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.
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.
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.
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 18 February 2026" 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.
Closing a requested move
Anyuninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please readthe closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. Thesimple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as perWP:RMEC.
Alternatively, the opener of a discussion can close itonly if unanimous opposition is obvious, the requested move has not had any comments yet, or the request was initiated viablock evasion. As perWP:WITHDRAW, an opener of a discussion should use strikethrough on the nomination statement when it is prematurely closed through withdrawal.
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) –Dunkel System →Dunkel IndexDunkel Index – PerWP:COMMONNAME and current branding. While historically referred to as a "system" in the 1930s, the founder Dick Dunkel preferred the term "index," and the organization currently operates under the name "The Dunkel Index." Modern reliable sources and the official website (dunkelindex.com) consistently use "Dunkel Index."Hinklehomie (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)02:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Julio Foolio →FoolioFoolio – MOVE REQUEST. He always performed songs under the stage name "Foolio" and former name Lil 6. He was never performed as Julio Foolio. "JulioFoolio" was just his Instagram account name because maybe someone had already taken "foolio". Unresearched mainstream media writers who even didn't know his name until his death kept referring to him as "Julio Foolio" in obituary articles, but it was completely wrong. People need to stop believing that social media account ID and stage name were not always the same. This is a huge problem in poor journalism these days. This is the same reason why6ix9ine's article title is not "Tekashi69" or "Tekashi6ix9ine". Use the common and official stage name. Other database and info websites, YouTube, Spotify, Genius, IMDb, Discogs etc, every his pages just "Foolio", why Wikipedia article is keep referring to him as Julio Foolio? Please move immediately RIGHT NOW. --~2026-92591-2 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)02:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –GIO →GIO (computer bus standard) – I can't see any reason why this would be the primary topic of this TLA, aside from the inertia of it having been created early on. The computer bus standard receives a fraction of the page views ofGIO (software), and there are several other meanings of the term. Move this page and retarget this title to the disambiguation page,Gio.BD2412T19:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Chams →Cham peopleCham people – UsingChams with a plural-s and withoutpeople is somewhat indistinct and confusing. First-time readers might wonder whether it refers to a thing, a concept, or a group of people since the Cham are not as well-known a people as Koreans, Germans, Swedes, or Canadians (see examples atWP:ETHNICGROUP). Ademonym is "a word that identifies a group of people (inhabitants, residents, natives) in relation toa particular place." Meanwhile,Champawas a multiethnic society, and Cham wasnot itssole ethnic composition. Furthermore, many Cham people today live outside the territory of the former Champa. Thus, Cham is not strictly a demonym, and the titleCham people is simply the natural way to refer to the group and less vague. Hence, the proposal is based on the criteria ofNaturalness andRecognizability perWP:TITLE. --Greenknight dv (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)18:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Brandeis International Business School → ? – The institution formerly known as “Brandeis International Business School” has been officially renamed **School of Business and Economics** in 2025 as part of a broader academic restructuring at Brandeis University. This is reflected in official university communications and the institution’s own branding. The current Wikipedia page title no longer matches the school’s formal name and mission; updating it improves accuracy and aligns with Wikipedia’s naming conventions that article names should reflect the *current* and *most commonly used* official name of the subject. Reliable university sources verify the name change and the consolidation of business, economics, and finance programs under a single school identity.ArtVandelay23 (talk)18:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Wu Zetian →Empress Wu Zhao of Zhou – The current title of the page ‘Wu Zetian’ was given to this figure when she was removed from power in 716. The name ‘Wu Zetian’ was not used during her rule and its promulgation was part of a campaign to diminish her rule after she was deposed. Although common practice is to refer to the emperor with their temple name, in this figure’s specific case, the name ‘Wu Zetian’ was forced upon this figure after she was deposed and does not serve the typical functions of a temple name. In this imperial edict, translated by N.H. Rothschild in his book, Wu Zhao: China’s Only Woman Emperor, page 8, this figure named herself as Zhao and was referred to as such during her rule. “One must have a name so that their personal record can be truthfully and accurately made known. This respectfully conforms to the will of Heaven and the practices of men. Thus, when I issue an order that the Hundred Spirits be treated with reverence, when I offer praise to the Lord on High, when I extend New Year’s blessings to the three deceased sovereigns of the House of Tang, when I receive ambassadors from the myriad nations in court—it is fitting that, in discharging these duties of state, I follow the canonical practice of rectifying names and take a name. Thus, I shall take Zhao as my name.”(Chinese Original:https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%85%A8%E5%94%90%E6%96%87/%E5%8D%B70096#%E6%94%B9%E5%85%83%E8%BC%89%E5%88%9D%E8%B5%A6%E6%96%87 ) By naming herself Wu Zhao, this figure created a character based on the historical and cultural trends of the time, containing homages to Buddhism - a new religion to China at that time - and Daoism. By referring to this figure as ‘Wu Zetian’, vital historical information is lost to readers. There exists historical precedence (Di Xin) in changing the title of a figure’s page because of the derogatory circumstances behind the previous title. In addition, contemporary scholarship on this figure has begun shifting to using the name Wu Zhao on the basis of the reasoning provided above. Below are some examples of such: - Rothschild, Norman Harry. "Wu Zhao's remarkable aviary." Southeast Review of Asian Studies 27. 2005. 71-89. - Doran, Rebecca. Transgressive Typologies: Construction of Gender and Power in Early Tang China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2016. Pg. <>. ISBN 9780674970588 - Stephen R. Bokenkamp. A Medieval Feminist Critique of the Chinese World Order: The Case of Wu Zhao (r. 690–705). 1998. Religion, Volume 28, Issue 4. Pg. 390, Note 1. ISSN 0048-721X.https://doi.org/10.1006/reli.1998.0147 - Barrett, T.H. Breaking the Reputation of Female Rule in China: Daoism and the Rewriting of the History of the Reign of Wu Zhao (624-705). 2019. NAN NÜ, 21(2), Pg. 183-193.https://doi.org/10.1163/15685268-00212P01 - Marlowe, Britt. Empress Wu Zhao, son of Heaven: Uses of religious patronage and propaganda to secure support and quell dissension during the Tang dynasty. University of Colorado at Boulder, 2008. - Lee, Yuen Ting. "Wu Zhao." Education About ASIA 20.2. 