four: First Steps (soundtrack) rather than posting a new draft and immediately asking for it to be moved onto the previous one. In any event, you must give attribution when copying content from one article to another. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust revdel undone. Nthep (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can we publish it now ? KingArti (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae The opposite of this move was performed in 2022 [3], so this should go through an RM. Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: sorry I made this move before seeing it was contested. Why does the 2022 move stop us moving it again now, back to the original title? If it's contested for a substantive reason then we can revisit, but this doesn't look controversial to me. If it's a proper name it full caps then it doesn't seem like having "List of" is appropriate, as well as the reasons Myceteae gives above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru The rationale for the 2022 move was exactly the opposite of the rationale of this request ("The article was already a list with an intro" from @Fred Gandt). When two editors come to radically different conclusions based on the same facts, I think the move is not uncontroversial and a discussion is warranted. However, I have no preference on the title here and I certainly don't intend to die on this hill. Toadspike [Talk] 11:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike @Amakuru I didn't see this move history, only the history that made Tiny Desk Concert a redirect, and I did not see {{R from former name}}. I did look on talk and saw no history of discussion about the name. I thought I had done my due diligence and that this was a no-brainer, but I missed this. Let me know if I need to take any action. No objection to an editor who disagrees with the move reverting or starting an RM. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:36, 19 July 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

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 19 July 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 19 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 17:48, 19 July 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 19 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:48, 19 July 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 19 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 17:48, 19 July 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 19 July 2025

– why Example (talk) 17:48, 19 July 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 19 July 2025

– why Example (talk) 17:48, 19 July 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. 108 discussions have been relisted.

July 19, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Jarvis Johnson → Jarvis Johnson (politician) – I do not believe there is a primary topic for the name Jarvis Johnson on Wikipedia. While the YouTuber is currently getting more daily pageviews and daily average pageviews, there have been spikes in views in both pages based on current events. The politician's page rapidly spiked in views after U.S. representative Sylvester Turner's death in March. There were smaller spikes at the YouTuber's page on May 1 and July 1 of this year - not sure what the causes of those were. Per WikiNav, about 20% of outbound clicks from the politician's page are going to the YouTuber. I wouldn't mind if a consensus forms that the YouTuber is the primary topic, but I see any possible concerns about recentism and believe that the best course of action would be a disambiguation page. wizzito | say hello! 18:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 08:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Agent 007 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – United Nations Ocean Conference → 2017 United Nations Ocean Conference2017 United Nations Ocean Conference – Since 2017, there have been three UN Ocean Conferences, and a fourth is planned for 2028. The title of this article being simply "UN Ocean Conference" implies that the article covers all of the events collectively, which it doesn't—this article is about the 2017 event in particular, and the sequels are only briefly mentioned. I think it would make sense to have this article focus on the 2017 conference, and create another one that covers them all as a series, maybe with some of the content transferred from this article. Also would create an article for each individual conference. Thoughts? Omnigrade (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Python brongersmai → Blood pythonBlood python – Wikipedia prefers common names, and this species has a clearly dominant, unambiguous common name. "Blood python" is more common than "Python brongersmai" in Google Scholar, Google Ngrams, and general search results. All of the common names given by the Reptile Database and ITIS, which are major well-recognized authorities on the subject, are either the proposed name or minor variations of it formed by prefixing it with some adjective, and the Reptile Database lists the proposed name first. The other names listed by those authorities are "Red blood python", "Malaysian blood python", and "Sumatran blood python", but using one of those would go against WP:CONCISE, since "Blood python" seems sufficiently unambiguous. The scholarly article cited for this snake's taxonomy uses "blood python" as the primary name in its abstract. Publications – especially those intended for general public readership – very clearly, primarily and dominantly refer to this snake as the blood python. I submitted an RM with the same suggestion three years ago, which failed to achieve consensus, and it is not clear to me why. Two people opposed it, but the reasons they gave do not seem very closely related to Wikipedia article title policies & guidelines. The proposal had majority support, but that wasn't deemed sufficient by the person who closed the RM. When asked about why they closed it the way they did, they