This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed byRMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
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.
Anyautoconfirmed user can move a page using the"Move" option in theediting toolbar; seehow 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 beprotected from moves. In such cases, see§ Requesting technical moves.
Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made atWP: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 pageshould 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 yetautoconfirmed) 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". SeeWikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.
Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move requestas 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 thespirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space –Unconfirmed users: add{{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. SeeWikipedia:Articles for creation.Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
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 beenin place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you mayrequest a technical move.
If you areunable 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 isyour first article and you want your draft article moved to themainspace, please submit it for review atArticles for creation, by adding the code{{subst:submit}} to the top of thedraft oruser sandbox page instead of listing it here.
Because you areautoconfirmed,you canmove most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you needhelp determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top ofWikipedia: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 theUncontroversial 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 atWP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so,edit theRequests 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 theContested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Considerpinging 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.
I was adhering to the standard of singular letter forenames common on wikipedia. As I have become well versed in this research and culture, the naming conventions are different inMizo name. Most books and journals use Ch. Chhunga short for Chalchhunga, most government reports, news and other formal publications. It should be in alignment with this and thus I want to correct my mistaken move of before.Taitesena (talk)10:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Taitesena Procedurally contesting this, as Hemant has objected. Please open a move discussion by clicking the "Discuss" button in your request if you would like to pursue this change.Toadspike[Talk]22:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thediscussion 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, seeRequesting 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 alreadyopen on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multipleclosed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a uniquesection heading.
Do not create a move request to rename one or moreredirects.Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.
To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of thetalk 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.}}
ReplaceNew 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 25 October 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:
A request that this page title be changed isunder discussion. Pleasedo not move this page until the discussion is closed.
A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. Onone 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 anaming 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 thebottom 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.}}
For example, to propose moving the articlesWikipedia andWiki, put this template onTalk:Wikipedia withcurrent1 set toWikipedia andcurrent2 set toWiki. 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 onWikiProject talk pages or other pages inProject 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:
Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to moveCricket (disambiguation) toCricket because you do not believe the sport is theprimary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, bothCricket (disambiguation)andCricket. Thus you must list proposed titles foreach 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:
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
Use when the proposed new title is given. Donot sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use thesubst:. This tag should be placed atthe beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
Use when the proposed new title is not known. Donot sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use thesubst:. This tag should be placed atthe beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
This template adds subsections for survey and discussion. Donot sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use thesubst: Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages berenamed and moved.
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
Donot sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use thesubst: and place this tag atthe beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion. Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages berenamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
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 writeSupport orOppose 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 arethreaded 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.
The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
Explainhow 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 "•SupportOppose".
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 adispute resolution process.