2015. It is for these above reasons why I believe that the title should be changed to ‘Empress Wu Zhao of Zhou’. The name ‘Wu Zetian’ is still commonly used; however, it breaks with other standards the Wikipedia uses for emperors. Although I continue to hold that ‘Emperor Wu Zhao of Zhou’ is the most historically accurate and in line with current scholarship, I believe the title ‘Empress Wu of Zhou’ can be a fair compromise in line with the pages of other Chinese emperors. In addition, this figure’s page could use the name ‘Wu Zhao’ / ‘Zhao’ instead of ‘Wu’ when referring to this figure, especially during their time as Emperor. This would also match how names are used for similar pages on Wikipedia.Frutescens (talk)15:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Sonic the Hedgehog in film and television →Sonic the Hedgehog in animation – This is a scope change for the article. All the live-action stuff is covered atSonic the Hedgehog (film series), and the Films section here is almost entirely a content fork of the Films and Box office performance sections there. This article currently also does not cover the short films associated with the film series, so it is already in an in-between state. So I think that not covering the material here at all would be better. The Web series and short films section here isn't exactly film and television, so the current title isn't exactly fitting for the article, and the long title that would be produced makes it clear that the grouping isn't exactly natural.Arnav Bhate (talk •contribs)11:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Cignal Super Spikers (women) →Cignal Super Spikers – With the men's team taking a leave of absence for at least the next Spikers' Turf conference, and since that team was mostly known as the "Cignal HD Spikers", I think the women's team article can just be titled "Cignal Super Spikers" without the need for disambiguation. Granted, the men's teamcould return since it is only an LOA and not a full departure, but the team's statement mentioning"Cignal’s current and future plans" might mean that the men's team is dissolved for the foreseeable future, at least in my interpretation.MarcusAbacus (talk)07:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Inside Out →Inside Out (disambiguation)Inside Out (disambiguation) – The film is pretty clearly theprimary topic by usage. The film gets over 65% of pageviews of anything titled something even remotely like "Inside Out" (first ten here), and the pageviews are 7.8 times the pageviews ofthe franchise, which is the next highest article (please note that I have limited pageviews to the past year to avoid the 2024 surge in results caused by the release of the sequel). The film fulfills the bar required byWP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as it is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be sought. The views out of the disambiguation page also reflect this; the film articlegets over 60% of the views out ofInside Out, which is more than everything else combined, and over five times the amount of the sequel, which is again the second highest. Note: Please keep in mind that the primary topic is neitherwhat first comes to your mind, nor is itthe dictionary definition. Wikipedia does not have an article on the concept of turning an object so that its inner surface faces out, and such an article could not be viable, because it is not an encyclopedic topic. As a result, it is not a contender for the primary topic; only the articles actually listed atthe disambiguation page are contenders. There are a number of articles where the primary topic is a specific subject even though it shares a title with a common word or phrase, includingOften,Twice, andTangled.Ladtrack (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.BD2412T 02:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk03:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Spike and Suzy → ? – Spike and Suzy is the worst possible name for this series. All other names offer at least one advantage, Willy and Wanda two: * Willy and Wanda - original name, largest number of albums * Bob and Bobette - largest time span * Spike and Suzy - nothing * Luke and Lucy - most recent While Willy and Wanda would be the best choice if we know that no extra albums will appear in English, it is quite customary also to use the current name. Bob and Bobette also has an edge. Perhaps the (in English disgraceful) film can be counted to Luke and Lucy's advantage.gidonb (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk03:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –DTMF (disambiguation) →DTMFDTMF – At this point, I do not think there is aWP:PRIMARYTOPIC anymore. The Bad Bunny album is commonly abbreviated as DTMF or DtMF and has long term significance at this point, as it has won the Grammy for Album of the Year. A look at thepageviews shows that it has maintained a consistently higher amount of views over the past year even after the initial spike from when the album was first released. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk03:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Jeremiah Justin Simms →WifiskeletonWifiskeleton – PerWP:COMMONNAME, the article should be titled using the name that reliable, independent sources most commonly use. In music journalism, interviews, streaming platforms, and coverage of underground hip-hop scenes, the artist is overwhelmingly referred to simply asWifiskeleton rather thanJeremiah Justin Simms. The stage name is the primary and most recognizable identifier used in reliable sources and professional contexts, making it the natural and predominant usage. Retitling the article toWifiskeleton would therefore align with Wikipedia’s naming conventions and improve recognizability and consistency.Aradicus77 (talk)21:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Grumman →Grumman CorporationGrumman Corporation – This page was previously changed from "Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation,", which I agree is too long, but the current title for the page just being "Grumman" doesn't make much sense. Other defunct/merged companies that I can see utilize the full name when possible, ex: Rockwell International. Although an example in the archive uses Boeing as a reason to change from the old title to just "Grumman," this works because Boeing is rarely referred to as "The Boeing Company" in official capacities or by the general public. The logo for Boeing is also very specificaly *just* Boeing, it doesn't have any of the other text from the full name, in contrast to Grumman, which is somewhat referred to publicly as just Grumman, but the late stage logo and self referential material refers to the company as "Grumman Corporation," instead of just Grumman. It's also still a short enough name not to be too distracting or unnecessary.Clint11480 (talk)20:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Box-office bomb →Box-office failureBox-office failure – The term "box-office bomb" is a non-neutral colloquialism, the meaning of which is not obvious to those not in the know about the film business and also has changed over time, and may yet change again. Although some may argue that "bomb" is the common name,WP:POVTITLE specifically states that common names may be avoidedif they are "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". "Box-office failure" is concise, neutral, and clear, avoiding any potential issues with POV or ambiguity. Additionally, due to the increasingly common occurrence of blockbuster films that boast huge production budgets yet fail to make them back during their theatrical run