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.
Sufi whirling→Whirling dervishesWhirling dervishes (currently a redirect back toSufi whirling)(move·discuss) – The current title is bizarre as anything and totally unnatural. Ngram ahowsWhirling dervishes is an absurdly common name for this subject. I happened on this page by chance having first become extremely confused at the lack of a Whirling dervish page (there were some odd previous redirects to Mevlevi). The topic is quite painfully and awkwardly mislabelled at present, with the main image captions mentioning Whirling dervishes, and almost all the sources referencing dervishes in some capacity.Iskandar323 (talk)19:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising that the well-known history of theWhirling dervish does not have an article under that distinct title. I wonder if this situation was caused by confusion over using nouns or adjectives in article titles, whether singular or plural should be used, whether both words should be capitalized, and whether the Sufi connection should be prioritized. In addition to the articles and redirects mentioned by the requester, we also have an existing article atDervish, with the Whirling dervish described briefly with a hatnote link to the currentSufi whirling. Various redirects have proliferated in all directions. I think this situation requires more discussion than a simple request here to rename a couple of pages. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)20:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming that it was a good move, since this is the only article with the prefix "ABC1" (aside from the Australian one, of course)Z ET AC18:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this was only recently moved fromOesterreichische Nationalbank, I'm not seeing that the extant title had any particular privelege. But then again, nobody has said they support Oesterreichische Nationalbank recently either, so in the spirit ofWP:NOGOODOPTIONS, I've made the requested move. Ngrams show that Austrian National Bank > Oesterreichische National Bank > National Bank of Austria in usage, so this seems best absent any other discussion. But if there's any objection we can revert to Oesterreichische Nationalbank and start an RM from there, as the stable title. — Amakuru (talk)14:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the referenced RM, this should also go through RM for moving dab away from base name. I see the support for the move butTalk:CFF wasn't notified of the discussion so it's hardly conclusive as consensus.CNC (talk)17:23, 24 November 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 November 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) –Death of Diane Whipple → ? – PerWP:Deaths, if a death is deemed a homicide it should be titled either "murder" (if there is a murder conviction, though I've seen plenty of cases with no conviction labelled "murder") or "killing" (if there is not). In this case, Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller were prosecuted for manslaughter (for allowing their dogs to grow out of control even knowing that they were dangerous) and murder (for letting the dogs maul Whipple without trying to help her or call an ambulance). Both were convicted of manslaughter and Knoller was convicted of "implied malice murder", a verdict which was overturned on appeal a couple of times but eventually upheld. So going by WP:Deaths, this should be titled "Murder of Diane Whipple" per Knoller's murder conviction. That said, the page notes that the murder conviction was "unusual" and was based on the idea that Knoller's behaviour showed a conscious disregard for Diane Whipple's life rather than that she deliberately hurt Whipple with intent to kill as would usually be expected from a murder conviction, so I can see titling it as "murder" might be questioned; so I would have no objection to "Killing of Diane Whipple" since both defendants were also found guilty of manslaughter.--Tulzscha (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)05:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –NHK Party →Collaborative Party – The party was officially renamed in Nov 2023, over two years ago. The leadership dispute keeping the old name alive appears to be effectively ended now that the NHK Party parliamentary group is no more and Tachibana has been arrested, so it's past time we moved this to the actual name, as ja-wiki did quite some time go.Asamboi (talk)11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Princess Alexandra (born 1936) → ? – "(born 1936)" is only used when disambiguation is needed for two people sharing the same name, and occupation. There is no need for disambiguation here as the subject has a unique name. Now, since there's an issue with this title, maybe it could be moved to simply Princess Alexandra in which case the disambiguation page could be moved to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). Of course, the short description "British princess (born 1936)" would disambiguate it.Spectritus (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk12:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –James Jesus Angleton →James AngletonJames Angleton – In scholarly and popular usage, Angleton's middle name is usually omitted. This can be seen inGoogle's ngram viewer, or a glance at this very article's citations. I understand that "Jesus" is an interesting, fun name, but that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. I feel confident in stating that the majority of the *scholarly* literature on Angleton omits his middle name, and that Wikipedia, as a serious encyclopedia, should follow this convention.Theodore Christopher (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>11:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –1966 Palomares incident →1966 Palomares accident – I propose renaming this article to 1966 Palomares accident per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION and WP:CONSISTENCY. All authoritative governmental and scientific documents and the overwhelming majority of scholarly and journalistic sources use accident, not incident. Scholarship has documented the use of "incident" as a contemporary euphemism to misrepresent the seriousness of the accident. Keeping it today contradicts current terminology and presents an inaccurate description of the event. 1. According to the U.S. Department of Defense “Definitions”https://web.archive.org/web/20201030002357/https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/narp/Reference_Docs/Definitions.htm * Nuclear Weapon Accident (Broken Arrow): an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that results in any of the following: accidental launching; loss or destruction; non-nuclear detonation; or public hazard, actual or implied. * Nuclear Weapon Incident: an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that does not meet the above criteria. The 1966 Palomares B-52 crash meets the Nuclear Weapon Accident definition criteria and appears in U.S. military literature as a canonical Broken Arrow case. 2. Authoritative sources invariably refer to the event as an "accident": * USAF Nuclear Safety (1966), *Broken Arrow. Palomares, Spain*https://web.archive.org/web/20090327090414/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/133.pdf * U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency (1975), Palomares Summary Report, *Section 1: The Accident*https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16478624.pdf * U.S. DOE (1985), *Nuclear Accidents at Palomares, Spain in 1966 and Thule, Greenland in 1968*https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb475/docs/doc%207.pdf * CIEMAT and Spanish governmental scientific literature consistently use *accidente de Palomares*. 3. Beyond contradicting official definitions and sources, the use of "incident" as a 1966 euphemism – deliberately employed to misrepresent and minimise the event – has been extensively documented by scholars, including: * Eibenschutz Hartman, C. et al. (1984), *El accidente nuclear de Palomares, 1966–1986*. ISSN: 0213-4462. * Herrera Plaza, J.; Sánchez Picón, A. (2003), *Operación Flecha Rota. Accidente Nuclear en Palomares*. ISBN: 84-8266-355-0. * Megara, J. (2006), "Dropping Nuclear Bombs on Spain: the Palomares Accident of 1966 and the U.S. Airborne Alert".http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-2502 * Moran, B. (2009), *The Day We Lost the H-bomb: Cold War, Hot Nukes, and the Worst Nuclear Weapons Disaster in History*. ISBN: 9780891419044. * Herrera Plaza, J. (2015), *Accidente Nuclear en Palomares. Consecuencias (1966–2016)*. ISBN: 978-84-15387-75-6. * Herrera Plaza, J.; López Arnal, S. (2019), *Silencios y deslealtades. El accidente militar de Palomares: desde la Guerra Fría hasta hoy*. ISBN: 978-84-16783-88-5. * Florensa, C. (2021), "A nuclear monument the size of a football field: The diplomatic construction of soil nuclearity in the Palomares accident (Spain, 1966)",https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12378 * Abreu-Colombri, J.A. (2024), "La comunicación dictatorial del riesgo: El Caso Palomares 1966 en España",https://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2024.i25.02 "Incident" misrepresents the event, reproduces 1966 political messaging, and conflicts with official definitions and current usage across governmental, scientific, scholarly and journalistic sources. 