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 beforeproperly 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 ofsupervote. 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 theclosing 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 widelypublicizing the discussion, such as by notifyingWikiProjects 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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually;a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) –Wee Hughie →Hughie CampbellHughie Campbell – I don't recall Hughie being called "Wee Hughie" that much in the television show which is easily more prominent than the comics, and also both the comics and the TV characters are known as "Hughie Campbell." A brief Google search indicates that most sources refer to him as "Hughie Campbell" over "Wee Hughie" or "Hugh Campbell," so I'm pretty sure it's the actualWP:COMMONNAME.HadesTTW (he/him • talk)17:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Algieba →Gamma LeonisGamma Leonis – This page was moved with the reasoningThis seems like in an ADS search, Algieba got about three times more results than Gamma Leonis, which satisfiesWP:STARNAMES. For some reason, simply searching ADS for "Algieba" returns over 100,000 results, which have nothing to do with the star. (Looks like it may be showing results for "algebra"?) If "object:Algieba" is added to the query, the number of results is in the single digits and less than for "Gamma Leonis"/"Gamma1 Leonis". So I don't think that can be used to argue that "Algieba" is more common. On the other hand there may be a shift toward preferring proper names of stars as article titles (seeTalk:Kochab#Requested move 15 September 2025) so people may prefer this title anyway.SevenSpheres (talk)15:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Horned gopher →CeratogaulusCeratogaulus – This animal is obscure enough that "horned gopher" is not really a "common name" in a meaningful sense for this taxon (nor is it accurate because they are not particularly related to gophers), and the term has only been used a handful of times to describe this animal, or anything else otherwise in the scholarly literature[7] (note, I have added -twilightbeasts.org to remove irrelevant non peer-reviewed blog posts which are all included because the term "horned gopher" is listed on the sidebar of every article on the site). The name "horned gopher" is ambiguous because other related members of the family likeMylagaulus also bore similar horns, and has also been referred to as a "horned gopher" (e.g.[8]).Ceratogaulus is the clear,WP:PRECISE and unambiguous name for this taxon.Hemiauchenia (talk)15:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Argentine Primera División →AFA Liga Profesional de Fútbol – The league has been operating as the Liga Profesional de Fútbol since 2021. This name reflects theofficial name of the league. The current name is an informal way of referring to the first division and additionally, the country demonym was applied to differentiate it from the other CONMEBOL leagues that are also informally referred to as first division in Spanish. I recommend we move to standardize league names across CONMEBOL.MicroX (talk)15:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Comedy drama →Comedy-dramaComedy-drama – "Comedy-drama" with a hyphen vs. "Comedy drama" without are both present in articles, with releases such asThe Bear (TV series),Fleabag,Gilmore Girls andTed Lasso using the former; andM*A*S*H,Sex and the City,The White Lotus andElsbeth using the latter. There are also articles that use "Dramedy", such asFood of The Bear (TV series),Ludwig and others but consensus has already moved the page from that one. However, I would argue that Comedy-drama with a hyphen is a more succinct and accurate descriptor and is better for our readers when seeing articles with multiple genres, e.g. "black comedy-drama". On the contrary, you could also make the argument that comedy-drama is not enough of a unique descriptor or unified genre to be described as a single hyphenated word. Something else to consider is how categories are treated currently. Category:Comedy drama is written without a hyphen, however all the subcategories such as Category:Comedy-drama television series, Category:Comedy-drama films and all their own subcategories use the hyphenated term. It would be quicker to make the main category match all subcategories for the sake of parity than to remove the hyphen from all subcategories, and I'd argue it'd reduce vagueness. I have posted a CfD as well, linked here:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 25#Category:Comedy drama.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)05:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Qasr Mushatta →Mshatta – The most common spelling in English isMshatta rather thanMushatta and, moreover, it seems like more sources refer to it as simplyMshatta, withoutQasr.Qasr (al-)Mshatta still appears in references, or appears as a longer version of the name alongside the shorter version, but it's not more common and evidently not necessary. See for examplengram or compare number of results in Google Scholar searches:[9],[10],[11],[12], etc. Plenty of direct examples in scholarly general references ([13],[14],[15], etc) or in more specialized works ([16],[17][18], etc). Nor does there appear to be any other topic that goes by this name, so there's no ambiguity or loss of precision with the more concise version. So for bothWP:COMMONNAME and forWP:CONCISE, recommend moving to "Mshatta".R Prazeres (talk)04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Regretting You (film) →Regretting You – There is no other article titled "Regretting You". While the film is based on a verifiable book by Colleen Hoover,Colleen Hoover § Works shows many works that do not have blue links. So it cannot be assumed that the underlying