despite earning significantly large sums, there are an increasing number of films that are considered box-office disappointments but are not described as "bombs" in the media, one such example beingMission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning. Others, such asThe Matrix Resurrections, do not turn a profit in their theatrical run, but do find an audience on streaming platforms. The lede sections of these articles neutrally describe the specific way in which they are considered to have "failed" by sources; "underperformed", "disappointment", etc., rather than "bomb". The article title should therefore be changed so as to recognize that a film can fail financially at the box office, but not necessarily be considered a "bomb" as such.Box-office bomb should obviously remain a redirect, and thetrue box office bombs (the likes ofMorbius,Megalopolis, andJoker: Folie à Deux) can still be described as bombs if the sources warrant it.silviaASH(inquire within) 01:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk09:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich →Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München – PerWP:COMMONNAME, multiple independent English-language sources (THE, QS, ARWU) overwhelmingly use “Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München”, “LMU Munich”, or “University of Munich”, while I have not found comparable usage of any form of “Ludwig Maximilian University”, also not in the current article[16],[17],[18]. Moreover, LMU's content style guide[19] does also advise against “Ludwig Maximilian University (of Munich)” or variations thereof. Any Google searches on “Ludwig Maximilian University” or “Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich” provide sources that, upon closer inspection, indicate that they either cannot agree on a common name as they give a plethora of different spellings, or they actually refer to any of the three names referred by the reliable sources given above. Alternatively, the names “LMU Munich” or “University of Munich” could be considered, as they are also more frequent in reliable independent English-language sources than the current name.Proof finder (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk09:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –List of elected and appointed female state leaders →List of female state leadersList of female state leaders – The disambiguation "elected and appointed" is not useful for the purpose of describing the contents of this article. The distinction between being elected or being appointed does not make any head of state or government differ in legitimacy. I can only see that we might use the current title if there is some type of elevation to the position of a head of government or a head of state by some method other than election or appointment. This would be a lot moreWP:CONCISE and the distinction should be mentioned within the article instead of using an unnecessary disambiguation.Qwerty123M (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk07:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty →National LandscapeNational Landscape – It's been over two years since AONBs in England and Wales became National Landscapes, so it's time to formally discuss a move. All of the AONBs except four now use the 'National Landscapes' branding, and only two of those four use 'AONB'. The name is regularly used in the media, including by theBBC,Times,Independent,LBC,Telegraph, and inlocalpapers. If the move is successful it should incorporate asplit of the information about Northern Irish Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which are organised on a different legal basis and now have a different public name to their English and Welsh counterparts. I wasn't sure whether to organise this discussion as a move or a split, but the result of any change should be something along the lines of: *National Landscape, containing the bulk of the content from this article *Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, containing the information relevant to Northern Ireland AONBs *Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (England and Wales), a redirect toNational Landscape *AONB, a disambiguation toNational Landscape andArea of Outstanding Natural BeautyA.D.Hope (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk07:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Lazar Stefanović (disambiguation) →Lazar StefanovićLazar Stefanović – There was an inconclusive RM atTalk:Lazar Stefanovic last year involving this title, and another editor disputed my recent move. So, apparently I have to force a new RM. Sorry. There is noprimary topic for the Serbian name "Lazar Stefanović" (with the diacritic), because we know that this was the name of both a 20th century politician, a present-day sportsperson from Serbia, as well as the Serbian name of a person of Serbian descent in North America, whose article title omits the diacritic. A Google Books search for this name, Lazar Stefanović, gives me exclusively information about the politician. Therefore, it would likelysurprise readers who are aware of this and then look this up in the encyclopedia to find that that we focus on another topic, esp. one with far less obvious long-term significance. Showing how ambiguous this name is the most appropriate solution. For readers who look up the name without a diacritic, the modern-day American/Canadian person might well be a primary topic, and I'm not arguing for changing that at this time (because I don't particularly care to do the amount of due diligence necessary to do that). What is however apparent is that they aren't the primary topic for the Serbian name.Joy (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk07:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Twitter →X (social network)X (social network) – Current reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the platform as “X”. Sampling of reliable sources consistently shows that these sources refer to “Twitter” only in historical or “formerly known as” contexts. Usage guides and reference works (e.g., AP Stylebook, Encyclopedia Britannica) have also adopted “X” for present-day use. Common objections based on colloquial speech, legacy terminology, URLs, or disambiguation concerns are inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and past practice for renamed entities. Detailed explanation below.Dustinscottc (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.–LuniZunie(talk)07:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Regulation of radio broadcast in the United States →Regulation of radio transmission in the United States – The very regulatory body that is at the center of this article, the FCC, makes a distinction between transmission and broadcast and defines both terms in its regulations. While definitions vary between regulations, FCC part 97 (this just deals specifically with the regulation of amateur transmission, so not otherwise general) offers a good definition of "broadcasting" that generally accords with other definitions and is useful to highlight the distinction. It defines broadcasting there as: "transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed." Hopefully this makes clear that "broadcast" is a subset of "transmission". The FCC regulates both. On that basis, as there is currently no article covering the regulation of transmission, I propose this article be renamed to "Regulation of radiotransmission in the United States."Pietrus1 (talk)04:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Tyler courthouse shooting →2005 Tyler courthouse shooting – Event appears to failWP:NOYEAR requirements. A lack of other notable shootings at courthouses inTyler, Texas does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. I don't think it is necessary to disambiguate it by specifying that "Tyler" refers to the Texan city as it is the largest settlement by far with that name, but I would appreciate feedback on that.Raskuly (talk)22:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Aelita →Aelita (film)Aelita (film) – There does not seem to be a clear long-term primary topic: while the film is notable, Alexey Tolstoy'sAelita (novel), on which the film is based, is also a major and significant subject in its own right. In such cases, a disambiguation page atAelita and a parenthetical title for the film would be more appropriate.