Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PCM)

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests 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 the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Andrii Nedyak → Andrii NediakAndrii Nediak (currently a redirect back to Andrii Nedyak) (move · discuss) – I made a mistake in changing the name and not the last name when moving to correct transliteration of the name Ceriy (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceriy can you please provide some support for the transliteration, preferably citing reliable english lanugage sources? Most links on the page are broken, but when they were added they use the current spelling variation. Happy to move if this can be supported with RS. TiggerJay (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly there are no English language sources for him. This shows his name spelling in Ukrainian. [1] Ukrainian official systems for romanizing table shows the Ukrainian letter й transliterated as i and я as ia. Russian is usually transliterate as y or ya so that led to many names being incorrectly Anglicized. State migration Service of Ukraine has a webpage to check name spelling [2]. The current law list and example [3] Олексій (same ending as Андрій) as Oleksii (Andrii). Last name is Недяк - Nediak (same letter я in the middle of the name Костянтин - Kostiantyn)
    Note under the table on the law page: 3. Transliteration of surnames and given names of persons and geographical names is carried out by reproducing each letter in Latin.
    Here is an example of former Ambassador and Acting Foreign minister spelling Andrii Deshchytsia (Андрій Дещиця).
    Ceriy (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that additional information, however I'm still not comfortable making this move (as non-controversial), and seeing as how it has been sitting around untouched for several days, you might have more success through a formal, full requested move, which you an start by clicking the discuss link next to your original request. TiggerJay (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see why an RS would be needed. WP:UKROM governs transliteration of Ukrainian: [t]he Ukrainian National system of 010 is used for general romanization of Ukrainian terms and names. If you can’t read Cyrillic, just copy and paste the characters into WP:UKRTABLE to confirm that Ceriy isn’t spouting nonsense. If we were to need an English-language RS for every Romanisation, it wouldn’t be possible to make even passing Romanised reference to anyone who hasn’t appeared in such a source. (A different problem would be if e.g. a variant Romanisation were to be very common in English sources, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.) Docentation (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Worvandae This page has already been moved multiple times, including to the proposed page name. As such, it is not an uncontroversial move. Please click on "discuss" next to your request to start a full RM discussion on the article talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand name / branded product name. Brand names are conventionally capitalized per MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM. Prefixing with a lowercase "i-" is somewhat conventional, but all-lowercase does not seem like ordinary English formatting. At least one cited source (Quartz) uses the current title format. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blowwhite Considering the current, proposed and also Duchnevičius variants are all used both on page and in reliable sources, it seems as though this might not be as straightforward as simply following primary sources, and should probably be discussed as part of a formal requested move discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Docentation The change breaks consistency with other titles such as Malay Singaporean and Irish Americans. – robertsky (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no general rule here (see e.g. British Chinese, British Indians, Malaysian Chinese, Thai Chinese, Malaysian Indians), so I fail to see how consistency considerations apply, and in any case WP:COMMONNAME plausibly takes priority. Docentation (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks potentially controversial, as some of the source titles use the current spelling. Left guide (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original jim (짐) was a spelling error, it should be jjim (찜). (I removed the incorrect Hangul spelling 짐 from the article. The language distinguishes j (ㅈ) and jj (ㅉ), and the word jim means "baggage/burden" while jjim means "steamed/braised dish". The former is not a valid word in this culinary context.) I also added a hyphen, as that seems to be the standard formatting for food names with three or more syllables (e.g., Agwi-jjim, Galbi-jjim, Gyeran-jjim). 2804:14C:5BC6:8FFE:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 10 August 2025" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 10 August 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 10 August 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 10 August 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2025‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 10 August 2025

– why Example (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 10 August 2025

– why Example (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

Shortcut
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 124 discussions have been relisted.