said they just did not think "there was enough level of consensus", and suggested "to start a new discussion in a few weeks". It has now been three years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Menelik II's conquests → Agar MaqnatAgar Maqnat – "Agar Maqnat" is a used local term to describe this period in reliable academic sources[5][6] including Encyclopaedia Aethiopica while "Menelik II's conquests" or "invasions" or "expansions" comes up with no mentions in any scholarly literature. I was the creator of this article, and I gave it the name "Menelik's Expansions" some 3 years ago because I did not know that there was a specific term for this period in Ethiopian history. There is no official English equivalent for these name of these conquests, the name should be changed to its indigenous name similar to other African articles such the Mfecane, Gukurahundi, Ikiza, etc. Socialwave597 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 18, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Dujiaogui → Dokkakgwi – Per article content, the topic may be relatively more important in Korean culture than Chinese. Although the concept originates in China, what matters is where a concept is more important. For example, "Kraft Dinner" is the non-American name for an American product called "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese", but the article uses that title because the dish is proportionately more significant in Canada and other places that use "Kraft Dinner". grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ballobar, Huesca → BallobarBallobar – The disambiguation page "Ballobar" is currently a pointless single-entry disambiguation. The town in Huesca is the only town that appears to be called "Ballobar", and is the primary topic on the Spanish and Aragonese Wikipedias. As I'm not sure why this needs disambiguating, I'm proposing it be moved. Grnrchst (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hyunjin → Hyunjin (rapper)Hyunjin (rapper) – Both individuals are consistently referred to in reliable secondary sources by the mononym "Hyunjin" (Korean: 현진), not their full names.[7][8][9][10][11][12]. While both could be described as singers in general and perform vocals (as is typical for K-pop idols), the former (Stray Kids member) is primarily notable as a rapper, as reflected by the order of roles in the article lead and consistent with coverage in reliable sources, while the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) is primarily notable as a singer, providing clear grounds for disambiguation per WP:SINGERDAB and MOS:ROLEBIO. While ROLEBIO does not strictly dictate article titles, it helps identify the role for which each subject is best known. Other disambiguation options are unsuitable: "(singer, born 2000)" isn't applicable since both were born in 2000, and "(entertainer)" is discouraged per SINGERDAB, which recommends that disambiguator only "if the person is also well-known in other non-musical entertainment fields", both individuals are primarily known for musical performance and idol activities, not broader entertainment roles. Likewise, a hyphenated or full-name version for the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) is also not appropriate. A WP:BEFORE search for "Kim Hyun-jin" in Google, Bing, Naver, and Daum returns Kim Hyun-jin (the actor), rather than the Loona/Loossemble member. A search for "Kim Hyunjin" returns results referring to the Loona/Loossemble member as simply "Hyunjin", rather than under her full name. If the former (Stray Kids member) is determined to be the primary topic, that's acceptable and reasonable. However, the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) should not remain at Kim Hyunjin, which is an unnatural, obscure, and unused form, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDAB. Her article should be moved to Hyunjin (singer), the most accurate and policy-compliant title. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 17, 2025

  • (Discuss) – People's Party (United States) → Populist Party (United States)Populist Party (United States) – As article states, WP:Common name is "Populist Party", not "People's Party". Precedent exists for using nicknames of briefly-prominent (now non-extant) U.S. third-parties in instances where such a nickname has become the common name: such as with the articles Bull Moose Party (using a nickname rather than the formal "Progressive Party" name) and Know Nothing (using a colloquial name rather than the formal names of "American Party" or "Native American Party"). The fact that this is the common name is stated in the first sentence of the article. It is also evidenced by the fact that when when "People's Party (United States)" is entered into link-generating election box templates or election infoboxes, the Wikipedia is currently-coded so that those templates currently generate "Populist" as the displayed party name rather than "People's". I have proposed naming it simply "Populist Party (United States)" rather than further disambiguation, as any other United States parties using the "Populist" name have failed to obtain anywhere near the same political note as this one, making this one the common subject of that name. That is the reason why "Populist Party (United States)" currently redirects to this page, instead of serving as a disambiguation page. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Brazilian Institute of Public Opinion and Statistics → IBOPEIBOPE – This move is proposed per Wikipedia's "Common Name" policy (WP:COMMONNAME). The subject is overwhelmingly known and referred to in reliable English-language sources (media, business press, academic articles) simply as "IBOPE." While the current title is the formal name, it is rarely used in common parlance or reporting, making it less recognizable to readers. A search of news archives and academic journals confirms that "IBOPE" is the primary identifier. The proposed title is concise, widely recognized, and unambiguous. The full name is properly stated in the article's lead sentence. Thank you. Antoniowand (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Checkers (video game) → ? – Not wanting to risk butchering a newly-promoted GA, I am launching an RM here amid discussion above. "Checkers (video game)" is too ambiguous, being unable to distinguish Christopher Strachey's Checkers from the general topic of computer checkers. My first choice would be Checkers (1952 video game), as this was the article's original title before it was moved. However, the video game referred to here as "Checkers" did not have a proper title. Strachey only referred to it as a "computer program" that just so happened to simulate checkers (the term "video game" was not in common use in 1952). But since "Checkers" was developed in the United Kingdom, would it be "Draughts" instead of "Checkers"? Not really sure what to think of this one. What do you think? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cait Sith (Final Fantasy) → Cait Sith (Final Fantasy VII)Cait Sith (Final Fantasy VII) – I propose moving this article to a more specific title (Final Fantasy VII) due to the fact that there are multiple different characters in the Final Fantasy series named Cait Sith. The current title, which just refers to the Final Fantasy series as a whole, has the potential to create confusion. For example, I just removed a wiki link to this article from Final Fantasy XI because this article covers the FFVII Cait Sith, who is an entirely different character than the FFXI Cait Sith. Whoever inserted the wiki link on Final Fantasy XI was likely confused by this article's current title. Therefore, I think that renaming the article to "Cait Sith (Final Fantasy VII)" will more accurately reflect the subject of the article, and therefore reduce confusion amongst the different characters named Cait Sith across the series. Alith Anar 14:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kirisuto no Haka → Tomb of Christ (Japan) – This article's current title uses the monument's Japanese name (romanised) instead of an English translation. I can't easily find an English source which refers to it as Kirisuto no Haka, rather, most tend to use translations such as "Christ's Grave," "the Grave of Jesus Christ," or "the Tomb of Christ." Similar translations are also reflected on the area's local signage. To best honour the spirit of WP:UE, I believe that the article should be renamed and moved to a space such as "Tomb of Christ (Japan)" — with the inclusion of "(Japan)" to remove ambiguity from other, similar monuments. ItsSwimm (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 14:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gene Shift Auto → Skillshot City – The game has been officially renamed to "Skillshot City", which is now the Steam title and public brand. The old name is obsolete and no longer used by the developer or players. The new name is now on the official website, steam page, twitter, IGDB page, youtube. It's also received press coverage on the name changed, referenced below. The page should be updated to reflect the new name. Bencelot (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 16, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 2016 Jiangsu tornado → 2016 Funing tornado2016 Funing tornado – Like the previous one said, "Jiangsu tornado" doesn't make sense because that's name of the province. More sources also call in the "Funing tornado," including this research paper that focuses on the event. The reason for including the year is because another significant EF3 tornado struck Funing in 2023, killing 5 people. As for the "Fucheng" suggestion, I think they're referring to a town in Funing, although no sources mention it or use the name Fucheng, so this suggestion should be discarded.
    Overall, the name Jiangsu tornado is too broad and not the WP:COMMONNAME; Funing tornado is much more appropriate and what most sources call it, and the year is probably necessary because of another significant tornado in the same area in 2023. Therefore, 2016 Funing tornado is the best option Yobatna (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – History of Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom → History of Chinese Britons – Request made on 3 accounts: Firstly, the brevity of the proposed title. Secondly, the proposed title better matches other existing Wiki articles on similar topics, such as the History of Chinese Americans and History of Chinese Australians pages, both of which are currently linked in the article's text. Chinese Britons is also a term used to refer to such individuals and groups on the article for British Chinese Mysdias (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC) and would not be a new invention. Lastly, in my view "History of chinese immigration to the united kingdom" restricts the potential scope or view of the article. Of course, there are many Chinese Britons who are not 1st or even 2nd generation immigrants, and have spent their whole lives living in the United Kingdom. Owing to this, I think that the proposed title better represents the article's role and purpose - to detail teh history of chinese communities in the United Kingdom - better than the current title without drastically altering the aim of the article. Mysdias (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria (2024–2025) → ? – So to end the discussion once and for all: #My position: "the Turkish ground forces [we]re not involved" as the offensive was executed by the SNA with some Turkish air support so i agreed to "SNA–Turkish campaign in Northern Syria (2024–2025)" #@Ecrusized and Lyra Stone: "SNA is a de-facto Turkish proxy force, it is dubious whether they can take any military action without direct Turkish supervision." so it should be called "Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria (2024–2025)" #@Gluonz: "feels too similar to ones that were rejected" so "Rojava conflict (2024–2025)" changed the years a bit; @Bobfrombrockley Braganza (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zachtronics → Zach BarthZach Barth – With the closure of Zachtronics but the opening of Coincidence, the latter unlikely to show its own notability beyond either Zachtronics or Barth himself, it makes better sense to now have this page at Barth, with both Zachtronics and Coincidence discussed (and proper linkage from redirects or dab pages). Going off what I'm seeing for Kaizen, from Coincidence, its still all tied to Barth himself and his team, and it doesn't make sense to cover Coicidence within a page about Zachtronics since that change was intended to move away from the stigma of making "zach-like" games. I recognize this is undoing the move request from 2017, but a lot has changed since. Masem (t) 04:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mohammed Hamid (terrorist) → Mohammed Hamid (preacher) – Per MOS:TERRORIST, Wikipedia avoids using article titles that explicitly call people terrorists, as the term is somewhat tabloidish, vague about exactly what a person has done to deserve the descriptor, and judgmentally POV. In fact, this is currently the only article on the English Wikipedia that uses "(terrorist)" as the disambiguation term in its title. All six of the accessible sources cited in the article refer to Hamid as a preacher. The specifics of this case are a bit murky. Hamid is a guy who used to go to the local park and preach to the public from its Speakers' Corner, and for a while he ran a book shop. He later organized some youth activities like camping trips and paintball games. He was eventually convicted of providing "terrorist training" that didn't involve any actual weapons training, but rather consisted of talking to young men in his home and taking them on camping trips and to paintball games. Four of his young acquaintances (aged 22–27) tried to set off some bombs and failed completely, and there was apparently no evidence that Hamid himself ever touched or was directly involved with those faulty bombs or the planning process for that specific incident. Even if he was, we should use some more clear identifier to describe what he did. He was found not guilty of providing weapons training but was nevertheless found guilty of providing terrorist training, broadly construed. He apparently admits to having been radicalised, but "terrorist" doesn't really seem to fit him very well, even if we didn't have a general preference to avoid it. Wikipedia doesn't have any articles that use disambiguation terms that start or end with "Islamist" or "extremist" either, so those don't seem worth considering. It has ten people identified as "(radical)", plus one "Welsh radical", one "religious radical", one "radical lawyer", and one "radical writer". Those are very small numbers, so I suggest to avoid that word too. This is a low pageview article, with about 3 views per day, and a pageview comparison with the other Mohammed Hamid article is found here. Overall, "preacher" seems like the one word that all sources agree is a description of who he is (or at least was until about 20 years ago when he was arrested and imprisoned). BTW, there are 49 pages on Wikipedia that use "(preacher)" as a disambiguator. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 15, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Brian Liu → Draft:Brian LiuDraft:Brian Liu – To be blunt, this article is a mess. Upon reviewing the edit history, the page was denied in the draft space but its creator pushed it through themselves. Since then, they have been banned for sockpuppetry and were suspected to be a paid contributor. The resources are a mess, the layout and structure is sloppy. I believe it should be moved to the draft space, be properly reviewed for notability, and get a proper cleanup/rewrite. No consensus was reached on AFD discussion but perhaps this is a compromise that can be agreed upon? TXstockman5 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Penticton Vees (junior A) → Penticton Vees (BCHL)Penticton Vees (BCHL) – The "Junior A" classification is no longer applicable to BCHL teams. In 2023, the BCHL became independent from Hockey Canada and subsequently dropped the "Junior A" designation, now classifying its teams simply as "Junior."[1] This change in the BCHL's self-classification makes the "Junior A" disambiguator outdated and inaccurate. Furthermore, BC Hockey (the provincial governing body) now uses the term "Junior A" to refer to a level of hockey that would be considered "Junior B" in most other jurisdictions, adding to the ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding if the old title were retained. Therefore, "Penticton Vees (BCHL)" is the most accurate and clear title, directly linking the team to its current league affiliation. Buffalkill (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Buffalkill (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 14, 2025

References

  1. ^ "BCHL FAQ". Retrieved 15 July 2025.
  2. ^ Nash, Eric P. (2023). Sky-High: A Critique of NYC's Supertall Towers from Top to Bottom. Illustrated by Bruce Katz. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-1-79722-254-7. OCLC 1347699383. OL 27303597W. Already known as the Brooklyn Tower, even though a second supertall is slated for the borough
  3. ^ Kornblatt, Izzy (2023-09-11). "Gothic shadow: On SHoP's Brooklyn supertall". Architectural Record. Archived from the original on 2025-03-27. Such is the world into which the looming 1,066-foot Brooklyn Tower, the borough's tallest by far and its first to attain the status of 'supertall,' has arrived
  4. ^ Marzoni, Andrew (2024-04-19). "Cheesecake in Barad-dûr". New York Review of Architecture. Archived from the original on 2025-04-18. Two years later, the firm, undeterred, acquired the neighboring Dime Savings Bank and its air rights for $95 million in order to build the Brooklyn Tower, the borough's first supertall structure
  5. ^ Velsey, Kim (2024-04-05). "Brooklyn Tower is in trouble". Supertall Tales. Curbed. New York: New York. Archived from the original on 2025-07-04.