~2026-10332-52 (talk)17:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) →Kingdom of Israel – Change Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) to Kingdom of Israel, as this kingdom is the only unambiguously historically-accepted Kingdom of Israel. Alongside this change, the article title for the theorized United Israelite Kingdom, including both Northern Israelites and Judahites, should be renamed as such.EDZ Madrigal 21 (talk)15:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Pracalit script →Newar scriptNewar script – Prachalit or Pracalit script is not a commonly used term compared to Newari script, as seen in thengram.This source mentions that the most common name for it is Newari, and the name Prachalit was popularized later by Shakyavamsa. Similarly, this script was first referred by the name “Newara Akhara” or Newar script in 1654 CE. All academic sources in English and Nepali refer to this script as the Newari script. For example:1,2,3,4. Since the Indic suffix “-i” is considered inappropriate it would be good to move this article name to Newar script.Jujubhaju (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)04:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –LGBTQ Filipino American culture → ? – Both seem to have roughly similar formats and look at how LGBTQ people are treated in an ethnic minority in America. Is there a reason why one uses culture while the other uses community? If there isn't, we should pick a sorta standardized format similar to all the LGBTQ rights in [country] articles.Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.1isall (talk | contribs)03:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Herjulf Bårdsson →Herjólfr BárðarsonHerjólfr Bárðarson – The subject was an Icelander and is commonly referred to in Old Norse/Icelandic form in reliable sources; current title uses a Danish/Norwegian form. The individual is Icelandic, not Danish or Norwegian, and the current title reflects a later Scandinavian rendering of the name rather than the original Norse/Icelandic form.HilmirKar (talk)20:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Fresno meat plant shooting →2012 Fresno meat plant shooting – Event appears to failWP:NOYEAR requirements. A lack of other notable shootings at meat plants in Fresno, California (there are multiple other notable shootings in Fresno without that distinction) does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety.Raskuly (talk)20:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Liberal Social Party (Portugal) →Partido Liberal Social (Portugal) – As I was told after quoting a convention that didn't exist when I wanted to moveNova Direita, pages have a native name unless it is proven that an English name exists in reliable sources - no matter how "logical" it might seem to translate it. Think "Chega" not "Enough", "Podemos (Spanish political party)" not "We Can", "La France Insoumise" not any of the possible translations of "Insoumise". This page stands out more than any other in that regard, because the current title is an incorrect translation to start with. According to the rules of Portuguese adjectives it should be "Social Liberal Party", likeSocial Liberal Party (Brazil) which has the same native name; bear in mind thatsocial liberalism is the ideology. However, this Portuguese party is of such specialist interest that I doubt there would ever be English sources on it.Unknown Temptation (talk)17:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Metal Gear Solid (2000 video game) →Metal Gear: Ghost BabelMetal Gear: Ghost Babel – I've debated making this RM for a while now, but today I felt like going ahead with it in light of recent announcements. While both names are in theory valid, I believe thatMetal Gear: Ghost Babel is theWP:COMMONNAME ofMetal Gear Solid (2000 video game), and it should be moved to that title, with the original Metal Gear Solid video game moved as well to compensate. My points are as follows: # While a lot of sources do refer to it as simplyMetal Gear Solid, it's generally within the context of only talking about that game. But when you look for sources that discuss the series as a whole, you will start to see a lot that refer to it asGhost Babel. A few examples:[36][37][38][39]. Even sources that do choose to refer to it as justMetal Gear Solid seem to point out that it's also namedGhost Babel.[40][41] # The game was referred to asGhost Babel from the beginning in its initial release country of Japan, and by technicality, a bit before it made its way to the United States. This should especially be noted as we have articles where we refer to a release based on what it was originally called. For example,Yoshi's Universal Gravitation is called such because that's the title it goes by in most regions, even if Topsy-Turvy is used sometimes. #Ghost Babel is a more precise, valid name that eliminates the need for a disambiguation. # Perhaps most importantly and what got me to make this request today specifically, a re-release of this game was recently announced as part of the second volume of theMetal Gear Solid Master Collection. Even in the United States (and everywhere, for that matter), the game is now officially being referred to by Konami asGhost Babel.[42][43][44] The move would also allowMetal Gear Solid (1998 video game) to be moved to simplyMetal Gear Solid (video game) without issue, as the release year disambiguation would no longer be necessary and the 1998 game is the obviousWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A disambiguation hatnote could be kept on that article to guide people to this article, if they are still looking for it.λNegativeMP123:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Brusselian dialect →Brussels Dutch – I coined the termBrusselianmany years ago, when I moved this page in good faith as a relatively new editor. With more experience, I have since come to regret that decision. I am therefore proposing to rename the page to Brussels Dutch, in line with other dialect entries such asBerlin German andNew York City English. This would ensure greater consistency and clarity across similar pages, and would also clearly distinguish it from a potential Brussels French page, should one ever be created.Jhowie_Nitnek (talk)13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Value of life →Value of a statistical lifeValue of a statistical life – As multiple users havepointed out previously (permalink), this article isn't actually about the "value of life", but rather the specific statistical concept of the "value of a statistical life (VSL)", which basically really means the value ofpreventing a death, which is obviously not the same thing as the value of a life. I imagine most people looking up value of life would probably expect some philosophical and legal discussions about human worth (and maybe human capital); this move would make way for a possible future article to be written along these lines.9ninety (talk)13:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –US intervention in Somalia →United States intervention in Somalia (2007–present) – All Wikipedia entries regarding US foreign intervention use the full name "United States," not "US." Furthermore, this entry's title previously used "American," not "US." "US" can be an abbreviation for multiple different names, which does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. In addition, the timing of the intervention was differentiated from the short-term interventions of the early 1990s.Manilano12 (talk)12:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Global Connectivity Index → ? – The current article documents a specific proprietary index initiative developed and published by Huawei between 2014–2019, as reflected by its sources, methodology, and historical scope. The title "Global Connectivity Index" is generic and does not clearly distinguish this specific initiative from other uses of the term in broader connectivity or internet measurement contexts. Renaming the article would better align the title with its actual subject matter and help clarify scope for readers.