4. Since the 1970s, the overwhelming majority of high-quality secondary sources (official, academic, scientific) use accident. The proposed title 1966 Palomares accident satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, and WP:CONSISTENCY, aligns the article with official definitions and specialised sources, corrects an inaccurate designation, and avoids reproducing a historical euphemism that is incompatible with encyclopedic precision. KLEIÓHISTORÍANΚΛΕΙΩΙΣΤΟΡΙΑΝ 15:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<––21:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Parangimalai →St. Thomas MountSt. Thomas Mount – page moved in 2022 to current name under a supposedWP:COMMONNAME without much further reasoning. In local and media use the commonly used name is consistently "St. Thomas Mount", including every local station which was a point alluded to. Even at cursory glance online and the far fewer references to Parangimalai makes this clear. (St Thomas Mount is used on every English language map too) *Times of India travel article March 2024 - titled "Chennai: Exploring the heritage of St. Thomas Mount" *Lonely Planet - area named as St Thomas Mount *New Indian Express - re: metro extensions to area - "MRTS extension to St Thomas Mount set for year-end..." *Times Property - "The project gains greater significance as St Thomas Mount is also set..." *The Hindu - "The St. Thomas Mount National Shrine at St Thomas Mount..." * The local cantonment board is formally called "St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram Cantonment Board" * To the point previously alluded to about stations - Southern Railway and Chennai’s suburban rail network refer to the station and area as St. Thomas Mount. In railway documents and press releases, the station is called "St. Thomas Mount" (with station code STM). When Parangimalai *does* appear occasionally in English, it is typically in parentheses or as a translation * "We were first led to St Thomas Mount (Parangimalai)" -New Indian Express * Even the current article claims multiple times, St. Thomas Mount is the name in English (with citations) Usage on Google Trends is consistently at least10:1 higher over the last 5 years for St Thomas Mount I have not moved the page unilaterally, given prior edit summaries and the article's move history.AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk)09:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Galicia (Eastern Europe) →Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe)Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe) – Galicia is more accurately classified as part of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) rather than solely Eastern Europe because of its historical and cultural ties to both regions. For most of the modern era, its territories belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a political and cultural formation commonly associated with Central Europe (Norman Davies,God’s Playground: A History of Poland, Volume I: The Origins to 1795, 2005). After the partitions of Poland, Galicia became part of the Habsburg Monarchy, which further reinforced its Central European administrative and institutional character (Pieter M. Judson,The Habsburg Empire: A New History, 2016; Larry Wolff,The Idea of Galicia: History and Fantasy in Habsburg Political Culture, 2010). The region’s multicultural structure - Poles, Ruthenians/Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, and Armenians - reflects the ethnically diverse landscape typical of Central European borderlands (Omer Bartov,Erased: Vanishing Traces of Jewish Galicia in Present-Day Ukraine, 2007). Historians and geographers frequently situate southern Poland and western Ukraine within the broader Central and Eastern Europe macroregion, emphasising the transitional nature of Galicia between Central and Eastern cultural spheres (Grzegorz Wecławowicz,Contemporary Poland: Space and Society, 1998; Joseph Rothschild & Nancy Wingfield,Return to Diversity: A Political History of East Central Europe Since World War II, 2014).Kacperfeelon (talk)07:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Hudhud (mythology) →Hoopoe in Islam – This page does not seem to be primarily about mythology, and the title gives the false impression that Hudhud is the name of a mythical creature. The page is actually about the role of the hoopoe (a real bird) in Islam. In the Quranic verses quoted on the page, the bird is just referred to as "hoopoe", and "hudhud" seems to just be a romanization of the Arabic word for hoopoe.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)07:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Eglinton West station →Cedarvale stationCedarvale station – Eglinton West station was officially renamed to Cedarvale station on Nov 16, 2025 along with Dundas station (nowTMU station). Dundas station's page has already been updated toTMU station meanwhile Eglinton West currently remains with its former name. NOW Toronto has stated that Eglinton West had already been officially renamed to Cedarvale inthis article. The TTC also stated that they are in the process of changing signage from Eglinton to Cedarvale soonhere. Also station route maps shows Cedarvale station with "Formerly Eglinton West" underneath it (Image provided byBlogTO)Nanannathan18 (talk)04:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Mattancherry Bridge →Thoppumpady Bridges – The page is really confusing as it interchangeably mentions both bridges: southern BOT bridge/new bridge and northern harbour bridge/old bridge. The first image used is of the new bridge, taken from the old bridge; the 2nd and 3rd images are of the old bridge. It claims Bristow built the bridge(s) but he only built the first one, he was long dead by the time the