book is also notable. I did search for book reviews from 2019-2020 for the book but saw none from reliable sources. So until someone tries to create the book article, this film is the only topic and should be primary.Erik (talk | contrib)17:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –List of entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks → ? – The current title is the equivalent of having a Wikipedia article titledList of education affected by the COVID-19 pandemic instead ofImpact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education. The previous RM discussion a few months back failed to establish consensus in either direction. I think that, if I had avoided specifying a new name, then those who would'vesupported the general idea (butopposed the particular name I proposed) wouldn't have found it difficult to figure out how to cast an honest !vote, so I figured I'd open another discussion of this nature to give such users another chance to say something or suggest different alternative titles. As some opponents argued that the current title should be kept because the article is a list, I recently tried to start an RfC discussion to figure out where consensus would stand on converting this article to prose, but that was quickly shut down because title-changing was brought up alongside unlistification. Although I followed Zxcvbnm's suggestion andcreated a draft, I've never been able to figure out what to do next with it in order to push for this article'sscope to bechange[d] to that effect. –MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. –MrPersonHumanGuy (talk)17:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –General secretaryship of Xi Jinping → ? – From what I can tell, "General secretaryship of Xi Jinping" is completely a Wikipedia invention. I've not been able to find sources that call his tenure "general secretaryship" (which itself seems to be a pretty uncommon term). I'd also like to find some consensus on what the articles on tenures of Chinese leaderships (and perhaps other Communist leaders) should be called.The Account 2 (talk)20:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Birutė Galdikas →Biruté GaldikasBiruté Galdikas – Galdikas and her organization write the acute accent (Biruté) on book covers, official websites and bios, social media, etc. I recommend citinghttps://orangutan.org/about/dr-birute-mary-galdikas/ as requested above on the talk page. Sometimes you will find an e with no accent. It's a great disservice to "correct" her name here and across Wikipedia without citing one source where she, a publisher, or major media source spelled her name this way. (Note please do not use sources from the 2020s which are citing Wikipedia.)205.178.41.161 (talk)02:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Paul Varghese →Paul Varghese (comedian)Paul Varghese (comedian) – The name "Paul Varghese" is shared by multiple notable individuals (e.g., comedian, actor, priest, AI entrepreneur), causing ambiguity. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no single person is the primary topic. Moving to "Paul Varghese (comedian)" clarifies the subject and aligns with MOS:DAB. A disambiguation page at "Paul Varghese" is proposed to list other notable individuals.77.169.94.197 (talk)17:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Blu¹ → ? – This seems like a grey area.WP:ITALICTITLE suggests that superscripts should generally be avoided, however this is used in some of the sources. Other sources simply refer to the subject as "Blu" as well so it is not quite clear cut.sksatsuma16:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Paisa (region) →Paisa (person) – "Region" seems a poor choice of disambiguator here, since the article is about a group of people rather than a region. I don't know that "person" is the best possible disambiguator; perhaps someone else can come up with a better suggestion.Deor (talk)15:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Czech Republic →CzechiaCzechia – I believe that after almost 10 years it is time to move this article to Czechia, which is what the country actually calls itself. Looking at the 5 criteria: # Recognizability - Czechia is now just as recognizable as the Czech Republic. Google Maps uses it, many events like the Olympics use it, and Czech Republic now fells slightly clunky. # Naturalness - Just as natural as the Czech Republic, if not more # Precision - While the Czech Republic is the official name, the country has asked for the English-speaking world to use Czechia. As Czechia is the officially requested name, it scores slightly higher here. # Concision - Czechia is more concise than Czech Republic # Consistency - Czechia matches with the general pattern of using short names for countries unless absolutely necessary. We call it the United Kingdom, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland This is why I believe Czech Republic should be moved to Czechia.ChaoticVermillion (talk)05:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Universal set →Universe of setsUniverse of sets – I'm proposing a minor topic change from "Set of all sets" to "Universe of sets", having the non-existent object be a section of the article. There's a reasonable amount to say about the universe of sets in terms ofmodel theory and philosophy. Specifically, in a Platonist view and the role oflarge cardinals, compared to amultiversalist view. The broader concept is already discussed here, and, honestly, it seems weird to have the non-existent object be the main topic of the article.