~2025-42165-26 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk10:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Flagstar Financial →Flagstar BankFlagstar Bank – Flagstar Financial has rebranded as Flagstar Bank, N.A. However there was already a page here titled "Flagstar Bank".[47] I moved prevalent information about the current Flagstar Bank to this page and moved the former article titled "Flagstar Bank" toFlagstar Bank (1987–2022) which now only focuses on the former Flagstar Bank prior to its acquisition by the current Flagstar (thus avoiding the need to merge articles). Opposition to moving this earlier seemed to be focused upon when the holding company was under the NYCB and Flagstar Financial, I believe now it makes since to move this article.BrendanM127 (talk)05:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Japan Airlines Domestic →Japan Air SystemJapan Air System – I read the previous move request. The thing is that this company was known for the vast majority of its life as "Japan Air System" and only was "Japan Airlines Domestic" for a few years. My understanding is that the overall corpus of reliable sources about this company would overwhelmingly refer to it as "Japan Air System". I pinged the Wikipedian who requested the move the other way, but received no response.WhisperToMe (talk)05:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Allan Border Medal →Australian Cricket Awards – Article covers all of the awards handed out during the Australian Cricket awards ceremony, not just the Allan Border Medal. Instead of splitting all of the awards into different pages, I suggest we just rename this one, especially since it covers all of the awards anyways.QWisps (talk)01:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Norsk Syndikalistisk Forbund →Norwegian Syndicalist Federation – I'm opening a request to move this page to the common English name of the organisation, which would be "Norwegian Syndicalist Federation". There's a number of reasons for this. First of all, the proposedEnglish title has established usage in English-language source material, as demonstrated by the cited sources by Vadim Damier, Gabriel Kuhn and Lennart Perrson. Secondly, the current title of "Norsk Syndikalistisk Forbund" preferences theNynorsk variant of the organisation's Norwegian name over theBokmål variant of "Norsk Syndikalistisk Føderasjon" (used by Kuhn and Marshall), and the historical variant (as seen in the infobox picture) of "Norsk Syndikalistisk Federation" (used by Thorpe); from this perspective, it could be argued that using the common English translation avoids taking a side betweenmultiple local names. A search onGoogle Scholar showed no clear tendency towards using one title or another in English sources, with more or less equal results for"Norsk Syndikalistisk Forbund","Norsk Syndikalistisk Federation" and"Norwegian Syndicalist Federation". An argument against the move could be that the "Forbund" variant is used bythe modern incarnation of the NSF, but it also uses the English translation inits communications through the IWA. As this is a potentially controversial move request, I'm opening it up for discussion.Grnrchst (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)01:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Patience (game) →Solitaire (card game)Solitaire (card game) – PerWP:COMMONALITY, in British English the game is probably today more commonly known as "solitaire" due toMicrosoft Solitaire. Although Britannica may be biased it is atsolitaire. If we were talking 40 years ago it would be a different question but today this topic appears to be called "solitaire" rather than "patience" in British English and COMMONALITY trumpsWP:RETAIN. The name "patience" is dated in British English and doesn't appear to be used in American English so the current title is British centric at worst. We should try to be as inclusive as possible by using names that most people use rather than those that are dated in one country. I have included "card" in the qualifier due to other games likepeg solitaire.Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk00:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –CSAM →CSAM (disambiguation)CSAM (disambiguation) – It's a little murky because most of the entries do not correspond to standalone articles, but it would seem that there is a (rather unfortunate) primary topic here. This DAB got well over 2,000 views in the past month while none of the topics listed here with articles, and most of those without, have gotten over 400 (there are two clear outliers but they represent small subtopics of much wider topics, the wider topics beingMontclair State University andVirtualBox). The redirectchild sexual abuse material (for which this is a common shorthand), on the other hand, received close to 20,000. Somehow, this page's title did not come up in any of the recent heated discussions about the title of the articlechild pornography. I think at the very least, all parties would probably be content with turning the acronym into a redirect there.— An anonymous username,not my real name00:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
February 11, 2026
(Discuss) –MacDowell (artists' residency and workshop) →MacDowellMacDowell – PRIMARYTOPIC: Article was moved from MacDowell Colony to current name without discussion in 2020 following official name change.MacDowell is currently a redirect to the disambiguation page,McDowell. This page receives 42x more pageviews thanMacDowell, 14x as many page views asMcDowell (incl. the redirects from MacDowell), and 4x as many asMcDowell (surname), making it a clear primary topic by usage.