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 canrequest a technical move below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
If this 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.
X Window selection→X selection(move·discuss) – The X Window System is a window system named X. Sometimes the name is incorrectly parsed as a system named "X Window", which seems to have happened here. See e.g. theUser's Guide which begins (in "Part One: Using X"): "The X Window System, called X for short, is a network-based graphics window system [...]".Airopadier (talk)20:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If ambiguity is a concern, rename it to "X Window System authorization". But "X authorization" is consistent withX resources, for example. There is also already a redirect fromX selection to (incorrect)X Window selection. "X" is the common name for the X Window System – see for example this very article which talks about "X clients", "X servers", "the X display server" and "the X Session Management Protocol".Airopadier (talk)22:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This could probably be resolved by moving everything without redirect except WFNS (AM), asWMXG can just beWP:MOR'd instead of any round-robins having to occur. Though this relies on all moves being done and no issues with any of the others.Tenshi! (Talk page)20:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: Could I ask why you've moved these requests to contested again? You haven't provided a reason after I uncontested it the first time and someone else did it again after that, which you've now reversed again.Tenshi! (Talk page)18:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, this is messy and involves several primary topic swaps.
I would agree for run of the mill requests, though it was contested originallyby Asukite after I asked about sources, which they did provide above. Are you requiring this set of moves to go to RM solely because it was moved to the contested section?Tenshi! (Talk page)18:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want it to go to RM because it involves several primary topic swaps and honestly needs a much clearer rationale and explanation than what has been provided so far.162 etc. (talk)19:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deathcamp (song)→DeathcampDeathcamp (currently a redirectinstead toExtermination camp)(move·discuss) – The song here should occupy the base name, not be subordinate to a redirect that represents a typo. "Deathcamp" without a space is purely a typo for the other topic,extermination camp –a plausible typo, not an implausible typo (so not eligible for deletion), but a typo nonetheless. In the context, a topic that uses the term in a fashion that is not merely as a potential search term error clearly takes precedence.Iskandar323 (talk)13:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio: It's not a plausible spelling fordeath camp; no one spells it without a space. It could only possibly be an abject typo, which it is not for the proposed target; it is the exact base name. The only function of the current arrangement is to force the pageextermination camp to host a hatnote explaining that this implausible spelling directs to it and redirecting readers to the error-free target.Iskandar323 (talk)15:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was located there in 2012 but only lasted a month and has been stable at the longer title since then (aside from a change to the disambiguation). Not opposed, but inclined to think an RM would be better here.CNC (talk)10:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the disambiguated entities in that category use(district) so I think an RM on all of them would be advisable to settle the matter. — Amakuru (talk)19:28, 15 December 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 16 December 2025" and sign the post for you.
There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:
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) –PLA →PLA (disambiguation)PLA (disambiguation) – Proposing that the current page PLA be moved to a disambiguation page and thatPeople's Liberation Army becomes theWP:PRIMARY topic. The People's Liberation Army is one of the institutions that is very commonly referred to by just its abbreviation (similar to FBI, CIA and CCP and so on). The only other possible major article that commonly uses PLA as an abbreviation, polylactic acid,consistently gets less page views than the army, and feels to much of a niche topic compared to the other PLA. Readers searching the more technical chemical term would more likely to search it by its full name anyways.The Account 2 (talk)07:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Specialty registrar →Registrar (medicine) – PThe current name of this article only refers to the post-MMC StR grade, despite also covering the pre-MMC SpR grade following the merger of that article into this one. It also refers only to the term in the UK context, despite the fact that the position of Registrar is used in health systems in multiple other nations, especially those in the Commonwealth, which could be considered aWP:NPOV violation on the grounds of