–Farkle Griffen (talk)05:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –2-Bromo-LSD →BOL-148BOL-148 – "BOL-148" is the Sandoz developmental code name for this drug, whereas "2-bromo-LSD" is one of various chemical names (another is "2-Br-LSD"). In Google Scholar, "BOL-148" (and a variation + disambiguation terms) gets 920 results ([36]), whereas "2-bromo-LSD" (and a variation + disambiguation terms) gets 484 results ([37]). Findings are similar if the disambiguation terms are omitted. Hence, this drug is more commonly known by its developmental code name than by the chemical name "2-bromo-LSD" in the scientific literature and thus "BOL-148" may be considered its primary common/trivial name. "Bromolysergide" is another name of the drug but only gets 66 results in Google Scholar. Per policies likeWP:OCHEMNAME andWP:COMMONNAME, I propose moving the page to "BOL-148". That is, the major common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies. In addition, numerous other analogues/related drugs are named by their Sandoz developmental code names, includingLAE-32,ALA-10,MLA-74,LME-54,ALD-52,LBB-66,LPD-824,MPD-75, andLSM-775. Articles in this area should follow the same naming scheme for consistency (WP:CONSISTENT,WP:TITLECON). Thank you. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)04:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Lysergic acid 2,4-dimethylazetidide →LSZLSZ – This drug emerged as a novel designer drug in 2013 and has since become well- and best-known by the common/trivial name "LSZ" (an acronym of one of its chemical names) (e.g.,[38],[39],[40],[41]). The acronym "LSZ" currently redirects back to this page and there is anLSZ (disambiguation) page with the drug listed as the primary topic. The other entries on the LSZ disambiguation page are "LSZ reduction formula" and "Lošinj Airport" ("IATA: LSZ, ICAO: LDLO"). Aprevious discussion on the current talk page made the case for the drug being the primary topic for "LSZ", although this was over 10 years ago. Most of the top results for "LSZ" via Google Search are for the drug. In Google Scholar, there are 378 results for "LSZ" the drug (via some disambiguation terms) ([42]) and 1,270 results for "LSZ reduction formula" ([43]). However, the latter is distinct from "LSZ" via a longer name that is essential in describing what it is (the "LSZ" part is simply an acronym of the formula's three creators' last names). Per policies likeWP:OCHEMNAME,WP:COMMONNAME (WP:RECOGNIZE),WP:ACROTITLE, andWP:CONCISE, I propose moving the drug page to "LSZ". That is, the common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies, an acronym is fine if the acronym (by itself) primarily refers to the topic in question, and the new title is more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. Also, the page name for the closely related drugLSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is the acronym form similarly. Thank you. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)03:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton →American Insurance Co. v. CanterAmerican Insurance Co. v. Canter – RIP funny name, but the COMMONNAME for this SCOTUS case is clear. The only reason I cannot move this myself is because I created the redirect blocking it because I kept running into "Canter" and assumed at that time that "356" was more common just because that was the title currently. This case has come up in my studies quite a bit lately, and I have never organically come across it called "356" in any document in the last century. It is possibleto find some with Google Scholar, but there aremore results for "Canter." In response to "these search results are relatively small," I just say again: I've been really deep in the weeds of non-digitized books lately, and it is alwaysCanter.lethargilistic (talk)22:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Tiendesitas →Ortigas East – I would like to propose expanding the scope of this article from covering only Tiendesitas to encompassing the entire Ortigas East (formerly known as Frontera Verde) mixed-use development where it is located. I think the current article’s scope on the shopping complex is too narrow for standalone notability and would be better contextualized as part of the larger development. Several Wikipedia articles already mention Ortigas East by name, and at least two articles and there are at least two articles on places currently and formerly located in it, such asChrist's Commission Fellowship andArk Avilon Zoo. Having Tiendesitas covered as part of an article on the broader mixed-use estate would also be more consistent with articles likeAraneta City,Capitol Commons,Greenhills (mixed-use development), andEastwood City, which include their major establishments or malls within a single comprehensive article.Ganmatthew (talk •contribs)10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Feature toggle →Feature flagFeature flag – PerWP:COMMONNAME andWP:PRECISION, “feature flag” has become the overwhelmingly dominant term for this software engineering practice in both professional and academic sources, while “feature toggle” is now a secondary synonym. In recent years, authoritative and reliable sources have shifted to “feature flag” as the preferred name: * Web search / trend evidence: A [Google Trends comparison for “feature flag” vs “feature toggle” in the U.S.](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=feature%20flag,feature%20toggle&hl=en) shows that “feature flag” has substantially higher search interest over time (about 50x), reinforcing its broader adoption in the software community. * Martin Fowler, who originally popularized the concept, now uses the term *feature flag* interchangeably and notes that it has largely superseded “toggle”: see Fowler’s [Feature Toggles (aka Feature Flags)](https://martinfowler.com/articles/feature-toggles.html) (updated 2023). * Industry usage: Major software engineering organizations and tooling providers—including GitHub, Google Cloud, AWS AppConfig, and LaunchDarkly —all refer to the concept exclusively as feature flags in product documentation and technical blogs (e.g., [LaunchDarkly Docs](https://docs.launchdarkly.com/home/getting-started/feature-flags), [AWS AppConfig