—BrechtBro(talk)23:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –SDF–Syrian transitional government clashes (2025–present) →SDF–Syrian government clashes – The current title is the subject of pro-SDF leaning bias and POV, which violateseven the basic guidelines ofWP:NPOV, and implies that the Syrian government isn't legitimate. The current title was created by @PawWiki2 during the creation of the article. PawWiki2 is known for creating articles filled with largely controversialSOHR and contested sources, is known fordenying the legitimacy of the Syrian government as a whole, despite normalization of relations between several foreign governments, and contrasts the infobox atWestern Syria clashes, which shows the Syrian government asSyria on the infobox. PawWiki2 is also known for claiming that the Syrian Army is entirelySalafi jihadist, a POV-laced statement. The title also doesn't reflect the reality in the ground, which is, that the Syrian government is internationally recognized by the UN and other agencies. There's also no need for such disambiguations, as this is the only group of clashes related to the ex-HTS Syrian transitional government of Syria. Lastly, the current title implies that the Syrian governmentis not the government of Syria but rather a faction. The title needs to be shortened because it's also way too long, and needs to be shortened perWP:PRECISE andWP:CONCISE.NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk·contribs)23:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Greek Super Cup 2025 →2026 Greek Super Cup2026 Greek Super Cup – Admin restored the article to 2026 Greek Super Cup, but a user made a move to Greek Super Cup 2025, insisting in his views. This competition was played in January 2026. According to Wikipedia naming conventions and policies, articles about single events should normally be titled by the year in which the event occurred, not by the season perWP:TITLE andWP:COMMONNAME. In addition, other Super Cup articles follow the same rule (e.g.2007 Greek Super Cup,2026 Supercopa de España), which satisfiesWP:CONSISTENCY,WP:PRECISION andWP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Furthermore, the previous move to "Greek Super Cup 2025" appears to have been done without a formal requested move discussion, which is contrary toWP:RMUM and the required process for contested or potentially controversial page moves.BEN917 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio 04:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio 04:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.HurricaneZetaC23:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Kingdom of Eastern Georgia →Georgia under Mongol rule – The dominant political reality of the period covered by the article was Mongol overlordship, which fundamentally shaped governance, taxation, military obligations, and royal succession in Georgia. Eastern Georgia functioned not as a fully sovereign and clearly defined kingdom, but as a vassal territory under Mongol authority. As such, the title “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” implies a level of independence and institutional continuity that does not accurately reflect the historical situation. Moreover, the secession of the Kingdom of Western Georgia was itself a direct consequence of Mongol domination, undertaken largely in an effort to escape Mongol rule. This further undermines the notion of a stable or unified “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” during this period. The article’s content primarily addresses Mongol rule and influence over Georgia as a whole, with particular emphasis on eastern regions where Mongol control was most direct, rather than focusing on a formally constituted, independent kingdom. Renaming the article to “Georgia under Mongol rule” would therefore better align the title with the actual scope and substance of the article. Additionally, there is an existing requested article atWikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)/Requested articles titled “Georgia under the Mongol rule”. The fact that Georgian Wikipedia contains articles on Mongol rule in Georgia but not on a “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” further suggests that the latter is not a commonly used or well-established historical designation. For these reasons, “Georgia under Mongol rule” is a more accurate, neutral, and historiographically sound title that better reflects both the historical realities of the period and the article’s content.Gergos10 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.voorts (talk/contributions) 02:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.HurricaneZetaC22:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Base Set (Pokémon) →Base SetBase Set – I initially created it like this because there was apparently a "Base Set" for Magic: The Gathering, but upon further investigation, it seems like the term is just an alternative of Core Sets. From looking at things, there's no TCG set in Magic, Pokemon, or otherwise that is just called Base Set (the closes thing is other sets called, for instance, "Pokemon Diamond and Pearl Base Set"). Currently, Base Set is a redirect to "Set", but there's no entries on the disambiguation, which leads me to believe that the reader would be better served with this move.Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 05:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–present) →Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–2025) – : This article should be discontinued and all subsequent clashes from January 2026 should only be added to theAfghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. This page was made to cover the escalation of clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Until another proper conflict breaks out again like theOctober 2025 conflict, any new border clashes should only be added to the original border clashes page. Having to update boththis page andthe normal one till the end of time seems useless waste of both energy and time of not only editors, but also readers as well, since both pages have been covering the same new border clashes since 2024. I'd say to end this page hear and only add new clashes to the normal page. If a new conflict between Pakistan and the Taliban breaks out, it can have its own article and a sub-section on theAfghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes article. This article should only be limited to cover the 2024-2025 major escalation in clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover and the subsequent clashes between the countries during this escalation. It should only cover a phase, not a never-ending conflict.KashanAbbas (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Ethyl iodide →IodoethaneIodoethane – Following up onthe discussion above, it is proposed that all articles forhaloalkanes use substitutive nomenclature with the parentalkane rather than the alkyl halide (radical-based) form. As describedabove, the proposed names appear to be the most common names for these compounds. The proposed moves will bringconsistency among the haloalkane articles; note that a nearly equal number of such articles presently exist at their names using the parent alkane. The alkyl halide version of the name will be listed in the lede as a significant alternative name and of course be a redirect.Mdewman6 (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 09:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Dredge (disambiguation) →DredgeDredge – Trying this again because the previous discussion was solely opposed by non-policy basedWP:VOTEs. Please cite policy of some sort if you are going to oppose this time. My argument remains the same; there are several potential primary topics for "Dredge", including fishing and marine biology dredges, as well as the Dredge video game, and none of them are obviously primary. The dredging article is broader and doesn't necessarily go into detail on the dredges themselves.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 00:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Weizmann →Weizmann (surname) – No obviousWP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT). It's only historical that the surname article is located at the primary topic and it was incorrectly hosting dab entries until recently. Now they're split correctly into a dab, with the university and the surname being the the main items. PerWP:DETERMINEPRIMARYoriginal source of the name is also not determinative so there's no default (PT) to the surname.Widefox;talk 00:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Stielhandgranate →Stick grenadeStick grenade – With the current renovation and split of the article, i believe it is time to finally move this article to a universal name. Calling it "Stielhandgranate" gives off the wrong idea that the various German models are variants of one another, which is not really the case, and also that all other stick grenades which we cover are direct "copies", which absolutely is not the case.ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 20:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Kaiser Family Foundation →KFF (health policy) – Kaiser Family Foundation is no longer the name of the organization. It legally changed it's name to KFF at the end of 2025. The current title "Kaiser Family Foundation" is outdated. The entity has legally transitioned from a private foundation to a 501(c)(3) public charity. KFF is its common name; It has been DBA as KFF for several years prior to the legal change. Major media outlets refer to the organization as KFF. Examples includeWall Street Journal,The Washington Post,The New York Times, andCNN. While "organization" or "nonprofit" might be preferred by Wikipedia, there is another nonprofit organization "King Faisal Foundation" that also goes by KFF. Therefore, this move request is a topical one, which succinctly informs the reader of the specific field of expertise for KFF.Rsidel (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand →He WhakaputangaHe Whakaputanga – My primary reason behind this is perWP:COMMONNAME. It is quite clear that He Whakaputanga is theWP:COMMONNAME and has been for quite some time now. Additionally, He Whakaputanga complies withWP:USEENGLISH as it is theWP:COMMONNAME in English RSes as demonstrated: *Google Ngrams with He Whakaputanga and its variations, as well as Declaration of Independence of New Zealand/of the United Tribes of New Zealand and its variants shows He Whakaputanga as demonstrably higher than all others. *Google Trends (worldwide) shows that He Whakaputanga is theWP:COMMONNAME over the past five years worldwide. *Google Trends (New Zealand) shows this by a far more significant margin as well. In the previous move request, key examples were listed that demonstrate theWP:COMMONNAME across books, scholarly articles and news/media per Turnagra: *Scholarly articles:[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61] *Books:[62][63],[64],[65], *Web and news:[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76] As it has been over a year since the previous move request, there are further examples that can be listed to support that He Whakaputanga is theWP:COMMONNAME: *Prominent news/media:[77][78][79][80] *Academic sources:[81][82][83] There are many other sources that use He Whakaputanga, these are just the first few results when I did a Google search and Google scholar search for the past year. Additionally, He Whakaputanga is moreWP:PRECISE than "Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand", which is a precision issue, as it conflates He Whakaputanga, which is an independence declaration of the United Tribes of New Zealand with the separate modern-day state of New Zealand. Moreover, it is quite clear that He Whakaputanga is moreWP:CONCISE (it being 2 words compared to the status quo of 6). Lastly, moving the article name to He Whakaputanga, reflecting theWP:COMMONNAME in English RSes, as well as it being the primary name for itself in official contexts ensures this article remains neutral perWP:NPOV, reflecting current consensus from academia and RSes, instead of outdated descriptive terms. While I think this RM should be on the basis of the evidence and policy arguments I provided alone, I also think that it is helpful to note my experience; I have been a law student for around 4 years now, and in all of the study on the topic, and legal sources that I have encountered, He Whakaputanga has been near-exclusively referred to as He Whakaputanga, sometimes with a transliteration in its first occurrence.Carolina2k22 •(talk) 23:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Lotto →Lotto (disambiguation)Lotto (disambiguation) – To allow the base title to redirect tolottery, the clear synonymous primary topic for the plain word in English. The other topics that are listed on the disambiguation page are much less notable and have far fewer page views. The only other topics that have long-term significance are the Renaissance painter and the sportswear brand, and each of those are lesser known examples in their fields/industies.oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio11:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –CARS24 → ? – Reliable independent sources such as Reuters and The Economic Times use "Cars24" (capital C, lowercase ars) in coverage. The current title "CARS24" does not reflect common usage in secondary sources. I have a potential conflict of interest and request uninvolved editors to evaluate this move.Sudhanshu Kadu (talk)08:10, 11 February 2026 (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) –Template:Welcome-unregistered-unconstructive → ? – The current title does not very well convey the strength of the wording used in the template. The template should be renamed to something like "Welcome-unregistered-vandalism" or "Welcome-unregistered-reverted", those would be a lot more clear as to the template's contents. I am mainly making this requested move because I welcomed @~2026-75481-1 using this template and they were not receptive to this kind of messaging. I think using the word "vandalism" makes a lot of sense because this encompasses the additional concept of a revert, in addition vandalism is not welcome on Wikipedia perWikipedia:Vandalism, this is the one I tend tosupport most. Warning a user of vandalism should be left to a warning template, not a welcome template because welcome templates should usuallyassume good faith, this means that there is also a discussion to be had aboutdeleting the template. There is also some pertinence in making a name change because on the previous move to the template's current title, the closer saidalthough I think we'd better have suggestions for what it is to be renamed to.Qwerty123M (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)23:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Triple J Hottest 100, 2025 →Triple J Hottest 100 of 2025Triple J Hottest 100 of 2025 – As perWP:Article titles#Comma-separated disambiguation, commas are seldom acceptable as a disambiguation in titles for articles covering topics like these. The way these titles are currently structured is notWP:NATURAL, seeing as they use a comma before the year, which is not normally pronounced, this makes the text sounds very robotic and computer-like. Searching up "triple j hottest 100" online, most of the results say "Hottest 100 of (year)". I have also proposed changing the name of the 1989 and 1990 countdowns to "Hot 100" as they were known at the time. The fact that we can find more sources saying "of (year)" means these titles comply well withWP:COMMONNAME. TheABC officially named the2025 edition the "Hottest 100 of 2025". An alternate option is to move the year to the front of the title but I don't think there's any reason the year needs to precede the rest of the title.Qwerty123M (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio13:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Princess Maria Antonietta of Bourbon-Two Sicilies →Princess Maria Antonietta of the Two SiciliesPrincess Maria Antonietta of the Two Sicilies – I see that a lot of Princesses of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies who were born or lived when the Kingdom of Two Sicilies still existed had their article named with formula (Princess) Name of the Two Sicilies, like Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies, Princess Luisa Carlotta of the Two Sicilies, Princess Maria Carolina of the Two Sicilies (born 1856). I also see the same phenomenon for the Princesses of Parma, those who were born when the Duchy of Parma were still exist were called Princess Name of Parma, like Princess Isabella of Parma, Maria Luisa of Parma, those who were born when the Duchy was no longer exist were called of Bourbon-Parma, like Zita of Bourbon-Parma. SO I want to change the article's name of those princesses.Oohlala8195 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk05:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Pipipi →PīpipiPīpipi – As said by @MothmanNZ, there is a macron missing in the title ([[84]], [[85]]) I dont think this move request is necessarily controversial, but there is some inconsistency within the article between the English "brown creeper" and Māori "pīpipi". Perhaps discussion on which name is best for the Wikipedia article is needed.Jonaslamarche (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 05:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk02:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Candidozyma auris →Candida aurisCandida auris – This would reverse theundiscussed uncontested technical move requested byUser:Redthreadhx and would align with common usage as well as the content of the article itself. Note that the title should be displayed in italics, asCandida auris. The reclassification and change in the genus name was proposed in 2024.[86][87] The proposal is controversial and has not been widely adopted in the medical and scientific literature.Google Scholar shows 3,480 hits for "Candida auris" published since 2025 and just 388 hits for "Candidozyma auris". Similarly, Wiley shows 113 hits for "Candida auris"[88] and 12 for "Candidozyma auris"[89] published in the last 12 months and Springer–Nature shows 233 hits for "Candida auris"[90] and 40 for "Candidozyma auris"[91] in the past 12 months. While the UK government has apparently adoptedCandidozyma auris,[92][93]Candida auris is still used by the US CDC,[94] the Canadian government,[95] the WHO,[96][97] federal and local health authorities in Australia,[98][99][100][101][102][103] APIC,[104] and other institutions. This article usesCandida auris throughout and never explains the discrepancy. Coverage of the proposed revision is probably warranted but the longstanding title and common medical and scientific name should be restored. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 13:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk09:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Vainglory (disambiguation) →VaingloryVainglory – "Vainglory" is so uncommonly used as a synonym for vanity that it's arguable there is no obvious primary topic for this term. Ngrams lists vainglory as having a fraction of the uses vanity does, and it's likely that people searching for it on Wikipedia either have no idea what it means (in which case a DAB page with a Wiktionary box would be more helpful than sending them to "vanity") or are looking for one of the works of media with that name.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Vestrian24Bio10:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Northumberland Park Metro station → ? – With the incoming opening of the Northumberland Line platform on February 22nd, should this be renamed just to Northumberland Park station to reflect its multimodal status, should the "(Tyne and Wear)" be added at the end or which station should be the primary topic? Should there be no primary topic station and the disambiguation page stays as it is as well?Difficultly north (talk)Time, department skies13:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Vladimir Ivashko →Volodymyr Ivashko – Ivashko was an ethnic Ukrainian politician who, until his promotion to Deputy General Secretary of the USSR-wide party, had a party career almost exclusively within the Ukrainian Branch of the CPSU. Neither the fact that he was the Deputy General Secretary of the USSR-wise party (Jean Chrétien didn't magically become "John Christian" when he became leader of the Canada-wide Liberal Party, for example), nor the tendency of Cold War-era sources to use the Russian name forms for non-Russian Soviet people (e.g. Pyotr Luchinsky forPetru Lucinschi, or Ivan Kebin forJohannes Käbin) justify the Wikipedia article being titled using the Russian form of Ivashko's name.Glide08 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk)07:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Yahweh →Yahweh (historical) – The unqualified title "Yahweh" is highly controversial as it is simultaneously the common name for the living God of contemporary Abrahamic faiths and the subject of historical-critical scholarship. Moving the historical article allows readers to easily choose between the scholarly topic and the religious topic via disambiguation.Félix An (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 09:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk05:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula →Muslim conquest of SpainMuslim conquest of Spain – This never should have been moved away from Spain. It's now a lengthy mouthful instead of concise and doesn't follow the predominant language. SeeNgrams. Also, it doesn't accurately reflect the name of the geography as it was named at the time when it was conquered. It was Visigothic Spain or Hispania, but everyone knows the Roman term Hispania is what becomes 'Spain', so it gets simplified in literature as the latter. This becomes particularly clear when you look at what actually comes after 'Visigothic' in the literature, and it's not even close:Ngram #2. Finally, 'Iberian Peninsula' only appears on page where it's been inserted, only 12 times and not in the sources. 'Spain' appears nearly twice as much despite being temporarily displaced from the title, etc., and its prominent in sources.Arab conquest of Spain ...Moorish Spain ...Islamic Spain ...Muslim Spain are littered across the source titles. So if it's called Spain before the conquest, and Spain after the conquest, I think we know what it is called for the purposes of the conflict. And yes, Portugal exists, but it didn't at this point in history. SeeNgrams or lack therein, for 'Visigothic Portugal'. The clear common name for the relevant territory at this point is 'Spain'.Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk05:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) –Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) →First Congolese RepublicFirst Congolese Republic – Following on fromthis discussion, this title appears to make the most sense. Periodisation of Congolese postcolonial history is usually split into post-independence (1960-1965) and Mobutu's rule (1965-1997). The country gained independence as the "Republic of the Congo" in 1960, was renamed "Democratic Republic of Congo" in 1964 (1 year before Mobutu's coup), and then "Zaire" in 1971. The scope ofZaire could be extended back to 1965 (with its first sentence saying(Democratic Republic of Congo until 1971) or similar). Proposed title does get some hits on Scholar and Books, and theEncyclopedia of African History uses this periodisation, as does Didier Gongola (but w the terms "First Republic" and "Second Republic") inhis bookKowal2701 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.CNC (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)— Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk05:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
19:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]