ethnocentric bias. A move to the more generic title of Registrar (medicine), in common with theConsultant (medicine) article would be easier and more intuitive to search (considering many people call all manifestations of the grade just "registrar" anyway,WP:COMMONNAME), open the article up to cover the use of the term in the global context, and better represent the existing content of the article. The article could then go on to discuss the StR and SpR grades.Dan :] (talk)05:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Kidnapping of Noa Argamani →Noa ArgamaniNoa Argamani – This request had been made before on June 10th, 2024, and was opposed. However, since then, she has become a prominent advocate (to the extent of making the Times 100 Most Influential List in 2025). Given her notability as an advocate (with her post-rescue activities section being the longest section in this article), this article is more about Noa Argamani than her abduction, and the title can be changed to reflect as such.EaglesFan37 (talk)21:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Black belt (martial arts) →Black beltBlack belt – This would revert an undiscussed move of 2005 (performed without an edit summary by an editor who I will notify). "Black belt" currently redirects to a disambiguation page atBlack Belt, where the other topics generally use uppercase for "belt" and would typically also use extra words or special context for clarity in writing or conversation. The ordinary native English speaker would expect the term "black belt", by itself with lowercase for "belt", to be the belt/rank/rating level in martial arts. I don't think pageviews tell the whole story here (because of uppercase/lowercase and other factors), buthere they are for what they're worth.Wikinav data for the disambiguation page is more mixed, but again I point out that this mixes together uppercase and lowercase uses of "belt". The martial arts meaning is theonly meaning provided in the Cambridge dictionary. Collins provides other meanings but explicitly only for when "belt" is capitalized. Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Wiktionary provide secondary meanings for geographical and ethnographic regions (the details for Oxford are paywalled). All dictionaries agree that the primary meaning has to do with martial arts (referring to the physical object, the practitioner who wears it, or the associated level of skill. — BarrelProof (talk)18:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –2024 Alaska Measure 2 →2024 Alaska Ballot Measure 22024 Alaska Ballot Measure 2 – Recently moved to this title, but it's not the common nameor the official name.[7] I've found plain "measure 2" in a few sources so far, mostly passing mentions in national papers that were focused on issues outside Alaska[8][9][10] (though the last one then calls it "Ballot Measure 2", and none exactly provide that much in depth coverage), but Ballot Measure 2 is use in the vast majority of others, especially those actually discussing the ballot measure and its impacts:[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20](And it's what it's called locally - Ballot Measure 2. This may be anecdotal, but please trust me, I must have sat through at least 50 hours of ads on this last year!)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸11:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. →Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery – Proposing to address whether this potentially controversial move would be a feasible alternative. This article was initially created as "Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix" based on Netflix's bid to acquireWarner Bros.'s studios and streaming assets part ofWarner Bros. Discovery. That was before Paramount Skydance launched its hostile takeover bid. Now that there is no clear winning bidder, including either name in the title would beWP:CRYSTAL and notWP:CONCISE. However, the present title may be confusing and/or misleading because the bids propose acquiring assets not necessarily exclusively part of Warner Bros., as addressed in arguments inthis discussion, which have called for this move. Either bid proposes purchasing assets from the company, with Netflix's bid offering to complete a spin-off of select assets before such an acquisition closes, so each bid is still for the entire company as it stands officially. There have also been earlier historic acquisition proposals of Warner Bros., so it could be disingenuous not to use the full company name, perWP:RECENTISM. Because other recent moves have been carried out in haste, I am seeking a formal determination.—Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss ·contribs)04:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette →Marquis de LafayetteMarquis de Lafayette – This is by far theWP:COMMONNAME for the Marquis. WhileWP:NCPEER normally suggests titling the article "Personal name, peerage name", there are a couple of strong reasons to not follow that norm here. The first is that NCPEER also says that there is an exception to this rule "when one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", which is true in this case.Marquis de Lafayette already redirects here, and the only competitor we have would be his fatherMichel du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette, who is much much less important. This change would match the article with a number of others, includingLord Byron, theMarquis de Condorcet,Lord Mountbatten, theMarquis de Custine,Lord Kelvin, and theMarquis de Sade. The second reason is that this article is written in American English, as the subject hasstrong national ties to the United States. That's the reason we use the American spelling "Lafayette" in the article and not the standard French spelling "La Fayette". In the United States, the use of "Gilbert du Motier" is incredibly obscure; as you can seehere, "Marquis de Lafayette" is about ten times more common in books, and this is including sources that just mention "Gilbert du Motier" and then proceed with "Marquis de Lafayette". In fact, the name is so sufficiently obscure that including it in the title harms searching, as Lafayette does not show up at all when you type "Marquis" into the search bar, when it should probably be either right before or right afterMarquis de Sade. "Marquis de Lafayette" is effectively treated as his full name in nearly all cases, and most are unaware that he has another name at all.Ladtrack (talk)00:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Salomon II →Salomon II of EthiopiaSalomon II of Ethiopia – Since 'Salomon' and 'Solomon' are just English spelling variants of the same name, distinguish the Georgian from Ethiopian monarchs by spelling is artificial. It is easy to find sources for Ethiopian history preferring 'Solomon' and for Georgian history 'Salomon'. I am not, however, suggesting to change the spellings. 'Ethiopia' and 'Imereti' are the disambiguators these articles formerly had. I am also proposing to move the dab page atSalomon I toSolomon I for consistency with the dab pageSolomon III. A new dab should be created atSolomon II. Note that there is also a sequence of (notable) bishops of Constance called Solomon I, II and III and there may be others.Srnec (talk)20:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –-ade (suffix) →-ade-ade – Wikipedia does not describe anything else called exactly "-ade", and indeed-ade-ade redirects to this article, making itWP:MISPLACED at the current title. There were a few moves several years ago, including one that added the disambiguator "(drink suffix)", but that would only make sense if the general suffix (e.g. in "blockade") were likely to get its own separate article.jlwoodwa (talk)19:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Yoshimi P-We →YoshimiO – This name seems to be the name that Yoshimi has used most frequently, and the one that she's currently seems to primarily use. From release credits, she hasn't seemed to have used the "P-We" moniker prominently since the early 2000s.[1] Since then, the YoshimiO moniker seems more prominent, with it being used on her social media[2], on the biography pages of bands she's in[3], recent release credits[4], in the band name YoshimiOizumikiYoshiduO (YoshimiO Izumi Kiyoshi Duo), and in articles referencing her.[5] To me, this heavily suggests it is the name she is most frequently referred to, and known by.JellyfishReflector (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)JellyfishReflector (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)17:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –25 Words or Less →25 Words or Less (board game) – Page views, inbound links, and Google hits suggest that far more people know "25 Words or Less" as a game show than a board game. Because of this, I think the primary topic of "25 Words or Less" should be switched to the game show, with the board game instead having the disambiguation. The only participant in the last RM seemed to misconstrue what was being asked for, and no one else participated after two relists, so I am trying this again with hopefully a clearer rationale. Courtesy ping for@Sammi Brie:,@Magitroopa:,@Bcschneider53:.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)17:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Castle Point →Borough of Castle Point – No clear primary topic, the district has 510 views but the constituency has 577, the Missouri one has 87, the New York has 61, the New Jersey one has 4, the Shopping Centre has 170 and the Anime Convention has 70. I'm less sure about the move of 1 word but given the settlement was at "Castle Point" on Commons until I moved it suggests they are interchangable.Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio13:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Apt. (song) →APT. (song)APT. (song) – The song title is essentially an acronym, so perMOS:ACRONYM we should title it as such. "Apt." in English is an abbreviation for "apartment", yes, but the title actually comes from theKonglish "아파트" which is essentially pronouncing the word Ah-pah-teu, as if it were an acronym. It is not pronounced "apt", soaptly we should move it. Also, most coverage refers to it in all caps[36][37][38][39][40] and in the song itself the letters are chanted out.orangesclub🍊20:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Anedjib →AdjibAdjib – Within this article, Anedjib is referred to only as Adjib, with the exception of the first paragraph and the gallery, the former of which claims that the more correct version of his name is Adjib. Additionally, the royal titulary section has his name listed as ˁḏ-jb (Adj-jb) with no "n" in sight. The name of the article should match the name used within the article.Veristune (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)18:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Frederica of Hanover →Frederica of GreeceFrederica of Greece – She was Frederica of Hanover, until she married King Paul of Greece and she became (Queen) Frederica of Greece short for Frederica Queen Consort of the Hellenes. When her husband died she gained the title of Queen Mother of the Hellenes as the mother of King Constantine II of Greece. Thus, she needs to be named by her last and highest title defined by law: Frederica of Greece, the title displayed on her tomb. Also, the most recent Greek Queen is named Anne-Marie of Greece and not Anne-Marie of Denmark, and her sister-in-law, Queen Sofia of Spain, is named Sofia of Spain, and not Sofia of Greece. That is even more clear in Frederica's case, in which Frederica was Princess only for one year of her life! Thus, when she married into Greek monarchy 20 years later, she wasn't even a princess - legally by the Weimar Republic! To conclude, the judgments are backed by clear evidence, first of all that the only inscription on her tomb is Frederica - Queen of the Hellenes. Also to address your claim about maiden names of consorts, the Greek Constitution (both 1911 and 1952 versions) did not use the term consort. And royal decree and international recognition, the king’s wife was styled as “Queen of the Hellenes” not Queen consort. The evidence is clear and points to Frederica of Greece. Lastly, using n grams and using different POVs, we can see that the name Frederica of Greece is more dominant in American and British English. Also, there is another Frederica of Hanover, Princess Frederica of Hanover. Thus, Frederica of Greece competes with both the Princess and Queen, still it remains higher. In conclusion, the name of Her Late Majesty is: Frederica of Greece.Walterfgnn (talk)14:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Sydney RiverCat →RiverCatRiverCat – I don't see why the city name needs to be included in the title considering that "RiverCat" is not a title used by any other Wikipedia article. The disambiguation part of the title makes it unnecessarily difficult to search for this type of ferry. For these reasons, the title goes againstWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Qwerty123M (talk)13:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Hippophae rhamnoides →Sea buckthornSea buckthorn – "Sea buckthorn" is the common English name for the species, not the genus. It is overwhelmingly used to refer toHippophae rhamnoides and readers should be directed to the species page as theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC – apageviews analysis on traffic to all four species with extant pages is extremely illuminating on this.Academic research is also clear on this, and so are horticultural bodies such as theRHS. PerWP:NCFLORA, we use common nameswhen a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural role, and the sea buckthorn is widely cultivated for commercial agricultural purposes – hence the derivative page onsea buckthorn oil. The raw fruit is also widely used to brew a tea (technically tisane) across Eurasian cultures.Iskandar323 (talk)08:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –List of biggest box-office bombs →List of films with the largest box office losses – The term "box-office bomb" is potentially contentious and not always used when discussing films that lose on budget. Whereas the criteria for inclusion here is more appropriately defined by just looking at the size of the box office loss and thus far less contentious (eg the case like for a critically acclaimed film like the Wolfman above). This also makes it easier for links back into this page, as unless there is sourcing that calls it a "box office bomb", using the current name can be an issue. The lede should still discuss what a box office bomb is (eg that most films on this are considered as such). Note that any other title suggestions similar to my suggested one is fair. I'm using "largest" over "biggest" since the loss of money is a quantifiable aspect.Masem (t)19:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Russo-Ukrainian war -"while unmarked Russian troops occupied Crimea"..."The International Criminal Court (ICC) judged that the war was both a national and international armed conflict involving Russia, and the European Court of Human Rights judged that Russia controlled the DPR and LPR from 2014 onward." War in Donbas -"Russian paramilitaries seized several towns"..."Covertly, Russia's military were directly involved" Russian annexation of Crimea -"Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it"..."On 27 February, Russian special forces without insignia seized strategic sites across Crimea. Russia at first denied involvement, but Putin later admitted that they were Russian troops."