Feature Flags](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/appconfig/latest/userguide/appconfig-feature-flags.html)). * Books and references: Modern DevOps and continuous delivery texts—including *Continuous Delivery* (Humble & Farley, 2010), Accelerate (Forsgren, Humble, Kim, 2018), and Team Topologies (Skelton & Pais, 2019)—use “feature flag” as the standard term. Moving the article to **Feature flag** will align with current reliable usage, improve search discoverability, and maintain consistency with related articles likeContinuous integration,Continuous delivery, andDark launch. The current title “Feature toggle” should remain as a redirect to preserve continuity and historical context.71.56.154.8 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk10:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Shah Shuja Durrani →Shuja Shah DurraniShuja Shah Durrani – Shuja Shah Durrani is his birth name, and "Shah" is his middle title; the same goes with other Afghan figures like Ahmad Shah Durrani, and Timur Shah Durrani. The reason for the confusion arising within Shuja's name is due to one of his titles "Shah Shuja ul-Mulk", which has made a confusion regarding Shuja Shah's name being turned into "Shah Shuja".AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)This is a contested technical request (permalink).TarnishedPathtalk 08:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<––01:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Smithville tornado →2011 Smithville tornado2011 Smithville tornado – Multiple Intense-to-Violent tornadoes have impacted the Smithville area prior. In 1920 a long track and highly deadly tornado moved through the Smithville area, in total claiming 88 lives, and more recently in 2023, a deadly EF3 went through the Amory and Smithville areas, claiming 2 lives. Smithville and the surrounding area has been hit multiple times Another reason is the previous title move did not truly reach a consensus with only a single supporting comment, along with one neutral comment. The move proposal was not given enough time for more opinions to be made, and the article title should not have moved.Quincy Gordon (talk)01:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Ram 1500 REV (Range-Extended) →Ram 1500 REV – This is confusing as-is, as "Range-Extended" is unclear. The page using that as a disambiguator is the article for what will ostensibly be the production model; the article currently disambiguated as "All-Electric" has been cancelled and will never see production, at least not under the "REV" branding which has been repurposed for the former. Therefore, the "Range-Extended" REV is all but certain to be the primary topic going forward. Most people looking for information on the Ram 1500 REV will likely be looking for the production model, not the cancelled one. "Concept" may not be the best title for the all-electric article, but it's the clearest I could think of - I'm open to other suggestions on that. Alternatively, the content could be merged toRam 1500 (DT). In any case, both current titles violate the MOS so I wanted to get a discussion open as soon as possible before more undiscussed moves are made.Sable232 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.WhatADrag07 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.CNC (talk)20:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Eden (2024 film) →Eden (2024 thriller film)Eden (2024 thriller film) – This article should be renamed to distinguish it from another 2024 film that was also named Eden. It's a documentary film by Christopher McGilvray. And the Eden disambiguation article should list both of them. Some guy objected to that, since the documentary isn't particularly noteworthy. And it's true that the documentary isn't noteworthy, and probably isn't worthy of an article of its own. But we should still rename this article, just so people don't get the two films confused.Burner89751654 (talk)02:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Ethylisopropyllysergamide →EiPLAEiPLA – The common name of the drug is "EiPLA" (an acronym of its chemical name) and is what it's almost always referred to as in the scientific literature and elsewhere. This term is largely or exclusively associated with this drug. Citing Wiki policies for the move proposal includingWP:OCHEMNAME,WP:COMMONNAME (WP:RECOGNIZE),WP:ACROTITLE, andWP:CONCISE. That is, the common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies, an acronym is fine if the acronym is primarily or exclusively associated with the topic in question, and the new title is more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. Note that the subject is known primarily by its acronym and the acronym is primarily associated with the subject, soWP:ACROTITLE specifically is fulfilled. See alsoDiPLA and my analogous move request formethylisopropyllysergamide (MiPLA). –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)00:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenylcyclopropylamine →DMCPADMCPA – The common name of the drug is "DMCPA" and is what it's almost always referred to as in the scientific literature and elsewhere. This term is largely or exclusively associated with this drug with regard to subjects of notability (other Google search results being for non-notable companies, individuals, and organizations). This title is a partial acronym. Citing Wiki policies for the move proposal includingWP:OCHEMNAME,WP:COMMONNAME (WP:RECOGNIZE),WP:ACROTITLE, andWP:CONCISE. That is, the common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies, an acronym is fine if the acronym is primarily or exclusively associated with the topic in question, and the new title is much more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. Thank you. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)00:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Dimethyllysergamide →DAM-57DAM-57 – "DAM-57" is the Sandoz developmental code name of the drug and is much more commonly used in the literature than the chemical name "dimethyllysergamide" (which is one of multiple different possible chemical names, others being "N,N-dimethyllysergamide" and "lysergic acid dimethylamide"). Per Google Scholar search results, "DAM-57" (with some disambig terms) gets 39 results ([49]), while "dimethyllysergamide" gets 8 results ([50]). In relation to the preceding, "DAM-57" is the common/trivial name of the compound. Moreover, typically on Wikipedia in drug-related articles, we use the developmental code names rather than chemical names as the titles of articles for investigational drugs. Finally, many other analogues or related drugs in the same series use the Sandoz developmental code name for the article title rather than a chemical name, includingLAE-32,ALA-10,MLA-74,LME-54,ALD-52,LBB-66,LPD-824,MPD-75, andLSM-775. The articles in this area should follow the same naming scheme for consistency. Some exceptions includeLSD (LSD-25) andergine (LA-111), which are reasonable cases due to these compounds having other far-better-known names. Thank you. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)23:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –1-Methylamino-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)propane →M-ALPHAM-ALPHA – The common name of this drug is "M-ALPHA" and is what it's almost always referred to as in the scientific literature and elsewhere. This term seems to be primarily associated with this drug in terms of notable subjects, although it's a little hard to tell because of a large number of mis-hits in search results. There is in any case no other "M-ALPHA" page or disambiguation page on Wikipedia. Citing Wiki policies for the move proposal includingWP:OCHEMNAME,WP:COMMONNAME, andWP:CONCISE. That is, the common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies and the new title is much more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. Note that this name isnot an acronym, but a code name, soWP:ACROTITLE does not apply in this case (but would nonetheless support the move proposal as far as I can see). The name was coined byAlexander Shulgin in his books and has been used in the literature. If disambiguation is needed at any point, then "M-ALPHA (drug)" can be used instead later on. The new name would also be more consistent with the closely relatedALPHA (drug)'s page. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)23:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –2,5-Dimethoxy-4-trifluoromethylamphetamine →DOTFMDOTFM – The common name of the drug is "DOTFM" and is what it's almost always referred to as in the scientific literature and elsewhere. This term is largely or exclusively associated with this drug. Citing Wiki policies for the move proposal includingWP:OCHEMNAME,WP:COMMONNAME,WP:ACROTITLE, andWP:CONCISE. That is, the common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies, an acronym is fine if the acronym is primarily or exclusively associated with the topic in question, and the new title is much more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)19:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Digby and Sowton railway station →Digby & Sowton railway stationDigby & Sowton railway station – The matterhas been raised before to no consensus but I thought the reason given by the nominator inadequate. PerMOS:&, when an ampersand is in a proper name, it should be retained. The proper name of the station appears to be Digby & Sowton.Madditron points out correctly that the websites of GWR and National Rail use ampersands, but also station signage displays the ampersand as seenhere and station documentation does as seenhere. Additionally,GWR's National Rail Contract from 2022 lists Digby & Sowton with the ampersand.A Google search reveals that the only people other than us who refer to it as Digbyand Sowton are Exeter Memories, some train operators exclusively in the title of the page (my best theory is that they use the same software, which prunes text before putting it in the title) and a small amount ofWP:UGC. I'm not exactly sure what documentation definitively lists names of stations or if such documentation exists, but it seemsso incredibly likely that Digby & Sowton is its proper name thatMOS:& should be applied to it.Coleisforeditor (talk)16:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Great Hanshin earthquake →Great Hanshin EarthquakeGreat Hanshin Earthquake – There is a problem with the current title of this article. On Wikipedia, we capitalise proper names perWP:NCCAPS andMOS:CAPS. This title is obviously a proper name; as for why, Wikipedia would not use 'great' in its own voice except as part of a proper name, perWP:POVTITLE. The present title gives the reader the strange impression that there is such a place as 'Great Hanshin', when in reality, 'great' should be modifying 'earthquake'. Now, if one takes a lookat Ngrams, one will see that the capitalised form is the most common in RS, but as for whether it meets the threshold of 'significant majority' set byMOS:CAPS, I am not too sure. If we don't want to upcase, the alternative is to use aWP:NDESC title like 'Hanshin earthquake'. Either way, the present arrangement is strange to say the least, and should be changed one way or the other. Seethe recent RM atGreat Kantō Earthquake for a similar case.