new bridge was built. Map shows the old bridge's location. Second thing is the place, noone now refers it as Mattancherry bridge as now the area around is calledThoppumpady andMattancherry is further north.Malayalam wikipedia only has the article for the old bridge and it clearly states facts only about that one.AleksiB 1945 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)01:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –25 Words or Less →25 Words or Less (board game) – The game show has been on TV for six years now and has substantially more page views and inbound links than the board game it's based on. Extensive searching on Google, GBooks, GNews, etc. turned up almost exclusively information about the game show. The board game's article is a one-paragraph stub, while there is far more to say about the game show. This seems a prime example of an adaptation being more notable than its source material, in the same vein thatThe Fox and the Hound is widely understood to reference the Disney film above the book on which it was based. I think it's abundantly clear that almost everyone looking for something called "25 Words or Less" is looking for the game show.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)22:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Libyan civil war (2011) → ? – The conflict currently titled “Libyan civil war (2011)” is widely recognized by scholars, governments, and policy analysts as a distinct, discrete, historically defined war. Wikipedia’s established practice for naming wars is to assign proper-noun titles to clearly defined conflicts, rather than using temporary, date-based disambiguation. Historical precedent demonstrates this practice: First Boer War / Second Boer War, First World War / Second World War, First Sudanese Civil War / Second Sudanese Civil War, First Congo War / Second Congo War. These conflicts are treated in academic and policy literature as separate wars with defined start and end dates. The 2011 Libya conflict meets the same criteria. Wikipedia’s current title, “Libyan civil war (2011)”—does not follow this naming convention. Renaming it to First Libyan Civil War aligns Wikipedia with its own historical naming principles, improves clarity, and ensures consistency with the naming of the subsequent conflict (“Second Libyan Civil War”). This move aligns Wikipedia with its own historical naming principles, improves clarity, and brings consistency with established precedent for multiple civil wars. This move ensures that Wikipedia reflects the same standard it applies to comparable conflicts in other periods, avoiding editorial inconsistency and better serving readers seeking clear historical context.Prestdobmei (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Prestdobmei (talk)18:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Libyan civil war (2014–2020) →Second Libyan Civil WarSecond Libyan Civil War – Multiple high-quality academic, policy, and journalistic sources already refer to this conflict as the Second Libyan Civil War, using the same retrospective naming conventions that Wikipedia applies to older multi-phase civil wars (e.g., First/Second Boer War, First/Second Sudanese Civil War, First/Second Congo War, First/Second English Civil War). Numbering civil wars after the fact is a standard historical practice once multiple related conflicts have occurred, and this conflict has fully concluded. At this point, reliable sources such as Brookings, Chatham House, International Crisis Group, RAND, various peer-reviewed journals, and major international newspapers routinely use the “Second Libyan Civil War” terminology. Wikipedia’s current naming (“Libyan civil war (2014–2020)”) is an internally-created date-based disambiguation that was appropriate during the conflict but is no longer consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of comparable cases. Once a sequence of civil wars exists and widely-used retrospective names appear in the literature, Wikipedia typically adopts the standardized proper-noun naming format. Renaming to Second Libyan Civil War improves clarity, aligns with reliable sources, and brings Libya into consistency with Wikipedia’s established naming conventions for multi-phase civil wars.Prestdobmei (talk)16:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Artificial Solutions →Teneo.ai – The company officially rebranded from "Artificial Solutions" to "Teneo.ai" in August 2024, as documented by multiple reliable sources in the article (references 2, 3, and 18). The new name has been in use for over 15 months and is now the primary name used by the company in all official communications, stock exchange listings (Nasdaq ticker: TENEO), and its website (www.teneo.ai). Per Wikipedia's naming conventions, particularly the "most common name" principle, article titles should reflect the most commonly used name. In this case, the rebranded name "Teneo.ai" is now the established and common name for this company.Marangse (talk)12:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Dana Rosemary Scallon →Dana (singer)Dana (singer) – She is far better known as a singer than anything else. PerWP:COMMONNAME, absolutely nobody refers to her as Dana Rosemary Scallon (or even Dana Scallon) except in official documents. Evenher own website calls her Dana throughout. Her five-year stint as an MEP and her failed bid to become president in no way trump her success and notability as a singer.WP:NATURAL does not trump common name here, as the current title is not common and is actually pretty obscure. Most people (and sources) continued to refer to her as Dana even during her foray into politics. --Necrothesp (talk)12:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Dupe (product) →Knockoff – I feel likeknockoff is sufficiently unobscure that we'd prefer the NATDAB over the PARENDAB here, but I guess there could be reasonable disagreement so going to kick it over to the full RM instead of doing a TR.Alpha3031 (t •c)07:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –James Bond (reboot series character) →James Bond (Daniel Craig)James Bond (Daniel Craig) – I appreciate the use of the "reboot series character", but I'm concerned about its clarity. There have been plenty of actors portraying James Bond, making their eras possibly "reboots" or whatever, despite Craig version's darker and more developed portrayal. Furthermore, other sources use "reboot" differently.This article uses "reboots" to refer toCasino Royale (2006)... andGoldenEye (1995).Another article uses "reboot" to refer to a rumored upcoming James Bond film. I'm thinking that "Daniel Craig" would be more clearly disambiguate from other "reboot series characters" named James Bond. If not, then how else to disambiguate this "James Bond" version?George Ho (talk)06:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{| role="presentation" |- |Correct: |Keith Wilson won the 2024 Portland, Oregon, mayoral election. |- |Incorrect: |Keith Wilson won the 2024 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. |}
:and perconsensus can change (especially after changes in guidelines, one would think). That amendment was added afterthis thorough discussion. I went the extra mile to ask members in the project to amend the guideline. :Any oppose arguments baselessly (i.e. unsupported by a MoS guideline) arguing an exception forgrammatical modifiers and article titles are now moot, and an expression ofWP:IDONTLIKEIT. Those who are interested can read the (archived) discussion linked in the previous paragraph.HandsomeFella (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk00:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –City of Durham (district) →Durham (non-metropolitan district) –Durham and Framwelgate was also called justDurham and had city status and theCounty Borough of Chester which doesn't have a separate article because it only really covered the settlement ofChester rather than because its not notable. It actually had more powers than the 1974–2009 district as it also preformed county functions so if anything it could be more notable. Given the districts aren't primary for "City of Durham" and "City of Chester" likeCity of Winchester and the more recently abolishedCity of Carlisle due to other things with these specific names I don't think "City of" is needed as natural disambiguation thus we can omit it. like with the Italian Wikipedia titles likeDurham (1974–2009) andChester (1974–2009) could also be used if that is though more useful than the year but as with people we normally prefer other qualifiers before years of birth/death.Crouch, Swale (talk)23:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Tree of life (Kabbalah) →Kabbalistic tree of life – The lead says that the concept is "usually referred to as the 'kabbalistic tree of life'" to separate it from other uses of the term "tree of life";WP:NCDAB also states that natural disambiguation is usually preferable over paranthetical disambiguation. Both of these reasons together mean it would make a lot of sense to change the article's title to "Kabbalistic tree of life". There is even already a redirect from that title, albeit a different capitalisation (Kabbalistic Tree of Life).Suntooooth, it/he (talk |contribs)22:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Mark Burgess (musician) →Vox (musician)Vox (musician) – The musician previously known as Mark Burgess has, since earlier this year, started exclusively using the name "Vox", distancing himself entirely from his previous name, and going so far as to state that "Vox" "is the only name [he] will answer to."[6] Publications since then have began to regularly refer to him as "Vox"[7] or "Mark "Vox" Burgess".