(Discuss) –OKD →OKD (company)OKD (company) – This is a three-letter acronym also used in a wide variety of fields of endeavor, and this mining company does not appear to be theprimary topic for it. PerWP:DPT, we can for example look at: *All-time monthly page views comparison between the top two meanings shows that it's unlikely that the average English reader strongly associates this term with the company, when the readership of the article about this and other software is 50 times larger (!) than the readership of the article about the latter *Google Books Ngrams for this and related terms indicate the company is occasionally mentioned, but there's no clear indication that it's the most commonly known topic, let alone more common than all others combined * With a Google Books search for OKD, in the first 10 results I only get 1 that mentions the company, 2 that mention the software, and 7 others I already disambiguated a handful of incoming links and disambiguated it, but the move was then reverted as "potentially controversial". I don't quite see the controversy, but let's have a formal discussion just in case. The other 'issue' was that the OKD software doesn't have a standalone article, but that's not relevant as it meets the standard ofWP:DABMENTION. All in all, when even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic, I don't think there can be a genuine discussion about there being a primary topic by usage. With regard to long-term significance, I don't think there can be any substantial advantage for a nationally-known company that is not active in the English-speaking parts of the world, when compared to internationally-known software in English usage. Even if it is technically 10 times older, both are generally recent. Plus the language and the airport in other parts of the world, too. This acronym is simply ambiguous, and we should not risksurprising English readers by presenting them a false lack of ambiguity.Joy (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio13:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –SR1 →Spelling Reform 1 – Propose moving this article toSpelling Reform 1. Firstly, there are many things titled SR1, causing confusion (evenSr1 redirects toVR Class Sr1). Secondly, the proposal is near-forgotten these days, so titling it with the extended name would make more sense (the article would be more discoverable and self-descriptive). I do not believeWP:COMMONNAME makes an explicit determination here, seeing as both names are used for the proposal. Articles likeSchutzstaffel for the SS orFederal Bureau of Investigation for the FBI show that this move is acceptable in Wikipedia policy, where the expanded and more descriptive name takes precedence.Newbzy (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio13:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Lakes of Titan →Lakes and rivers of Titan – The notable subject here is liquid bodies on Titan's surface created by its hydrological cycle. Titan's lakes depend on its rivers and its rivers feed into its lakes. The infobox at the end of this article already groups Rivers into the "Lakes and seas" section and there are external sources likeWIRED andSpace.com that talk about Titan's lakes and rivers in the same article. This article already talks about "dark drainage channels" that Huygens saw, "the formation of Titan's river deltas", "Some appear to have channels associated with liquid and lie in topographical depressions", "Channels in some regions have created surprisingly little erosion, suggesting erosion on Titan is extremely slow, or some other recent phenomena may have wiped out older riverbeds and landforms". After the move, more information on the rivers can be added here as well as a list of rivers that could link to other articles likeSaraswati Flumen.Vid Flumina is already linked by this article but in the description of an image thumbnail.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk)07:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Freedom of political communication →Implied freedom of political communicationImplied freedom of political communication – Currently, the title sounds like this convention could apply to any worldwide jurisdiction but is only applicable toAustralia's Constitution which makes it unclear. I think this proposal is a more suitable title for an article of this sort because it is whatreliable sources refer to the precedent as. When I search "Freedom of political communication", most of the results I get say "implied" in them which tells me that an implication is a very important part of this constitutional understanding. As stated inWP:UCRN, we should work off what reliable sources state the subject's name is recognised as most commonly. I would also suggest using the title "Implied right to political communication" but more sources seem to state in their heading a "freedom" rather than a "right".Qwerty123M (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Thanks,1isall (he/him) (talk |contribs)02:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Stephen Marshall (murderer) →Killings of William Elliott and Joseph Gray – Person notable for only one event. As explained inWP:BIO1E, "[t]he general rule is to cover the event, not the person" in a case such as this. It rarely happens that the extraordinary political, social or historical nature of an event can make a single person merit their own page (Crooks,Chauvin,Guiteau), but the event in question here has no more relevance than any other notable true-crime cases that we usually cover on Wikipedia (maybe even less, since this one doesn't even meetWP:SUSTAINED). I see nothing out of the ordinary here that would lead us to go against conventional standards and give this person an individual article that, in this case, overshadows the event itself.V. S. Video (talk)17:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Dhan Singh →Dhan Singh GurjarDhan Singh Gurjar – The current title “Dhan Singh” is incomplete and potentially misleading. The commonly used and