August 10, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Godzilla (1954 character) → Godzilla (Showa) – In regards to the 1954 iteration of Godzilla, we already have the following articles: Godzilla (1954 film), Godzilla (Showa), and Godzilla. Most of the article's information was taken from the 1954 film article and the Godzilla article; someone above the talk page even questioned whether this was a duplicate article. Additionally, @GojiraFan1954: already created an article for the Showa variants of Godzilla. The 1954 Godzilla is the first variant of the Showa-era (1954-1975), so why not merge this with the Godzilla (Showa) article? Naturally, an article that serves as the all-encompassing page for the Showa iterations should include info about the '54 Godzilla since it is the first variant in the Showa period -- yet the info is missing from that article. A merge would be more beneficial rather than give all 15 Showa versions of Godzilla their own articles. Armegon (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 9, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Nisse (folklore) → Nordic gnome – Nisse doesnt adapt well into English, and Nisse/Tomte etc is traditionally translated as gnome in English (compare garden gnome > da. havenisse, no. hagenisse, sv. trädgårdstomte, fi. puutarhatonttu). "Nordic gnome" is how i personally as a native Swede would describe the folklore to someone unfamiliar with the concept and i belive that title is much better for such people. Blockhaj (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 14:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Unity of religion and rule → Saisei Itchi – This article was translated from 祭政一致. In Japanese, this term is used to refer to combination of state and religion in all forms (not just in Japan) which is why this article as it is is not specific to Japan. However, in English, the term saisei itchi is used in academia to refer only to the that in Japan. If this article is to remain general like it is, then any content worth preserving should be merged with Theocracy, State Religion, or State Shinto. However, if not merging it, it may be worth retaining this article as Saisei Itchi so it may be used as a place for information specifically on saisei itchi as it's discussed in English academia. Erynamrod (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – John Macarthur (wool pioneer) → John Macarthur (colonial officer) – Wikipedia has only about 67 articles disambiguated with "([something] pioneer)", and only 15 where the "[something]" is not a country/state or its adjective form or other capitalized term. This one seems especially odd, as it is just "wool pioneer" rather than, e.g., "wool trade pioneer" or "wool industry pioneer". Disambiguation terms for such topics should generally be commonly used, broadly applicable occupation identifiers. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 8, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Rebecca Hawkins → Deleted to make way for moved article – As far as I can tell, the Yu-Gi-Oh! character is not especially important. With only two topics identified, we might not need a disambiguation page. Otherwise, perhaps we should rename this as Rebecca Hawkins (accessory to murder) or Rebecca Hawkins (killer) or somesuch. There are very few (only 10) articles on Wikipedia that use "[adjective] woman" as a disambiguation term, and most of the others seem to have a better reason (e.g., where the adjective is a demonym or "enslaved"). Merely removing "woman" would be an improvement (since she needs no disambiguation from other pioneers named Rebecca Hawkins who are not women). However, Ms. Hawkins seems to have been more notable for being a (pardoned) killer than for being a pioneer. She was apparently not actually convicted of murder, but only of an unsuccessful attempt (ordering her slave to administer an insufficient amount of rat poison) and as an accessory (for when she later paid $150 to hire someone who succeeded in killing her husband). "Rebecca Hawkins (attempted murderer)" doesn't seem adequate, since the second attempt was succeeded. Is there a well-known term for someone who hires someone else to murder someone? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom → ? – I have two suggestions for a more appropriate title for the article, that being Bronies and Brony fandom, but I cannot quite decide which one to choose. Either one of them, however, better fulfills WP:CRITERIA than the current title. They are far more COMMONNAMES than the current title, as shown by the citations. Either term is more WP:CONCISE than the current title, which is seven words long. Finally, as several parts of the fandom gained from FIM has branched out to also appreciate the franchise's earlier generations, following generations and upcoming generations, it is quite clear that the fandom refers to more than just FIM fans, but the franchise as a whole, and the terms Bronies and Brony fandom do not limit the scope to simply FIM, and thus either term is more WP:PRECISE than the current. So those are my arguments for why the title should be moved, but which title would be better among the two I suggested? Bronies or Brony fandom Cacophonic peace (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hauser, ID Refueling Facility → Hauser fueling depot – or BNSF Hauser fueling depot or maybe Hauser Main Line Refueling Depot or BNSF Hauser Main Line Refueling Depot. Motivated to get rid of the lopsided punctuation and postal-style abbreviation in this article title, I found three sources cited in the article that were accessible without a paywall. One of them is from the company that owns this facility and two are not (Daily Bee and Associated Press). The Daily Bee article refers to "[the] Hauser Fueling Depot" and "the Hauser fueling depot" (primarily the former), and for short also "Hauser Depot" and just "Hauser". Associated Press refers to "a Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Co. refueling station near Hauser, Idaho". BNSF itself refers to "BNSF's refueling facility at Hauser" (lowercase). With an off-Wikipedia search, I find a Railway Age article that refers to "BNSF's Main Line Refueling Depot at Hauser" and "the Hauser fueling facility" and "the Hauser refueling facility" and "BNSF's Hauser, Idaho, refueling facility" and for short just "Hauser". It also refers to "Hauser Yard", but I think that might not be synonymous with the fueling depot. The Spokesman Review refers to "The Hauser Mainline Fueling Facility" and "the Hauser depot" and "the Hauser facility" and for short just "Hauser". (Note that one capitalized variant is "Main Line" and the other is "Mainline" and one is "Refueling" and the other is "Fueling" and one is "Depot" and the other is "Facility".) Since the sources provide no consistent name or consistent capitalization, I suggest a simple and concise descriptive (lowercase) title. "Fueling" is shorter than "refueling", and "depot" is shorter than "facility". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 09:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Flat Display Mounting Interface → VESA mounting standard – VESA is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME for this type of mount. "Flat Display Mounting Interface" is an obscure technical name that most people (including myself a few minutes ago) will not recognize (recognizability is one of the five WP:CRITERIA for good article titles). On VESA's website, their page about the standard is titled "Mounting Standard", with FDMI as a small subtitle. Looking at just about any other site (found via Google, etc) that talks about the standard, they will overwhelmingly call it VESA mount and only mention FDMI as an alternate name (if they mention it at all). Google Ngram Viewer shows that VESA is far more used than FDMI. I can't compare to "FDMI mount" or "Flat Display Mounting Interface" because they are too rarely used; it says "Ngram not found". Although the article currently lists "VESA Mounting Interface Standard (MIS)" as an alternate title, it appears that this is actually the name of an obsolete standard from 1999; it was superseded by FDMI in 2002 (per FDMI v1.1). Thus, that title isn't suitable; "VESA mounting standard" (in lowercase because it's not a proper noun) seems like the best fit (especially given its use on the official website). IagoQnsi (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 7, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Tweedie distribution → Tweedie–Bar-Lev–Enis distribution – Several reliable sources describe this family as independently and rigorously characterized by M. C. K. Tweedie (1984) and by Shaul K. Bar-Lev & Peter Enis (1986), and recent literature adopts the triple eponym. The current single-eponym title reflects later secondary usage and obscures the dual/independent characterization. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY (distribution pages use the singular), the title should be Tweedie–Bar-Lev–Enis distribution. Sources: Tweedie 1984; Bar-Lev & Enis 1983, 1986; Brown 1986 (cites the 1983 TR); Jørgensen 1987; Bar-Lev 2019; Cohen & Huillet 2022; Kokonendji et al. 2020; Truquet, Cohen & Doukhan 2024. Stochastics101 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC) ~~~~ — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 23:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kantara: Chapter 2 → Kantara (2022 film) – The current title is confusing, as it can be interpreted as the 2025 film and moreover, it does not meet the WP:OFFICIAL guidelines, Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.. Instead of being recognisable, this title is often interpreted as the 2025 film, [1] [2] I was not able to find any source that states that the film's title has been changed to Kantara: Chapter 2 except Apple TV. Even if it was, retroactive titles are not allowed. Even external links have this title on the page and these links have either Kantara - A Legend or simply Kantara. In my opinion, this page should be moved to Kantara (2022 film) and Kantara (later retitled Kantara: Chapter 2) should be changed to Kantara: A Legend. Optim594 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC) Optim594 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – War on Crypto → Regulation of cryptocurrency – Continuation of a discussion that began at the AfD: This name is not a WP:COMMONNAME, and more importantly it is not a neutral name—meaning it's subject to WP:NPOVNAME's requirements, which state that An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use...Wikipedia ... avoids common names for lacking neutrality [when they are] trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later [or] colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious.
    Generally, the sources containing the phrase "war on crypto" do not use title case (which this article's title is in), and use it as a turn of phrase—similar to the phrase "war on food dyes", which does not suggest that there is such a thing as the properly-named War on Food Dyes. In order for this title to stand, it would need to be demonstrated that a significant majority of English-language sources use it as the proper name of the article's subject.
    Regulation of cryptocurrency satisfies WP:NDESC and doesn't 1) reify such an artificial concept as "the War on Crypto", nor 2) limit this article's scope to only regulations perceived as attacks on the technology or financial structures of cryptocurrencies. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jurassic World → Jurassic World (film)Jurassic World (film) – The first couple moves are pretty straightforward and probably shouldn't be too controversial, I hope. This franchise is no longer called Jurassic Park. It has not been called Jurassic Park for over a decade now. Every film released since 2015 has been called Jurassic World and not Jurassic Park, now including one that is officially out of the previous trilogy, which means that the new title is here to stay. Also, since the release of the 2015 movie, virtually every single piece of media in this franchise has bore the name Jurassic World, including multiple television series, the LEGO theme, a live show, a board game, and nearly every single video game based on this franchise that was released after the movie came out. Universal Pictures also officially titles this franchise Jurassic World, as can be seen on their about page, where they list "Jurassic World" as one of their franchises, as well as selling the full six-movie box set as the "Jurassic World Ultimate Collection". We even have precedent for moving a franchise article when the franchise changes name, as The Fast and the Furious was moved to Fast & Furious when it became clear that the name of the franchise had changed. This should follow suit. If this move passes, it would also move related pages Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, Velociraptors in Jurassic Park, List of Jurassic Park characters, and Jurassic Park video games. The third move is a little more complicated, and just by the way, if anyone supports one proposal and opposes the other, it would be very helpful to break them up instead of giving a blanket support or oppose. I believe that the 1993 film is the primary topic for the term "Jurassic Park". As a reminder, the two criteria for a primary topic are usage, and long-term significance. It isn't really necessary that a topic hits both criteria (see Madonna vs. Madonna (art), or conversely Avatar vs. Avatar (2009 film)), but fortunately the film does meet both criteria.  : A topic hits the usage threshold "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." This is true of the film, which in the last five years got over 30% more views than the franchise article, which is the second most popular, and more than the pageviews of every other article that could be titled "Jurassic Park" combined (excluding partial title matches), which means that more readers seek the film than all other topics combined. Link. There is also the possibility that some of the people that want the film ended up at the franchise article by mistake, which is what happened to me. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine exactly how often this happens, but one hint is that over 10,000 more people a month go from Jurassic Park to Jurassic Park (film) than the reverse, which would work out to about 120,000 extra views for the franchise a year.  : Long-term significance is trickier, because the film is an adaptation of a novel, which inherently is both older and also the first work to be called "Jurassic Park". However, as the guideline notes, neither age nor the source of the name are determinative. Considering a film adaptation of a prior work to be the primary topic is relatively unusual, although not unheard of: First Blood, The Godfather, The Exorcist, Fight Club, Forrest Gump, and The Descendants are all primary topics over the novels they are adapted from, among others. I would say that Jurassic Park belongs in this group. The Crichton novel is good, and was generally well-received when it came out, but the movie is much more significant. It won several Academy Awards, was the highest-grossing film of all time upon release and is the oldest film ever to gross over $1 billion, pioneered visual effects that inspired many other, also enormously popular films, has essentially created the cultural image of dinosaurs for the past thirty years, is widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, and was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry. It is legitimately difficult to overstate the significance of this film. The novel, to be frank, is probably most significant for spawning the movie. The franchise, while clearly still popular, also has substantially less long-term significance; it is generally viewed as something of a "diminishing returns" franchise, with every subsequent film failing to match the critical acclaim and (adjusted for inflation) box-office of the original. Nothing else in the franchise has had nearly the impact on filmmaking or the cultural significance that the 1993 film had. We have several instances where, for various reasons, the first film in a series is considered the most important one and therefore is the primary topic, including The Matrix, Toy Story, and Die Hard; this should also apply to the Jurassic World franchise. Ladtrack (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 6, 2025

References

  1. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/kantara-chapter-2-kanguva-family-star-prime-video-2024-south-film-releases-2517068-2024-03-20
  2. ^ https://www.livemint.com/entertainment/kantara-2-being-postponed-amid-rumours-rishab-shettys-team-says-trust-us-it-ll-be-worth-the-wait-11747933593198.html
  3. ^ Ruiz, Vicki L. (1998). From Out of the Shadows: Mexican Women in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537478-0.