[8] Currently, I have set the "Vox (musician)" page to redirect here, but wanted to suggest moving the article as it is now the only name that he goes by. On the other hand, there is an argument that, as "Mark Burgess" is the name he has previously gone by for most of his career (including in the name of the band "Mark Burgess and the Sons of God"), this is the more well known name and the article should stay here. I think this should be discussed before a movement takes place.JellyfishReflector (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)JellyfishReflector (talk)21:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Personal watercraft →Jet skiJet ski – According toNgrams, "jet ski" has become a genericized trademark referring to this type of vehicle, while using "personal watercraft" has dropped out of style. WhileJet Ski should remain where it is,WP:DIFFCAPS means this page can still be moved without disambiguation. Wikipedia is not beholden to Kawasaki and therefore there is no requirement to maintain a less-used, non-WP:COMMONNAME solely to protect the trademark.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)09:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Edward Short, Baron Glenamara →Lord GlenamaraLord Glenamara – Should move to theWP:COMMONAME. Every obituary on God's green earth and most of any of the other sourcing post-1977 knows this individual as Lord Glenamara. The title of Baron does not even hold a candle to the Lord formulation onNgrams, while the individual's base name is wholly not unique, pressing the case for natural disambiguation, which in the presence of the clear common titular name, presents a clear, preferable option.Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)02:01, 19 November 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) –Online predator →Online enticement – Currently, Pedophile redirects to Pedophilia, Child Sexual Offender/Abuser both redirect to Child Sexual Abuse.Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors was redirected here. I have listed many terms on the talk page, but Enticement is used by professional organizations and legal organizations to describe "Approaching children online for future sexual exploitation or sexual abuse", and it's also a criminal charge in some places to discuss the specific online-before-abuse behavior that we don't have a main article for currently. We have articles for Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking, already. This is a good example of a definition of Online Enticement:[10] and it a term often used today with Online Predator, like this article:[11]. I feel it's a precise term - it's only used for this type of behavior, and it's very neutral and professional in it's use.Denaar (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page)21:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Aden Emergency →Aden insurgency – (This RM is a follow-up on the previous one) As I've explained in the previous RM, the "Aden Emergency", a Britishstate of emergency declaration that happened on 10 December 1963 (i.e. several months after this conflict was already ongoing), is an event that was part of this conflict as a whole and it doesn't make sense to have it as the article's name. I am proposing that this article be renamed to a descriptive title (Aden insurgency, other suggestions are welcome) for the reasons mentioned above and in the previous RM𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)07:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Fox spirit →Huli jingHuli jing – I believe that an error was made in the previous move. Moving the article from "Huli jing" to "fox spirit" changed the scope unnecessarily, as it is purely about the Chinese fox spirit. As forNine-tailed fox, which is a sort of broad concept article, I don't believe it's needed because of how sparse it is on content. Along withfox spirit, it should probably point atFox#In popular culture (which should probably be renamed "in culture") because it can refer to thehuli jing,hồ ly tinh,kitsune orkumiho, all of which have their own articles.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<––00:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Denali → ? – Now that climbing season is over I wonder how Denali / Mount McKinley has been referred to throughout the season. I'm proposing a move to eitherMount McKinley orDenali / Mount McKinley. While "Mount McKinley" may not have been the only known name in Alaska, and many Alaskans may have called it "Denali" prior to 2015 already, "Mount McKinley" was the only common, undisputed name in theworld (including the contiguous U.S.) till 2015. The rename in 2015 is what created a confusion over which name to use, as many people still referred to the mountain as Mt McKinley. Hence from my point of view, the 2025 re-rename settled that dispute in favor of Mount McKinley (worldwide, not in Alaska where there has always been a dispute over which name to use).Glasfaser Wien (talk)11:25, 16 November 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)[reply]