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎09:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Ben Dawkins →Aussie Trump – Aussie Trump appears to be the primary name in the admittedly small number of sources that don't directly address the name change. AFebruary 2025 article from ABC News primarily uses the name Aussie Trump with reference to the name change, anApril 2025 article from ABC News refers only to Aussie Trump, and in regards to recent local council coverage, theHarvey-Waroona Reporter says "Aussie Trump, formerly Ben Dawkins",WAtoday uses "“Aussie” Trump, the ousted upper house MP formerly known as Ben Letts Dawkins" (and also refers to the full name of "Austin “Aussie” Trump"),ABC News uses "Aussie Trump, who was formerly known as Ben Dawkins", and theSydney Morning Herald uses ""Aussie Trump"". While some sources use Aussie in quotes, I believeWP:NAMECHANGES applies here, as the primary name in reliable sources has become Aussie Trump, rather than Ben Dawkins or Austin Trump.LivelyRatification (talk)06:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –55 Cancri b →55 Cancri Ab – These planets orbit the primary star of a binary system. In the past, just "b", "c", etc have been commonly used (as is often the case for planets in binary systems), but since the secondary star is now known to have its own planets (arXiv:2510.11523), it would make sense to use "Ab", "Ac", etc to improve clarity. See also, for example, figure 9 of the linked paper.SevenSpheres (talk)21:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Seal of Madagascar →Emblem of Madagascar – I believe this article may be erroneously called a seal as it is a circular object rather than it being its actual appropriate name. What tipped me off is that the French Wikipedia page is titled 'Emblème' rather than Sceau as the lead in the English page suggests. Sources are hard to come by which makes this move so difficult, but the sources underSeal of Madagascar#External links seem tomostly refer to it as a an emblem or coat of arms, which indicates to me that the seal is a different object and not the one which is depicted here. Ultimately however I have absolutely no clue due to how poorly documented this area appears to be.notadev (talk)21:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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) –Grok (chatbot) →Grok (xAI)Grok (xAI) – The current title is outdated and overly narrow, reflecting only the project's 2023 launch as a conversational AI on X, while failing to capture its 2025 evolution into a comprehensive multimodal platform powering xAI's ecosystem (e.g., Grok 4 reasoning engine, API integrations, Grokipedia, and Tesla/X features). PerWP:COMMONNAME, the most recognizable and precise name in reliable sources (e.g., xAI announcements, tech media) is "Grok" tied directly to its developer, xAI, emphasizing its branded identity as an xAI product rather than a generic tool. This avoids recency biasWP:RECENTISM by focusing on enduring branding over initial function, while maintaining disambiguation from Heinlein's "Grok" (primary topic at plain "Grok"). Precedent: Analogous to the recent move of "Gemini (chatbot)" to "Google Gemini" (closed Sep 17, 2025), which shifted from a functional descriptor to developer-inclusive branding for Google's AI suite, recognizing its growth beyond chat interfaces. Similar patterns include "ChatGPT" (no disambiguator needed due to primacy) and "Claude (language model)" for Anthropic's offerings, prioritizing developer association underWP:SOFTWARE. Policy Alignment: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: xAI's Grok dominates modern "Grok" searches/pageviews (surpassing the neologism since early 2025), warranting a title that reflects its notability without diluting the historical term. WP:DAB: "(xAI)" provides natural, non-descriptive disambiguation, improving accessibility (WP:AT) over the anachronistic "(chatbot)." WP:PRECISION: Ensures the title scopes to the xAI entity, accommodating expansions like Grok 5 AGI without future renames. This move enhances neutrality and usability; oppose if it risks ambiguity with other xAI tools (none currently).Ronnotel (talk)18:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Palestinian genocide accusation →Palestinian genocidePalestinian genocide – Following theextensive RFC on theGaza genocide, Wikipedia now recognizes the Gaza genocide as genocideWP:VOICE. If Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, then by extension it has committed genocide against Palestinians. Retaining the word "accusations" in the title is misleading, as it casts doubt where a broad consensus already exists among scholars, human rights organizations, and international bodies recognizing these actions as genocide. More cautious or qualified wording such as "accusations" can still be included within the body of the article when discussing genocide accusations in past conflicts, but the title itself should reflect the current state of reliable sources and scholarly consensus. Further,WP:NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to denialist or minority views. Article title should also beWP:CONCISE andWP:CONSISTENTCinaroot (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.GiantSnowman11:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Mac Wright →Mac Wright (disambiguation)Mac Wright (disambiguation) – The disambiguation page contains two links in its main section, one to the cricketer and one to the late actor and directorMack V. Wright. The latter, I understand, isn't inMOS:DABSEEALSO as the director was credited as "Mac Wright" for some of his work (IMDb lists one episode of a TV series).[1] According to Pageviews Analysis, the cricketer's page recorded more than three times as many visits as the actor's one over the last 8 years.[2] This suggests to me that someone searching for Mac Wright is far more likely to be looking for the cricketer (using a name commonly used for him) rather than for the director (using a name which is seldom associated with him), and so that taking that person to a DAB page would be unhelpful. The cricketer's article should have a hatnote to the director after this change so someone who entered the wrong term would only be one link from the right page. Neither page would need a link to the DAB page, but I'd keep the one atWright.