  4. ^ Ruiz, Vicki L. (2005). "Luisa Moreno and Latina Labor Activism". In Ruiz, Vicki L.; Sánchez Korrol, Virginia (eds.). Latina Legacies: Identity, Biography, and Community. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 175–192. ISBN 978-0-19-515399-6.
  5. ^ Weber, Devra (2006). "Communist Party". In Ruiz, Vicki L. (ed.). Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 168–169. ISBN 0-253-34680-0.
  6. ^ Ruiz, Vicki L. (2006). "El Congreso de Pueblos de Hablan Española". In Ruiz, Vicki L. (ed.). Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. p. 226. ISBN 0-253-34680-0.
  7. ^ Camarillo, Albert M. (2006). "Fierro, Josefina (1914-1998)". In Ruiz, Vicki L. (ed.). Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 259–260. ISBN 0-253-34680-0.
  8. ^ Chávez Leyva, Yolanda (2006). "Great Depression and Mexican American Women". In Ruiz, Vicki L. (ed.). Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 259–260. ISBN 0-253-34680-0.
  9. ^ Carpio, Genevieve G. (2016). "Philanthropic (Dis)Trust and the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement, 1950–1965". Western Historical Quarterly. 47 (3): 303–323. doi:10.1093/whq/whw051. ISSN 0043-3810. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  10. ^ García, Mario T. (1989). Mexican Americans: Leadership, Ideology, and Identity. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-04246-9.
  11. ^ Salas, Elizabeth (2006). "Introduction: A Historical and Regional Overview". In Ruiz, Vicki L. (ed.). Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–28. ISBN 0-253-34680-0.
  12. ^ Ruiz, Vicki L. (2006). "Moreno, Luisa (1907-1992)". In Ruiz, Vicki L. (ed.). Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 492–494. ISBN 0-253-34680-0.
  13. ^ Rosales, Francisco A. (2006). "El Congreso de Pueblos de Habla Española". Dictionary of Latino Civil Rights History. Houston: Arte Público Press. pp. 492–494. ISBN 1-55885-347-2.
  14. ^ Cordova, Amanda Jo; García-Louis, Claudia; Niño, Juan Manuel. "Surveying the Labyrinth of Relationships in Academia: Testimonios from Brown Faculty". SoJo Journal: Educational Foundations and Social Justice Education. 6. IAP: 69–84. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
Spookyaki (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 22:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lee Chae-yeon → Chae YeonChae Yeon – The article currently titled "Lee Chae-yeon" refers to Lee Jin-sook, better known as Chae Yeon (not Lee Chae-yeon). The current title can cause confusion with another singer named Lee Chae-yeon (born 2000). Moving the page to "Chae Yeon" would better reflect reliable sources and naming conventions. Tygx (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 5, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russia–Ukraine warRussia–Ukraine war – Sources almost universally describe the current conflict as a war. The word "invasion" is used only in reference to Russia's initial 24 February act of invasion, and is not used to describe the current war, three years long. [38][39][40][41] are all from just today; all describe the current conflict as a war. To those sources that call it a three-year-long invasion, we must consider Wikipedia's influence on the matter, which artificially inflates the percentage of sources using such framework. This article calls the conflict a war consistently (e.g. The direct cost of the war for Russia has been over US$450 billion.) This distinction between an invasion and a war has historical precedent. German invasion of the Soviet Union redirects to Operation Barbarossa, not to Eastern Front (World War II), even though Germany was still advancing for almost a year after the German invasion of Russia occurred.
    The main obstacle in moving this article to a page with "war" in it is the existence of the article Russo-Ukrainian War. However, it is hardly community consensus that keeps the page at that title. The article remained at the title Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) for six years before an RM, opened by a blocked sock and with low participation, found consensus to move in June 2020. Immediately after it was closed, a large number of editors voiced salient concerns about the new title that, had they commented in the discussion, would have resulted in the page not being moved. These include I suppose this (and even previous) title is wrong. If to refer to Google search, then Russo-Ukrainian conflict has 100x more hits than both. from Infovarius, followed by agreement below from other editors.