(Discuss) –Killing off →Character death – "Killing off" is an overly vague term that can apply to real life (like "coral are being killed off by global warming"), and also implies a specific form of fictional death in which a character in an ongoing television series that was previously not planned to die was "killed off" due to extenuating circumstances such as an actor's real-life death. This article is about essentially all forms of fictional character death. If moved, "killing off" may have to be deleted entirely due to vagueness.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)04:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Swindon Stadium →Abbey Stadium, Swindon – The stadium is about to close. After it has closed (or it could even be argued now), the WP:COMMONNAME applies to the County Ground. So I believe it makes sense, and is within Wikipedia's policy, to move to "Abbey Stadium (Swindon)" and have Swindon Stadium to direct to the County Ground page.Icaldonta (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk05:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Regnal years of English and British monarchs →Regnal years of English monarchsRegnal years of English monarchs – This page was moved from "English monarchs" to the longer "English and British monarchs" title without discussion a couple of years ago. I understand the intention of the mover, but I believe it is unnecessarily longer, and adds confusion. In lists of "British kings", I expect to see at least Kings of Scotland listed, as well as Kings of Northumbria, Mercia, Gwynedd, etc. This page does not cover those. It only covers Kings of England since 1066 and their legal successors after 1707. Moreover, this is aboutde jure official dating citation used inEnglish law (there is no such thing as "British law"). Thus, regnal years begin only in 1066, the English legal memory limit, and the dates are guaranteed only for citations in English law. The article does not pretend or guarantee to apply to citations inScots Law, an entirely separate legal system. Given the article range means to apply only to English law, the title should refer to "English monarchs", and let the post-1707 arrangements be noted in the lede. Shorter, clearer and cleaner.Walrasiad (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk05:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Disc cutter →Diamond disc cutterDiamond disc cutter – I have proposed renaming article so that the community can decide whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with redundant content—or prefer the updated version, which I have restructured and referenced. The main reason for the change is that disc cutters differ from abrasive saws essentially in the type of blade they use. Although both tools may seem similar, the disc cutter uses segmented diamond blades, designed for cooling and precise cutting, while the abrasive saw uses non-metallic abrasive-type blades, which are more prone to thermal wear. Previously, there were two articles that dealt with virtually the same topic, without a clear distinction between the two technologies. I have modified the disc cutter article because most current manufacturers produce motorized machines with diamond blades, which better reflects contemporary industrial reality. Furthermore, this distinction has practical and documentary relevance. For example, in the Louvre robbery (October 2025), a portable gasoline-powered saw with a segmented diamond blade was used, not an abrasive saw. To avoid duplication and confusion, I have excluded all information on abrasive blades from the updated article, which already has its own specific article. Therefore, this renaming proposal seeks a vote on whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with ambiguities—or consolidate the updated version, with clear technical differentiation and multiple inline references.--Mcapdevila (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 11:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.mwwvconverse∫edits14:02, 10 November 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)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk02:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –George Clarke (architect) →George Clarke (architectural presenter) – We currently have three articles for George Clarkes who operate/operated as architects - George Clarke, the TV presenter / George Clarke, an Australian town planner / George Clarke, a 17th/18th century politician and architect. I think it would be helpful to the reader to retitle the articles. I certainly found it impossible to identify Dr George Clarke of All Souls, Oxford when I was looking to bluelink him, eventually finding the article by chance. I've sought input at the Architecture project page, and the above are the suggested renames. These reflect the fact that the living George Clarke is best known as a TV presenter, the deceased Australian seems to have been more of a town planner, and Dr George Clarke is probably now best remembered as an architect, rather than as a politician. Very happy to consider other suggestions, of course.KJP1 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk15:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(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.TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
![[8]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fspace-offshore.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2024%2f09%2fJacklyn_HERO-1024x724.jpg){kind=link}