legally attested full name is “Dhan Singh Gurjar.” The name “Dhan Singh Gurjar” appears in multiple reliable sources and is the correct full form of the historical figure's name. * Misspellings and variations such as “Dhan Singh” and “Dhan Singh Gurjar” exist, but the fuller and more accurate title is supported by usage. * Additional source for the correct full name (commonly and legally used):https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2801047Aryansh Jindhad (talk)16:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy →Samantha Fulnecky essay dispute – I propose renaming the page toSamantha Fulnecky essay dispute because it more accurately and neutrally reflects what reliable sources describe. The core issue is a disagreement between the student and instructor over the essay, not a broad scandal or major public controversy. PerWP:AT titles should be neutral and non editorial, and should reflect the actual scope of the topic. Because this involves a living person,WP:BLP requires conservative, factual wording and advises avoiding sensational framing. The description "controversy" is discouraged underWP:WORDS as a vague and value laden term. "Dispute" is a more neutral descriptor and aligns better with the proportional treatment required underWP:NPOV. Dispute is also a neutral term used by the media.[57][58][59][60][61] I also think it is important to note that the dispute is between the student and the instructor and is not one sided so consideration for2025 University of Oklahoma Essay Dispute should also be considered. Note: This article is currently under discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy. This RM focuses only on the appropriate title if the article is kept. For these reasons, the proposed title provides a clearer and more policy compliant framing.Docmoates (talk)13:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Online Safety Amendment →Australian social media banAustralian social media ban – The current title is unsatisfactory for several reasons – it is not the common name or the official name, and I can find very few sources that talk about the "Online Safety Amendment" without mentioning the full name of the act. The article is also now about much more than just the enabling legislation but about the wider implementation of the ban through regulations and the resulting reaction. I think "[Australian] social media ban" is pretty clearly the common name, domestic[62][63][64] and international sources[65][66] don't seem to refer to it as anything else.ITBF📢 23:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio13:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Romanization of Serbian → ? – Serbian hasn't had to beromanized for over a century now, and this article largely doesn't actually describe the time periods when it did; rather, most of it is about the more recent times when it's been digraphic. The title should reflect that reality (the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe). What's a better title for it - maybeSerbian use of Latin,Digraphia in Serbian, or something else? I tried to get to the bottom of this a few years back in#Article title and scope, but we didn't make progress at the time, possibly also because of an oversized influence of an editor who got indefinitely blocked in the meantime. Here's hoping this discussion doesn't get disrupted.Joy (talk)13:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Heterochromia iridum →HeterochromiaHeterochromia – The article states that "heterochromia iridum" is specifically when one has one eye of one color, and another eye of another color, while "heterochromia iridis" is when one eye has two colors (also called "partial heterochromia"). While the former seemingly takes up a lot of the article, it also seems to cover the latter, as well as mentioning that "heterochromia" can also affect the skin and hair.★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk10:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Parliamentary procedure →Legislative procedureLegislative procedure –Parliament, a congress-type legislature, and asupreme state organ of power are not the same. A parliament, if we are strict here, implies thefusion of power and exists within aparliamentary system. A congress-type legislature (an article we are currently missing) exists withinpresidential system and is organised on theseparation of powers. Asupreme state organ of power exists incommunist states and is based onunified power. However, they all have their distinct procedures. A distinct article on parliamentary procedure should and could be created, but this article about legislative procedure more generally in all states, whether they practice the fusion of powers, the separation of powers or unified power. The article title should reflect that. I have a distinct feeling someone will say; not all parliaments are based on the fusion of powers. That is true, in some African states that originally practiced a parliamentary system (with the British monarch as their monarch) have instituted separation of power systems, or that some refer to their legislature as parliament. Therefore, one confusingly has a term that can entail everything and one specific thing (parliamentary fusion of power systems). However, legislature, uncontroversially, encompasses a parliament, a congress-type legislature, a supreme state organ of power or any other form of legislative body. That is uncontroversial. So let's pick a name that is both accessible and most correct.TheUzbek (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk10:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Peg o' My Heart →Peg o' My Heart (song) – Doubtful this song qualifies as the primary topic of all using the same name. Also, the title is based on the play of the same name, which was released one year before the song, now havingits own article since last year, and may not qualify as primary topic either. Thepageviews stats show the song as the most viewed, but the amount is too small to make me consider