    Sources almost universally refer to the state of affairs since 2014 as a conflict – even many that describe a three-year invasion. The archives of Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War are full of editors complaining about how the title is wrong, and though the ECR means they have no voice on this topic, the complaint should be heard. We have spent three years ignoring sources and misleading readers. Let's get back on track with our policies.
    On "Russo-Ukrainian" vs. "Russia–Ukraine", the former is consistent with names entrenched in historical literature (e.g. Franco-Prussian War) while the second is consistent with contemporary names for conflicts (e.g. Iran–Israel war). The absolute common name is "Ukraine war" or "war in Ukraine", but both are ambiguous, and per WP:NATDIS, this still-common name (used in the Al Jazeera header among other news outlets) should prevail, outnumbering "Russo-Ukrainian war" by upwards of an order of magnitude.
    On "War" vs. "war", the word is not consistently capitalized in sources, per NCCAPS. It is not usually capitalized in sources, per MILTERMS. It is, in fact, very rarely capitalized in sources, as it doesn't yet represent a proper name, but a descriptive name for the conflict.
    TL;DR: Let's do what Wikipedia does best and choose the common name for these two articles.
    -- 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Villawood → Villawood, New South WalesVillawood, New South Wales – The previous discussion noted that there is an existing disambiguation page for Villawood, however it was determined that the suburb is the WP:PTOPIC. However, this is not reflected in the page view statistics. These indicate the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) receives significantly more traffic.[42][43] Furthermore, searches of Trove (since 1990) indicate that the facility has been frequently referred to as just "Villawood" by many National publications for several decades. [44][45][46][47]. Searching the term in Google news also returns many articles that are referring to happenings in the suburb "Villawood", however these are overwhelmingly from Sydney-based media oulets. It also returns many articles about the IDC from national and international sources. Given the above, WP:PT1 would suggest as that name recognition of Villawood is much higher for the detention centre over the suburb to readers outside of Sydney, so the disambiguation page is a more appropriate target and this page should be moved back to Villawood, New South Wales. Dfadden (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Devin Moore (murderer) → ? – Fairly clear case of WP:BIO1E. The shooting was more impactful, with no notability for Moore after his conviction. I'd be in favor of rendering the page either a more detailed event article on the three murders (something like "Murders of Arnold Strickland, James Crump and Leslie Mealer" or "2003 murders of Fayette police employees" or just "2003 Fayette shooting", in line with other police killing articles) or simply merging it into the existing Strickland v. Sony, which currently lacks details on the killings themselves, not even containing the victims' names. Rubintyrann (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 00:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 4, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Michael Andregg → Michael Murphy AndreggMichael Murphy Andregg – The current title “Michael Andregg” risks conflation with a different individual named Michael Andregg, who does not have a Wikipedia article but appears in search engine results and AI-generated knowledge panels. Google’s AI summaries are already merging content from both individuals due to the ambiguous title. The subject of this article is cited in multiple reliable sources as “Michael Murphy Andregg,” his full legal name. Using the full name in the article title would: * Align with published usage in academic and governmental references * Preserve clear disambiguation from others with similar names * Reduce misattribution and confusion caused by AI tools that scrape Wikipedia Wikipedia’s policy favors common names, but not at the expense of ambiguity. This is a case where omitting the middle name causes significant, demonstrable confusion. I propose renaming the article to “Michael Murphy Andregg” to correct this and maintain factual clarity. ResearchObserver47 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Suicide by pilot → Aircraft-assisted suicide – Based on the previous move request that reached no concensus, this title should best balance the opinions provided as follows: (1) everybody agreed on that the title should contain suicide (2) regarding aircraft-assisted vs by aircraft, the former is supported by the research literature as the scientific term and best fulfills WP:PRECISION requirements, and (3) not including by pilot, the title allows to include also suicides by hijackers etc. IlkkaP (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Meghna Division → Comilla DivisionComilla Division – I propose that the page. On 17 December 2024, the Public Administration Reform Commission of the interim government officially recommended naming the new administrative division “Comilla Division,” page 191 and this has become the de facto designation. Sheikh Hasina’s original proposal to name the division “Meghna Division” is no longer under consideration following her ouster. Since “Meghna Division” no longer reflects the current official nomenclature, retitling the article will ensure accuracy and consistency with government usage. Guspirius092742 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 3, 2025

  • (Discuss) – On conducting a special military operation → Speech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of UkraineSpeech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of Ukraine – The background to this is in the section above, but here is an account of the issue. The question of making the move was raised by NikitaIsNext05, and on checking I found that I agreed with their concerns. Freedoxm has stated that he disagrees, but has so far not said why. There are, it seems to me, two issues: the title has no official status, apparently having been invented for this Wikipedia article, and it is not a helpful or informative title. I shall deal with each of those points. * "On conducting a special military operation" is not used as a title for the speech in any significant or reliable source, including the official Russian government publication of the speech. The speech on the Russian government website is titled "Обращение Президента Российской Федерации"; the English version on the Russian government web site is titled "Address by the President of the Russian Federation", which is also how Google translates the Russian title. (Those two versions are respectively at http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 and http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843.) "On