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) –Manukau →Manukau CentralManukau Central – I don't believe this area is primary for the term 'Manukau', it gets about equal page views asManukau City and 4% of readers click through to Manukau City (most readers get here via external Google search I suggest that a disambiguation page be created atManukau as I do not believe there is a primary topic. The area is often referred to asManukau Central orManukau City Centre instead of simply 'Manukau', which is often used for the former Manukau City area.Traumnovelle (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk10:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Shetland dialect →ShaetlanShaetlan – As of yesterday, Shaetlan hasreceived an ISO 639:3 code (scz) with the name spelled Shaetlan, which is the autonym of the language. "Shetland Dialect" is now inappropriate for the title of this article when it is considered a language in its own right. The term "Shetland Dialect", while widely used locally, is an exonym, and is now inaccurate. The reason for the spelling "Shaetlan" over "Shetland" istwo three-fold - 1) it accurately portrays a large portion of speakers' tendency to pronounce the word with a voiceless /d/, 2) the <ae> reflects the intuitive community spelling convention of primary stress short intercononantal vowel, cf.maet, paet, etc. which haes the same vowel as the first syllable ofShaetlan, & 3) it keeps the language name and place name easily distinguishable when written. This is the styleI Hear Dee has adopted while trying to create a standardised orthography for the language. As perWikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), because of the use of Shaetlan being exclusive to the language, it would qualify as "unquestionably the primary topic for the name", so "Shaetlan language" seems unnecessary. As perWikipedia:Article titles, Shaetlan is more precise and more concise, and it is more natural to native Shaetlan speakers as an autonym vs an exonym. This admittedly at the cost of being slightly less recognisable outside of Shetland, however Shaetlan is slowly becoming the new standard name for this language in linguistics circles. I think this is the best compromise here. After this name change, I intend to do a bit of an overhaul of this article to set the record straight on languagehood and a number of other inaccuracies. For full disclosure, I am one of the first few signatories to the ISO code change request application. I am a project co-investigator at I Hear Dee. I am also the person who requested this article be renamed last time! A lot has changed in the last 5 years in the Shetland linguistic scene - at the time I made the last request, the name change was a vast improvement over the previous name, but now is an appropriate time to move on. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️)21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Anabaptist settler colonialism →History of Anabaptist migration – The current title feels odd and doesn’t really line up with how similar community histories are named. Other migrant groups who formed non-sovereign enclaves abroad (like Italian or German "colonies" in Latin America) aren’t described in this way, so calling this one "Anabaptist settler colonialism" is inconsistent and potentially misleading. A title likeHistory of Anabaptist migration is clearer, more neutral, and better aligned withWP:CONSISTENT.eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –HD 88206 →Q Velorum – This page was moved based on the assertion that uppercase Latin Bayer designations are more commonly used than lowercase ones, referring toTalk:D Centauri#Requested move 30 April 2023. I don't think that's the case - the lowercaseb Centauri is commonly known by that name, and some of the uppercase letters in the linked discussion are not Bayer designations butvariable star designations. For Q/q Velorum, inADS I see some uses of both the Bayer and HD designations for both stars; there seems to be more published about the lowercase one (HD 88955), while the uppercase one seems little-studied. More importantly, this move has left behind the Q/q Velorum set index page at the titleHD 88206, which is wrong. If the move isn't reverted, that title should be redirected toQ Velorum; the hatnote serves the same purpose as the set index.SevenSpheres (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk10:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine →Russian invasion of UkraineRussian invasion of Ukraine – In 2023, the article2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine(which isnot this article) was moved toRussian invasion of Ukraine as a result of two consecutive RMs, foundhere andhere. The RMs determined that the invasion that began in 2022 is theprimary topic of the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", since no other invasion is nearly as notable and no other article on Wikipedia has anactual title conflict with "Russian invasion of Ukraine", and thus the year is neither a necessaryidentifier normeans of disambiguation. However, editors could not agree on whether the invasion ended in 2022 or remained ongoing, so the RM's outcome sidestepped this question. Last week, a new RM, foundhere, resulted in the article moving toRusso-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as a subtopic of the parent articleRusso-Ukrainian War (notice the inconsistent capitalization), which covers events from 2014 to the present. This RM found new consensus that the invasion had, in fact, ended in 2022, and that it is therefore inaccurate to describe the events post-2022 as an "invasion", but rather a stage of the war that began in 2014. This article was subsequently created to solely cover the events of 2022, usurping the redirect2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. But this is problematic. The 2023 RM had already found consensus that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", making the year superfluous. When another editor attempted to BOLDly move this article toRussian invasion of Ukraine, it was reverted on the grounds that it should be discussed first. Some editors argued that the 2023 RM had been nullified by the most recent RM because only the 2022–present events had been found to be the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", not the 2022 events. This is, of course, in spite of the new consensus that concluded only the latter can be characterized as an "invasion", not the former. This discussion can be foundhere. This post-close squabble has also led to an edit war at theRussian invasion of UkraineRussian invasion of Ukraine redirect, which has gone back-and-forth betweenRusso-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, neither target makes sense, because redirecting to the former does not align with the new consensus that the war is not an "invasion", while redirecting to the latter would acknowledge it as the primary topic and make "2022" anunnecessary disambiguation. Consequently, the only viable solution to resolve this mess is to repeat what was done in 2023, for largely the same reasons: move2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine toRussian invasion of Ukraine.