  6. ^ Ramsay, James (2025-05-12). "Early addition: Residents of the nearly empty Brooklyn Tower say it's weird in a fun way". Gothamist. New York: WNYC. Archived from the original on 2025-07-04.
  7. ^ Sedacca, Matthew (2025-06-05). "Rattling around an empty Brooklyn Tower". Supertall Tales. Curbed. New York: New York. Archived from the original on 2025-07-09.
  8. ^ "The Brooklyn Tower". SHoP. Archived from the original on 2025-07-03.
  9. ^ "The Brooklyn Tower". JDS Development Group. Archived from the original on 2025-07-03.
  10. ^ "Brooklyn Tower". Silverstein Properties. Archived from the original on 2025-05-24.
Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 13, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Naegleriasis → Primary amoebic meningoencephalitisPrimary amoebic meningoencephalitis – Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis is the primary name for this condition, not naegleriasis. Google Ngram Viewer[22] shows that the former is used 7.9 times more than the latter, and that doesn't even include "PAM", which a short form for it. Also, on Google Scholar, the former term[23] is used in 3,810 articles while the latter[24] is used in just 123, showing that the former is the primary name of this condition in the scientific literature. Most reliable web sources also use the term primary amoebic meningoencephalitis, including [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32]. Even if you search "naegleriasis" on a search engine, almost all reliable sources sources will use the term primary amoebic meningoencephalitis. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Marcus Wesson → ? – Wesson is inevitably the primary focus of media reporting, but the page would be better as an event page than a criminal biography, as the mass murder incorporated into the text, being the single deadliest of its kind in the city's history, deserves a page of its own. Seeing as the sexual abuse and cult-like structure within Wesson's family was also subject to signifcant coverage, a new title should be in vein of other criminal articles with incest such as Colt clan incest case or Fritzl case. While I'd have no problem naming two separate articles "2004 Fresno murders/Wesson family murders" and "Wesson incest case", I can't really think of a name for the single article they'll remain in should a move request be deemed appropriate. Rubintyrann (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Steven Pladl triple murder and suicide → Pladl case – The current title feels awkward and doesn't capture the entirety of the case. Steven Pladl and Rose Fusco had already gained significant national and some international attention in February 2018, prior to the murders, after their arrest on adultery charges. The new title would be more in line with other criminal incest cases such as Fritzl case or Mongelli case. Although the more descriptive "Pladl incest and murder case" would be more accurate, it might be too lengthy while "Pladl incest case" would exclude the murders that led to the most and ultimately sustained coverage. Rubintyrann (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Etisalat and → E&E& – -- I propose that the article Etisalat and be moved to E&. The current title is not the official name of the company and does not reflect the branding used by the entity following the rebranding of Etisalat to e&. The company's official name is “e&”, as reflected on their website [33], and is used by reliable secondary sources including Reuters, Bloomberg, and the company itself. The target page E& currently exists only as a redirect and can be overwritten by an admin. This move would improve clarity and accuracy in naming, aligning with current branding. Fullquarter (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cultural depictions of salamanders → Salamander (mythology)Salamander (mythology) – The current, inaccurate title is the result of a series of WP:BOLD moves done without consensus, or, apparently, even giving the article a single once-over. This article is about a separate mythical/elemental creature known as the salamander, not mythological depictions of actual salamanders. While actual salamanders may overlap somewhat, the vast majority of the article is about a hypothetical fictional animal. I don't know about you, but this does not look like any actual salamander I've ever seen. Due to the vagueness of the current title, it should be outright deleted upon the move and anything that links to it should be retargeted to either this article or the one on real-life salamanders. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 12, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Glossary of Generation Z slang → Glossary of 2020s slang – to preface, this move request was prompted by this recent YouTube Shorts video by American linguist Adam Aleksic. before watching this specific video though, I was still doubtful about this label, which I will elaborate below. I would be classified as part of generation Z and am interested in linguistics, particularly slang terms on the Internet (which I edit on Wiktionary), despite lacking any formal training. the reasoning for moving this article, as well as its associated category and navbox, plus its related articles, is that, while the term "generation Z slang" is popular in usage, it is imprecise in its definition and inconsistent. this term has been used to describe the language across three decades, bleeding into both older and younger generations, as the concept of a "generation" is inherently imprecise. as Aleksic notes, it is serves more as a buzzword. taking a look at its navbox and category, it covers many terms from before many of the generation was either born or properly grown up (anything from 2000s, early 2010s) or includes terms that were not coined by the generation (gyatt, any incel slang). while I have not checked every single one, many of the terms listed in the glossary lack any reliable sources claiming that they are either specific to, coined by or popularised by gen Z. the label of "generation Z slang" among the given sources is mostly used by newspapers (as Aleksic notes, taken from influencers). for scientific papers using the label, it refers to the language used by members of gen Z, but not necessarily limited to them. dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, tend to not use the label, favoring to instead describe the timespan in which the slang terms emerged and were used. I suppose is due to the difficulties of studying the trends of a whole generation while filtering for the often unknown ages of the anonymous users in a large corpus. the growth of a term among a specific age group during a specific timespan is only broadly correlated. similarly, until the creation of this article, there were other categories for slang over time, but these were labelled by the decade in which they were coined or popularised. for these reasons, I request that the list be recategorised into the corresponding time periods (geneneration Z slang is split into "2000s slang", "2010s slang", "2020s slang", etc.; the navbox may grow in scope and to, for example, "slang of the 21st century"; the categories, made redundant, should be deleted). Juwan (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis → IUPUIIUPUI – IUPUI had three long-form names over the course of its existence: Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis (with the word "at," 1969-1992), Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (official form, 1992-2024), and Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (most common form used on official publications, without the dash, 1992-2024). Regarding naming conventions, College and university article advice makes two relevant statements: (1) "This section is a complement to Wikipedia's naming conventions, not a replacement. Always consider the Wikipedia conventions first when naming a page." (It follows deeper below.) (2) "Never use abbreviations or acronyms in titles unless the institution you are naming is almost exclusively known only by including such terms and is widely used in that form. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) for more information." According to Acronyms in page titles, "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." Acronyms are usually avoided for disambiguation purposes, but I've never seen anything else called "IUPUI." I worked for IUPUI University Libraries in the late 1990s, and I created IUPUI's Library of Congress name heading within the Library of Congress's Program for Cooperative Cataloging, which is "IUPUI (Campus)." I did that after systematically surveying the presentation of IUPUI's name on its publications throughout its existence to that date, namely 1999. Given that IUPUI had one long-form name for about 13 years and two other long-form names for 32 years, the abbreviation "IUPUI" is by far and away the most common name used both by the organization itself and outsiders, and the long form virtually always appeared with the abbreviation. Therefore, both the general rule and the specific rule apply. IUPUI's article title should follow the example of NASA and be "IUPUI." Waering (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2018 Hamburg stabbing attack → 2018 Jungfernstieg double murder – Right now, the title is misleading. Other articles titled "[place] stabbings" and particularly "[place] stabbing attack" are about mass stabbings, whether terrorist or amok violence. The article is about a case of intimate partner violence where the perpetrator killed his ex-girlfriend and their daughter in a public place without attacking anyone else. The motivation was also established as vengeance during the trial, rendering the speculation in the lead outdated. In fact, the focus on the perpetrator's asylum status, while probably worth mentioning, are overstated as a relevant factor in the murders and later coverage focuses more on domestic violence and femicide. Since the surname of the victims was never officially released, the usually preferred "Murder of..." is probably not ideal in this instance. The nominated title is the WP:COMMONNAME used by German media (English coverage was minimal and limited to immediate reports) to refer to the murders during the trial of the perpetrator and subsequent mention. Rubintyrann (talk) 18:15, 12 July 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.