conducting a special military operation" is a quote from the speech, but I have searched extensively, and the use of it as a title for the speech has, as far as I can see, been invented by a Wikipedia editor. I have not found any example anywhere of use of the Russian version as a title, and its use in English is largely restricted to wikis and similar sites, all of which have either certainly or probably derived it from this Wikipedia article. * The title "On conducting a special military operation" is not helpful to the reader, as it does nothing to convey what the article is about. * Since the title of this article is neither an official title nor a title in use in reliable sources, and since it does not indicate the subject matter of the article, it would be much better replaced by something which does indicate what the article is about. NikitaIsNext05 mentioned that the Russian Wikipedia article has the title (in translation) "Speech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of Ukraine", and I have accepted that, as it clearly indicates what the article is about, but I am not wedded to that form of words if anyone has a better suggestion. Certainly I see that as far better than the current title. JBW (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hyunjin → Hyunjin (rapper)Hyunjin (rapper) – Both individuals are consistently referred to in reliable secondary sources by the mononym "Hyunjin" (Korean: 현진), not their full names.[48][49][50][51][52][53]. While both could be described as singers in general and perform vocals (as is typical for K-pop idols), the former (Stray Kids member) is primarily notable as a rapper, as reflected by the order of roles in the article lead and consistent with coverage in reliable sources, while the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) is primarily notable as a singer, providing clear grounds for disambiguation per WP:SINGERDAB and MOS:ROLEBIO. While ROLEBIO does not strictly dictate article titles, it helps identify the role for which each subject is best known. Other disambiguation options are unsuitable: "(singer, born 2000)" isn't applicable since both were born in 2000, and "(entertainer)" is discouraged per SINGERDAB, which recommends that disambiguator only "if the person is also well-known in other non-musical entertainment fields", both individuals are primarily known for musical performance and idol activities, not broader entertainment roles. Likewise, a hyphenated or full-name version for the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) is also not appropriate. A WP:BEFORE search for "Kim Hyun-jin" in Google, Bing, Naver, and Daum returns Kim Hyun-jin (the actor), rather than the Loona/Loossemble member. A search for "Kim Hyunjin" returns results referring to the Loona/Loossemble member as simply "Hyunjin", rather than under her full name. If the former (Stray Kids member) is determined to be the primary topic, that's acceptable and reasonable. However, the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) should not remain at Kim Hyunjin, which is an unnatural, obscure, and unused form, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDAB. Her article should be moved to Hyunjin (singer), the most accurate and policy-compliant title. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 13:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Burns Clubs → Burns clubBurns club – These should be named consistently. In neither case is this the proper name of a particular organisation; each of the two subjects is a general class of organisation type that rarely has any affilition with another of the same type. Per WP:SINGULAR, these must be given in singular form, since they are not "naturally plural" like scissors nor something only encyclopedically addressable as a set/collective, like the Rocky Mountains. Per MOS:CAPS, the closing word "clubs" or "societies" should not be capitalised, because these plural forms are not proper names; only the proper-name elements in these titles should be capitalised ("Burns" and "Saint Andrew"). None of them are actually named either of these things, but have longer names like "[Place] Burns Club", "St Andrew's Society of [Place]", etc., and some also don't use either of the closing words given here but have alternatives: "Burns Society of [Place]", "[Place] St. Andrew's & Caledonian Club", etc., or even are name something else entirely like "North British Association of [Place]", "[Place] Scots", or whatever, but are within the definition of the article subject in question. (Any possibility of confusion that one these subjects, in singular form, refers to a monolithic global organisation, as if all the "[Place] Burns Club" instances are chapters of it, is obviated by the lower-casing change. PS: In a similar vein, we do not pluralize the article title Institute of technology, nor capitalise institute of technology at all except within the proper name of a particular institution, e.g. California Institute of Technology.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – 2025 Cambodia–Thailand border conflict → 2025 Cambodian–Thai border conflict2025 Cambodian–Thai border conflict – Short version: This request concerns "Cambodia–Thailand" versus "Cambodian–Thai". Reasons should be obvious to most.
    Long version: This is a requested move to undo an erroneous unilateral move and restore specifically the element of the stable version that is the "Cambodian–Thai" component. The mover provided the following incorrect rationale (diff):

    The title should have name of the country, not their demonyms such as 2025 Iran–Israel war, not the "2025 Iranian–Israeli war" etc.

    According to general English conventions, this part of a title functions as an adjective and should use adjectival forms, as in Kenyan–Ugandan border conflict (not "Kenya–Uganda border conflict"), Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict (not "Eritrea–Ethiopia border conflict"), Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict (not "Djibouti–Eritrea border conflict"), etc. This is a question of grammar, of language conventions in phrases in the "[x–y] [some kind of conflict]" mold, and of consistency as one of the five Wikipedia naming policy principles.
    The reason why it is "Iran–Israel war" and not "Iranian–Israeli war" is that we say (and have been saying for decades) "Iran–Iraq War" (has a nice syllabic symmetry to it) and not "Iranian–Iraqi War" ("Iranian" and "Iraqi" don't have this symmetry, and people in the 80s were not sure if they should say "Iraqi" or "wikt:Iraqian"; indeed, you will find "Iranian–Iraqian War" in contemporary sources). Unlike the descriptive title of the article being discussed, "Iran–Iraq War" is a proper name, influenced probably by traditional headlinese, which always favors shorter forms, often disregarding grammar. This has locked in "Iran–" in any such phrase. In this context, "Iran–[country]" has become a noun phrase template—with respect to Iran...