the song more popular than any other, especially the original play itself. I hope the viewership numbers shown inWikiNav must've been inflated, but I can stand corrected on that. Also, I'm also concerned about the song's historical significance in comparison to the play's.George Ho (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk10:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –London Journal →London Journal (Boswell) – There was arecent RM about the same issue, in which the conclusion wasno consensus, but it left the basic problem unresolved. In fact, everyone seemed to agree that the article should be renamed. Disambiguation fromThe London Journal is desirable. The suggested title variations had only minor differences, and we just hadn't settled on the exact selection yet. If there was some itch to close the discussion, aWP:BARTENDER close would have sufficed. But the person who closed the RM never responded to theinquiry about it on their user talk page, so I'm reopening RM discussion with a specific suggestion. My current understanding is that the surname is sufficient perWP:NCBOOKS. — BarrelProof (talk)05:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Muslim conquest of Armenia →Arab invasion of ArmeniaArab invasion of Armenia – The current title doesn't followWP:NPOV with respect to scholarship on the topic, which eschews the language of "Muslim conquest" in favour of "Arab invasion/conquest". This is clear from theNgram, which producss nothing for the current title, and from the RS that support the page, which reference in turn:"The Arab Period in Arminiyah" (Dadoyan),"The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni" (Nina), and"The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia" (Ter-Ghewondyan). The sourcing (andWP:NPOV) doesn't really support an alternative to "Arab invasion/conquest", with "invasion" seemingly having the slightly greater RS profile of the two.Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.–LuniZunie(talk)05:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Soul on Fire →Soul on Fire (album) – The albumSoul on Fire has a daily average pageview of just 3 this year so far, peaking at 35 only because of the film article atSoul on Fire (film). That film came out in early October, and a couple of months later, it still has hundreds of pageviews daily, so it should be the primary topic now. The pageviews for the year can be seenhere, and the last 20 days can be seenhere, showing the film having a daily average of 540 vs. the album's average of 3. As mentioned in the discussion above, the very similar 2011 filmSoul Surfer (film) still has hundreds of pageviews in the past 20 days, also seenhere. So it's highly likely the filmSoul on Fire will be primary due to readers much more likely to seek that out than any other topic. Only one other topic is called "Soul on Fire",Soul on Fire (EP), which also has very low traffic. There are other non-article items atSoul on Fire (disambiguation).Erik (talk | contrib)16:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies →House of Bourbon – Two Sicilies – orHouse of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies. The hyphen seems grammatically incorrect. An unspaced en dash would also not be correct, as this is not expressing a "between" relationship, but rather a context of this being a branch of the House of Bourbon that is fromthe Two Sicilies. I also see the suggested alternative with "of the" in some cited sources. I also found "House of Bourbon Two Sicilies" (with a space and no punctuation) in some sources, but that doesn't seem correct either. Some constructions seem to imply a House that is of a place or lineage called "Bourbon Two Sicilies", but this is not about "Bourbon Two Sicilies" or "Bourbon-Two" Sicilies. It is about a House of Bourbon inthe Two Sicilies. There are also 22 other Wikipedia articles that have "House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" somewhere in their titles that should presumably be moved too, but I thought I would just start with the main topic's article title and then worry about the others. I took a look, and the 23 articles seem to generally have almost no English-language sources. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)04:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Spouse or partner of the prime minister of Australia →Spouse of the prime minister of AustraliaSpouse of the prime minister of Australia – The current title sounds awkward by including two relationship statuses and is not relevant to the current prime minister. It is not consistent with other international articles such asSpouse of the prime minister of Canada orSpouse of the prime minister of the United Kingdom and is not consistent with our vice-regal position available atSpouse of the governor-general of Australia. I think the title of this page may have once been changed without discussion but I don't know where that edit can be found. I anticipate this topic could come up for discussion again if we get another unmarried prime minister in the future, but I don't think this page should be renamed in that case because the couple would eventually get married; all that's necessary in that case would be some reliable sourced additions to the article explaining that prime minister's relationship status. Alternatively, we could use the title "Partner of the prime minister of Australia" if this article should be inclusive of unmarried PMs; that said I do think it is awkward to use a different word than the international precedent in this title.Qwerty123M (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC). Updated at 01:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk)19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –List of Barbie films →Barbie (film series)Barbie (film series) – In as much as the coverage of Barbie media here on Wikipedia began with the "Barbie film series" title (which was then moved to this already-taken title in line withWP:NCF), I'm proposing this article take this title again. Since my account creation, I andBianca Anne Martins have shaped the Barbie media information structures between new and existing titles (including these at the heart of this RM), which then evolved to what they are today, but there's more! About half of the films/movies which don't have notable articles here have been redirected here with a few in-universe plotlines. Also, since there's alreadyBarbie (media franchise) andList of Barbie's friends and family covering the other broader aspects of this toipc and the current state of the page, it seems that the time is now right to change this article's title to reflect that evolution (which is still ongoing, by the way)!!Intrisit (talk)11:22, 9 December 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) –Pattullo Bridge replacement → ? – The Government of British Columbia officially unveiled the official Indigenous name "Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" and the official English name "Riverview Bridge" at a press conference. The current title no longer reflects the established official naming. Admin assistance is required due to the blacklist.Efuture2 (talk)23:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –KEXP-FM →KEXPKEXP – TheWP:COMMONNAME for this station/organizationisobviously "KEXP" without the "-FM" suffix. TheWikipedia:Article titles policy would support to using "KEXP".WP:RADIONAMING is a Wikiproject home page, not a policy document. It links to the guidelineWikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), which states: :Articles in [...] the United States arealmost universally call sign-titled—that is, the title is the current call sign issued by a national regulatory authority. In these countries, all such stations are issued a call sign.There may, of course, be cases where a group of stations has a common name title. (emphasis mine) The guideline has a clear provision to allow common name article titles even in regions where call sign titles are the norm. A move to "KEXP" would use the common name title while still utilizing the shortened, more common form of the callsign. The suffix present in the official call sign is not needed for disambiguation. "KEXP" also better represents the overall parent "arts organization" described in this article that happens to run two radio stations; "KEXP-FM" and "KEXC" could exist as sub-sections in the article.PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)18:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Republican makeup" is more or less value-neutral while "Mar-A-Lago face" is lowkey insulting, inflammatory, and female body-shaming (even tho "Republican makeup" is intended to be pejorative, it's not that bad; you can certainly envision someone saying "I'm proud of my conservative dress and Republican makeup" straight-up but not "I'm proud of my Mar-A-Lago face" so much except as an asteism (rather than rejecting an insult, transforming it into a badge of honor) which is not the same thing at all).
[...] I don't care how many sources use the phrase Mar-A-Lago face. [...] If the article was primarily about the phrase (etymology etc) rather than the phenomenon that'd be different. But it's not.
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) –Fixer (person) →Fixer (journalism)Fixer (journalism) – Moving is step one of cleaning this page up, step two being the removal of large amounts of trivial content. This article as it exists currently is a clear example of aDICDEF covering three separate topics at once, only one of which appears to be notable in its own right; a "person who gets things done" is not an encyclopedic topic and we already have an article onmatch fixing. The usage in journalism is the only one that appears to have the potential for an article of its own (plenty of sources to be found —[69],[70],[71]), and this, I propose that this article be reshaped to fit that purpose. —Anonymous 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Peter's Colony →Peters ColonyPeters Colony – Most secondary sources that I have seen, including those cited in the article, refer to this area as "Peters Colony," with no apostrophe. There are some that use the form with an apostrophe, however. (See, e.g.,[72],[73], and[74]). My guess is that "Peters Colony" is probably the morecommon name. But I think there should be a discussion about what title our article should have given the inconsistency in the sources.Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)06:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Street storming →Đi bãoĐi bão – 'Street storming' is one way to translate 'đi bão', but I much more commonly hear 'go storm', 'go for a storm', 'go make a storm', 'riding the storm' and all sorts of variants of that. It would be best for the article to treat đi bão as a proper noun for a global audience and refer to it as such within the article, since there is no agreed upon English term that can be attested, especially outside of Vietnam. It is kind of like 'nhậu' - the best way to refer to it in English is also 'nhậu' since there is no agreement on an English translation that can capture its nuance.QUYE7 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk03:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –King Buppan Peak →Cerro Mudugndoe – According to the article's description, the references don't clearly show a map or visual aid for its location; however,a map from 1889 helps pinpoint the peak's exact position. Observing nearby geographical features and analyzing them through GeoNames, the peak in questionis now calledCerro Mudugndoe, with an altitude of 754 meters. No other peaks in the area reach this height, so there is 100% certainty that it is the ancient King Buppan, but with aNgäbe name, the indigenous group currently residing in the area. The name appears in Panamanian legal documents (Law 33 of 2012, page 40 of the PDF in "3. Corregimiento San Pedrito (Jiküi)".Taichi (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)18:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