  • (Discuss) – A Guy Walks Into a Bar (song) → A Guy Walks Into a BarA Guy Walks Into a Bar – The last RM was all over the place, with two supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I'm surprised it wasn't closed as no consensus or at least relisted, and IMO it should be reassessed. This is the only work with the exact name "A Guy Walks Into a Bar" and should be the primary topic of that form of the exact phrase "A Guy Walks Into a Bar": * The NCIS episode is titled "A Man Walks Into a Bar..." with "man" instead of "guy", and an ellipsis at the end. * The Justified episode does not have the leading "A". * The Mini Mansions work does not have the leading "A", and also has an ellipsis at the end. Therefore, the Tyler Farr song is the only work with the exact title "A Guy Walks Into a Bar", and a hatnote to bar joke is sufficient. Anything else for the song is WP:OVERPRECISION, and I am not convinced of the arguments to the contrary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shriram Lagoo → Shreeram LagooShreeram Lagoo – This was first moved [34] by @NAKHISM with the rationale "Misspelled: disambiguation needed". That was reverted [35] by @Rotideypoc41352, apparently after an IP request at RM/TR, with the intention of opening an RM. It seems this didn't happen, and this move has again been requested by an IP at RM/TR with the rationale "The name of his spelling is officially Shreeram and not Shriram. You can check the spelling when his name is shown in the film credits". I have no opinion in this matter, but am opening an RM on procedural grounds so that editors, including IPs, on both sides of this debate can discuss their reasoning and resolve the issue. Toadspike [Talk] 13:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cancún → CancunCancun – In 2021 there was an attempt to do this. At the time, people argued that since Zürich wasn't changed to Zurich, Cancún shouldn't be changed either. Now, Zürich is listed under its common English name, Zurich. At the time people were cherrypicking the subsection of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources), "WP:DIACRITICS", selectively using the phrases "The use of modified letters in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged" and "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters" as a reason not to move the page, yet ommiting the accompanying phrases, "when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" and "if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources", respectively. Google Ngrams shows that "Cancun" has always been the common name in English. As stated above, the city's tourism agency ommits the accent in the English version of the website (in the same way Celine Dion's website does it in English vs. French). Spanish is not an official language in Mexico, and insisting that the accent is required merely for "respect for other languages" would support the argument for changing "Mexico" to "México", since that is the country's de facto colloquial name in Spanish. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 08:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Giovanni Matteo Mario → ? – The article lead starts with Giovanni Matteo De Candia,[1] also known as Mario, fairly consistently uses just Mario in the text, and notes: the budding singer adopted the mononym Mario as his stage name when he made his debut on 30 November 1838.[6] Sometimes, however, he is referred to in print by the fuller appellation of "Giovanni Mario", and he is also called "Mario de Candia". (That text seems to have been in the article for over fifteen years.) So this title "Giovanni Matteo Mario" isn't actually common, then? Here's a relevant Google Books Ngrams, a graph of book references to these names. The name we have in the lead isn't even detected. At the same time, the 19th century spike in the number of references to "Mario" can probably be attributed to this person. That element of the graph alone is large enough that we have to remove it in order to see the rest. If we look at more variants, like this or like this, it looks like at the time there's a lot of references to Signor Mario, too, as well as further mononymous references to Mario and other contemporary artists. The second name Matteo doesn't seem to be commonly used in comparison. So, maybe Mario (opera singer)? Mario (tenor) already redirects here, but was moved in 2011. I came across this incongruity while researching at Talk:Mario. Mario (singer) is already taken - maybe that needs to be disambiguated, too. Joy (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – PC World → PCWorldPCWorld – I propose renaming PC World to PCWorld to reflect the magazine's current official stylization and branding. The website and publication now consistently use "PCWorld" as a single word. === Rationale === * The official site is branded as PCWorld (see https://www.pcworld.com). * Most modern references use the one-word version. * It aligns with Wikipedia's policy on using the most commonly recognizable name (WP:COMMONNAME). Icaldonta (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Achilles' heel → Achilles heelAchilles heel – While both of these variants are quite close in frequency per Google Ngrams, the current title should be avoided because it contradicts MOS:'s:

    For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, the US's partners, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus).

    ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kernicterus → Bilirubin Encephalopathy – kernicterus is the Chronic form of Bilirubin Encephalopathy. There is also an Acute Bilirubin Encephalopathy (ABE) which takes place before the chronic phase and it is not Kernicterus. We can not have the acute phase on an article purly based on its chronic phase, but with a title change there wont be any confusions. This way the article can be written for both phases with a lot more information, but if we keep it as Kernicterus then there needs to be another article for its Acute phase which does not make sense. This short article explains my reasoning. Also as per WP:COMMONNAME, results on National Library of Medicine shows Bilirubin Encephalopathy close to 30,000, and Kernicterus shows 5500. That is widely because Kernicterus is the specific type of Bilirubin Encephalopathy. DrTheHistorian✎ 23:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 06:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision → Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge crash – Follow-up to resolve lingering question from the last RM as to whether crash, collision, or some other noun is the best descriptor for this incident. Crash is my top choice and I will present the others in rough order of preference from the prior RM; note that I was involved in this lengthy discussion and may miss details and nuanced arguments. I think collision is reasonable but I appreciate the objections raised. I would not use the other terms. # crash‍: This appeared to be the most common noun used at the time of the last RM and in the initial wave of coverage. This term is widely used in reliable sources and is accessible to a general audience. It satisfies the naming WP:CRITERIA well: it is certainly recognizable, natural, precise, and concise. # collision‍: A few editors pointed out that in maritime terminology collision specifically refers to an incident involving two moving vessels (hence the prefix co-). Thus a "crash" between a moving ship and a stationary object such as a bridge is not properly described as a collision. This may explain why high quality sources used crash more often. Common usage does not make this distinction and many reliable sources do use collision and collide to describe this incident. On the other hand, where a suitable alternative exists (crash‍) it may be good editorial practice to avoid collision even if most readers won't notice. # strike‍: This had limited support but is reasonably descriptive and is found in sources, especially as a verb (The ship struck the bridge). # accident‍: Some sources including the NTSB do use this terminology. Though often used imprecisely in every day language, accident can imply that an event was unavoidable or that a finding of no fault has been made. Style guides for motor vehicle collisions often recommend against this word (e.g., Washington State Department of Transportation and this from Rutgers). # allision‍: This was raised several times and met with vigorous opposition. In maritime terminology, allision is the term for a moving vessel striking a stationary object. This word is found in dictionaries but will be inaccessible to most readers. Allision is not used in any article titles on WP. WP:DISASTER is silent on this usage question for maritime incidents but does have guidance for trains. (EDIT 18:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC): WP:DISASTER guidance on "accident" is discussed in the thread.) I could not find many articles to review for consistency. 1938 Muncy Raft crash does involve a moving vessel striking a bridge. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 18:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
Extended content

In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[a] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also § National varieties of English, below. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous[b] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability: People * Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) * Mansa Musa (not: Musa I) * Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) * J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling) * Bono (not: Paul Hewson) * Mark Antony (not: Marcus Antonius) * Shirley Temple (not: Shirley Temple Black) Places * Germany (not: Deutschland) * Great Pyramid of Giza (not: Pyramid of Khufu) * North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea) * Westminster Abbey (not: Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster) Scientific and technical topics * Aspirin (not: acetylsalicylic acid) * Diesel engine (not: compression-ignition engine) * Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus) * Polio (not: poliomyelitis) * Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic) Product names and fictional characters * Windows XP (not: Windows NT 5.1) * Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino) * Darth Vader (not: Anakin Skywalker) Other topics * Cello (not: Violoncello) * FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football) * Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election) * Proxima Centauri (not: V645 Centauri or Alpha Centauri C) In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".[c] When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[d]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test.

— Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names

Notes

  1. ^ This includes but is not limited to usage in the sources used as references for the article. Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional off-site sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals. "Common name" in the context of article naming means a commonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily a common (vernacular) name, as opposed to scientific name, as used in some disciplines.
  2. ^ Ambiguity, as used here, is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, "heart attack" is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction.
  3. ^ Add this code in the search: -site:wikipedia.org.
  4. ^ Add this code in the search: -inauthor:"Books, LLC" (the quotation marks " " are essential); Books, LLC "publishes" compilations of WP articles.
Currently the article title for Grass is a redirect to Poaceae and the word "Poaceae" is a scientific term for grass that we do not use everyday but the word "grass" is the common word that we use for that plant. Vitaium (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 16:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2017 Hamas charter → Hamas Document of General Principles and Policies – The current title does not reflect how this document is most commonly and neutrally described in reliable sources, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. An analysis of sources shows that sources more frequently use "document" or similar terms than "charter", even when generously counting sources that use "charter" only with qualifications like "could be considered." Among sources that consider whether this constitutes a charter, there is no consensus, with some explicitly noting the document "does not replace the charter." The proposed title uses the official name given by Hamas, reflects the predominant terminology in sources, and maintains neutrality on the contested question of whether this document constitutes a new charter. If you're concerned about the length of the proposed title, please indicate whether an alternative 2017 Hamas policy document would be preferable. The current name is the result of a move that was done without a RM despite being clearly controversial and was challenged almost immediately here, so it doesn't constitute a stable consensus version. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 17:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nuseirat rescue and massacre → Nuseirat raidNuseirat raid – The term massacre is absent from neutral and pro-Israel sources and thus violates NCENPOV. Two reasons, the RfC on EuroMed as yellow and always attribute and WP:TITLEWARRIOR, which called out opinion pieces and failing to recognize authorial voice (newspaper quotes X who says massacre, therefore newspaper says massacre which is false). This is similar to Entebbe raid, and the AP (premier neutral source) has also clarified less than a month ago that the Paletinian deaths ocurred during a gun battle during the raid (see [36]) Closetside (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterionMono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^ Cite error: The named reference ABC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference TMR2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
17:48, Saturday, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1300279353"