    But not with respect to Israel. You see, it isn't "Israel–Palestine conflict"; it is "Israeli–Palestinian conflict". That's because it doesn't have "Iran–". And when Iran a.k.a. Persia was Persia, it was involved in wars such as the Ottoman–Persian Wars, the Anglo-Persian War, the Russo-Persian Wars, etc. Equally for conflicts involving Cambodia and Thailand: It is not "2008–2013 Cambodia–Thailand border crisis"; it is "2008–2013 Cambodian–Thai border crisis".
    Undoing a unilateral move normally does not require a move request, but technical help was declined at the corresponding process page because the mover or movers did not recognize that the "Cambodian-Thai" -> "Cambodia-Thailand" aspect of contested unilateral move is a distinct issue that can be addressed separately; that is to say, separately from any other issue related to yesterday's and the day's before multiple endeavors to improve the title as the situation developed. And so, as it was suggested to editors to deal with this banal problem using the RM process, an RM has been started. —Alalch E. 17:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria (2024–2025) → ? – So to end the discussion once and for all: #My position: "the Turkish ground forces [we]re not involved" as the offensive was executed by the SNA with some Turkish air support so i agreed to "SNA–Turkish campaign in Northern Syria (2024–2025)" #@Ecrusized and Lyra Stone: "SNA is a de-facto Turkish proxy force, it is dubious whether they can take any military action without direct Turkish supervision." so it should be called "Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria (2024–2025)" #@Gluonz: "feels too similar to ones that were rejected" so "Rojava conflict (2024–2025)" changed the years a bit; @Bobfrombrockley Braganza (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* 6x Form 1: Fooians in Switzerland ** Albanians in Switzerland ** Arabs in Switzerland ** Filipinos in Switzerland ** Finns in Switzerland ** Indians in Switzerland ** Turks in Switzerland * 1x Form 1c: Fooian people in Switzerland ** Romani people in Switzerland * 2x Form 4: Fooians Swiss ** Haitian Swiss ** Tibetan Swiss * 1x Form 2: Fooians of Switzerland ** Croats of Switzerland (nominated)
* 27x Form 1: Fooians in Sweden ** Afghans in Sweden ** Albanians in the Nordic countries ** List of Albanians in Scandinavia ** Americans in Sweden ** Arabs in Sweden ** Armenians in Sweden ** Assyrians in Sweden ** Bosniaks in Sweden ** Croats in Sweden ** Eritreans in Sweden ** Ethiopians in Sweden ** Germans in Sweden ** Indians in Sweden ** Kurds in Sweden ** Latvians in Sweden ** Lithuanians in Sweden ** Macedonians in Sweden ** Mandaeans in Sweden ** Norwegians in Sweden ** Poles in Sweden ** Portuguese in Sweden ** Russians in Sweden ** Somalis in Sweden ** Spaniards in Sweden ** Turks in Sweden ** Ukrainians in Sweden ** Uruguayans in Sweden * 2x Form 1b: Fooian [something] in/to Sweden ** African immigrants to Sweden ** Asian immigrants to Sweden * 1x Form 1c: Fooian people in Sweden ** Chinese people in Sweden * 1x Form 3: Sweden Fooians ** Sweden Finns * 2x Form 4: Fooians Swedes ** Chilean Swedes ** Italian Swedes * 4x Form 4b: Swedish Fooians ** Swedish Baloch ** Swedish Greeks ** Swedish Iraqis ** Swedish Serbs (nominated)
* We're making this RM as easy and clear-cut as possible, to serve as a useful precedent for later RMs of this type. NLeeuw (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Agent 007 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Preah Vihear → Preah Vihear (disambiguation)Preah Vihear (disambiguation) – Preah Vihear is the WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngram shows that "Preah Vihear" is tens of times more frequent than "Preah Vihear Temple" (or "Prasat Preah Vihear"). "Temple of Preah Vihear" is relatively frequent but just "Preah Vihear" without a qualifier is clearly the single most common version. The Khmer word "vihear" already denotes a sanctuary/spiritual abode which is arguably a more particular meaning than the broad "temple", so appending that generic qualifier is pleonastic and diluting. A look at articles in Category:Angkorian sites (and its subcats) shows a predominant practice of omitting generic architectural qualifiers such as "temple" or "Prasat" (a minority include "Prasat" however, which is caused by the influence of official naming, but they are still in the minority and should probably be moved as well). Therefore, "Preah Vihear" is WP:CONSISTENT among Angkorian temples such as Bayon (not Bayon Temple/Prasat Bayon), Banteay Srei (not Banteay Srei Temple/Prasat Banteay Srei), Pre Rup (not Pre Rup Temple/Prasat Pre Rup), or Chau Say Tevoda (not Chau Say Tevoda Temple/Prasat Chau Say Tevoda). Preah Vihear the temple is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in relation to the settlement and the provice and a natural disambiguator is not needed. It should occupy the title of the current disambiguation page, and the disambiguation page should become "Preah Vihear (disambiguation)". —Alalch E. 16:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Checkers (video game) → ? – Not wanting to risk butchering a newly-promoted GA, I am launching an RM here amid discussion above. "Checkers (video game)" is too ambiguous, being unable to distinguish Christopher Strachey's Checkers from the general topic of computer checkers. My first choice would be Checkers (1952 video game), as this was the article's original title before it was moved. However, the video game referred to here as "Checkers" did not have a proper title. Strachey only referred to it as a "computer program" that just so happened to simulate checkers (the term "video game" was not in common use in 1952). But since "Checkers" was developed in the United Kingdom, would it be "Draughts" instead of "Checkers"? Not really sure what to think of this one. What do you think? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 15:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Sidenote:Originally I thought a simple WP:BLAR to the proposed redirect target was fine since the other terms are already discussed at Anti-gender movement, so I boldly did so, but someone reverted it, so I raised it as an AFD per instructions for a simple BLAR, as opposed to directly raising it as an RM, since I didn't see a need for the DAB page to begin with initially (it turned out to be a vandal hounding me, who has since been blocked). However RoxySaunders brought up a valid point of the older use of the term and its potential disambiguative value to Cisgenderism still, so I requested a procedural close of the AFD as the wrong venue since this is now a WP:PTOPIC discussion under the venue purview of WP:RM instead.
  2. ^ Sidenote: Please don't get confused by the current closing comment at the AFD as the nac closer accidentally overlooked the policy for procedural close due to incorrect venue part, which I've raised with them at their talk page, and which may be corrected directly, or go to DRV to be corrected to the procedural close due to incorrect venue that it should be per the deletion process policy, though that's just a technicality of correctly stating the history of this page for posterity, and doesn't change the fact that RM is the right venue for the discussion, hence raising it now as such.
  1. ^ Ojeda, Tomás; Holzberg, Billy; Holvikivi, Aiko (2024). "A Transnational Feminist Approach to Anti-Gender Politics". Transnational Anti-Gender Politics: Feminist Solidarity in Times of Global Attacks. Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–32. ISBN 978-3-031-54223-7.
  2. ^ Sage Reference - The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies - Genderism
  3. ^ "The anti-gender movement explained: How the threat to women's and LGBTQ+ rights is spreading around the world". www.cnn.com.
  4. ^ Korolczuk, Elżbieta; Graff, Agnieszka; Kantola, Johanna (4 July 2025). "Gender danger. Mapping a decade of research on anti-gender politics". Journal of Gender Studies. pp. 621–640. doi:10.1080/09589236.2025.2489584.
  5. ^ Yetiş, Erman Örsan (29 July 2025). "Resisting top-down anti-genderism: engaging men in feminist social justice". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. pp. 1–10. doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05501-8.
  6. ^ "The rise and success of the anti-gender movement in Europe and beyond" (PDF).
  7. ^ choi (she/her), shine; de Souza (she/her), Natália Maria Félix; Lind (she/her), Amy; Parashar (she/her), Swati; Prügl (she/her), Elisabeth; Zalewski (they/them), Marysia (27 May 2025). "The triumph of anti-genderism?". International Feminist Journal of Politics. pp. 523–525. doi:10.1080/14616742.2025.2513114.
  8. ^ "The International Anti-Gender Movement" (PDF). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
  9. ^ "The Emergence of Powerful Anti-Gender Movements in Europe and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy" (PDF).
  10. ^ "The coloniality of anti-gender politics" (PDF). UNRISD.
  11. ^ "The impact of anti-genderism on the Women Peace and Security Agenda in Central and Eastern Europe | SecurityWomen". www.securitywomen.org.
  12. ^ Corredor, Elizabeth S. (March 2019). "Unpacking "Gender Ideology" and the Global Right's Antigender Countermovement". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 44 (3): 613–638. doi:10.1086/701171. ISSN 0097-9740.
  13. ^ Yetiş, Erman Örsan; Özdüzen, Özge (1 November 2024). "Anti-genderism in Turkey: Masculinist entrenchment through cultural intimacies". Women's Studies International Forum. 107: 103014. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2024.103014. ISSN 0277-5395.
  14. ^ "Resisting Gender Equality: Unmasking the Dynamics of the Anti-Gender Opposition | Heinrich Böll Stiftung | Sarajevo - Bosna | Hercigovina | Sjeverna Makedonija". Heinrich Böll Foundation.
  15. ^ Butler, Judith (23 October 2021). "Why is the idea of 'gender' provoking backlash the world over?". The Guardian.
  16. ^ Center, Human Rights Research (15 July 2025). "The Global War on Gender: How Anti-Gender Sentiments Fuel Right Wing Politics". HRRC.
  17. ^ "Unpacking "Gender Ideology" and the Global Right's Antigender Countermovement". GIWPS.
  18. ^ Korolczuk, Elżbieta; Graff, Agnieszka; Kantola, Johanna (4 July 2025). "Gender danger. Mapping a decade of research on anti-gender politics". Journal of Gender Studies. 34 (5): 621–640. doi:10.1080/09589236.2025.2489584. ISSN 0958-9236.
  19. ^ Wilson-McDonald, Alexandria (1 June 2023). "Gendering Violence in the Age of Anti-GenderismFeminist Framing of Violence Against Women in Slovakia". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 56 (2): 136–158. doi:10.1525/cpcs.2023.1828365. ISSN 0967-067X.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
04:10, Sunday, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1303691487#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves"