Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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.
  • 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

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Nederlandse Leeuw It appears that "State cuisine" is a lot more common looking at Category:Indian cuisine by state or union territory, so probably the first sentence should be updated instead, agree on the capitalization of cuisine though. Or maybe "West Bengali cuisine" in line with the parent article Bengali cuisine - also note there's an eponymous category - Category:West Bengal cuisine that should probably stay in sync if there's a change to the article title. Raladic (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop It is currently a list article of recipients, so the current title seems appropriate in line with WP:NCLIST - are you planning to change the scope of the article to actually explain the Paralympic Order award in greater detail and transform the article from the list article that it currently is? Raladic (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this has previously been contested and someone meant to open an RM but didn't. I will open one so that it can be discussed. Toadspike [Talk] 13:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami Not done – this move was contested back in 2022 [2] and will have to go through an RM. Toadspike [Talk] 13:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Diana0134 Another article exists at that title, you will need to start a requested move if you believe this one takes priority CoconutOctopus talk 14:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Diana0134 Another article exists at that title, you will need to start a requested move if you believe this one takes priority CoconutOctopus talk 14:28, 5 July 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 6 July 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 6 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 05:12, 6 July 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 6 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 05:12, 6 July 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 6 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 05:12, 6 July 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 6 July 2025

– why Example (talk) 05:12, 6 July 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 6 July 2025

– why Example (talk) 05:12, 6 July 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. 136 discussions have been relisted.

July 6, 2025

July 5, 2025

  • (Discuss) – GWR Cathedral Class → GWR proposed Hawksworth Pacific locomotive – I have searched for any association between Frederick Hawksworth's proposed Pacific locomotive and the name 'Cathedral' or the number '8000', and found nothing remotely contemporaneous or authoritative. (There is evidence - as I have added to the article - of the name being initially proposed for the King class.) I deduce that 'Cathedral' and '8000' are recent inventions, probably for marketing purposes, and are therefore not suitable for the title of this article. Either the article should be moved to a better title, or it should be merged into the article on Hawksworth. -- Verbarson  talkedits 22:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cultural depictions of salamanders → Salamander (mythology)Salamander (mythology) – The current, inaccurate title is the result of a series of WP:BOLD moves done without consensus, or, apparently, even giving the article a single once-over. This article is about a separate mythical/elemental creature known as the salamander, not mythological depictions of actual salamanders. While actual salamanders may overlap somewhat, the vast majority of the article is about a hypothetical fictional animal. I don't know about you, but this does not look like any actual salamander I've ever seen. Due to the vagueness of the current title, it should be outright deleted upon the move and anything that links to it should be retargeted to either this article or the one on real-life salamanders. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – VIXX → Vixx – Recommend reducing from all caps per WP:TMRULES. The article claims that the band's name is an acronym for "voice, visual, value in excelsis", but that really doesn't check out considering if that were factual, the acronym for that would be "VVVIE", not "VIXX". There's no arrangement of those words that ends up coming out with an acronym being "VIXX". Seems to be more of a marketing attempt to shoehorn some sort of meaning into the name rather than a real acronym. Additionally, the band's name is pronounced as a word, not as any sort of initialism. Reducing the all-caps makes sense here. RachelTensions (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shriram Lagoo → Shreeram LagooShreeram Lagoo – This was first moved [5] by @NAKHISM with the rationale "Misspelled: disambiguation needed". That was reverted [6] by @Rotideypoc41352, apparently after an IP request at RM/TR, with the intention of opening an RM. It seems this didn't happen, and this move has again been requested by an IP at RM/TR with the rationale "The name of his spelling is officially Shreeram and not Shriram. You can check the spelling when his name is shown in the film credits". I have no opinion in this matter, but am opening an RM on procedural grounds so that editors, including IPs, on both sides of this debate can discuss their reasoning and resolve the issue. Toadspike [Talk] 13:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Giovanni Matteo Mario → ? – The article lead starts with Giovanni Matteo De Candia,[1] also known as Mario, fairly consistently uses just Mario in the text, and notes: the budding singer adopted the mononym Mario as his stage name when he made his debut on 30 November 1838.[6] Sometimes, however, he is referred to in print by the fuller appellation of "Giovanni Mario", and he is also called "Mario de Candia". (That text seems to have been in the article for over fifteen years.) So this title "Giovanni Matteo Mario" isn't actually common, then? Here's a relevant Google Books Ngrams, a graph of book references to these names. The name we have in the lead isn't even detected. At the same time, the 19th century spike in the number of references to "Mario" can probably be attributed to this person. That element of the graph alone is large enough that we have to remove it in order to see the rest. If we look at more variants, like this or like this, it looks like at the time there's a lot of references to Signor Mario, too, as well as further mononymous references to Mario and other contemporary artists. The second name Matteo doesn't seem to be commonly used in comparison. So, maybe Mario (opera singer)? Mario (tenor) already redirects here, but was moved in 2011. I came across this incongruity while researching at Talk:Mario. Mario (singer) is already taken - maybe that needs to be disambiguated, too. Joy (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kernicterus → Bilirubin Encephalopathy – kernicterus is the Chronic form of Bilirubin Encephalopathy. There is also an Acute Bilirubin Encephalopathy (ABE) which takes place before the chronic phase and it is not Kernicterus. We can not have the acute phase on an article purly based on its chronic phase, but with a title change there wont be any confusions. This way the article can be written for both phases with a lot more information, but if we keep it as Kernicterus then there needs to be another article for its Acute phase which does not make sense. This short article explains my reasoning. Also as per WP:COMMONNAME, results on National Library of Medicine shows Bilirubin Encephalopathy close to 30,000, and Kernicterus shows 5500. That is widely because Kernicterus is the specific type of Bilirubin Encephalopathy. DrTheHistorian✎ 23:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 4, 2025

  • (Discuss) – The Highwaymen (country supergroup) → The HighwaymenThe Highwaymen – This page has about 1200 views a day, while no other subject called "Highwaymen" or "The Highwaymen" comes even remotely close to that. Even the next-most viewed work of that name, the 2019 film, is barely half of that even with recency bias putting its thumb on the scale. Just entering "The Highwaymen" on Google without any additional words turns up almost exclusively content about the supergroup. Given the vast number of inbound links and extremely high page views (no doubt owing to the high notability of all four members), I think this is by far the most notable subject to have the exact name "The Highwaymen" and should therefore be the primary topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bill Anderson (singer) → Bill AndersonBill Anderson – Most of the entries on William Anderson are people widely known as "William", not Bill. Of the ones who are widely known as Bill, the singer seems to be by a long shot the most notable. I count about 300 average page views a day, compared to a Disney producer with about 10-15 page views a day, or the number of obscure politicians and athletes whose average page views are so low that many of them have gone multiple days without anyone even viewing them once. In short, he has more page views per day than every other "Bill Anderson" out there combined, and with a career dating from the 50s to the present day, he is without question the most likely candidate for the primary topic of "Bill Anderson". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – PC World → PCWorldPCWorld – I propose renaming PC World to PCWorld to reflect the magazine's current official stylization and branding. The website and publication now consistently use "PCWorld" as a single word. === Rationale === * The official site is branded as PCWorld (see https://www.pcworld.com). * Most modern references use the one-word version. * It aligns with Wikipedia's policy on using the most commonly recognizable name (WP:COMMONNAME). Icaldonta (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jarvis Johnson → Jarvis Johnson (politician) – I do not believe there is a primary topic for the name Jarvis Johnson on Wikipedia. While the YouTuber is currently getting more daily pageviews and daily average pageviews, there have been spikes in views in both pages based on current events. The politician's page rapidly spiked in views after U.S. representative Sylvester Turner's death in March. There were smaller spikes at the YouTuber's page on May 1 and July 1 of this year - not sure what the causes of those were. Per WikiNav, about 20% of outbound clicks from the politician's page are going to the YouTuber. I wouldn't mind if a consensus forms that the YouTuber is the primary topic, but I see any possible concerns about recentism and believe that the best course of action would be a disambiguation page. wizzito | say hello! 18:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision → Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge crash – Follow-up to resolve lingering question from the last RM as to whether crash, collision, or some other noun is the best descriptor for this incident. Crash is my top choice and I will present the others in rough order of preference from the prior RM; note that I was involved in this lengthy discussion and may miss details and nuanced arguments. I think collision is reasonable but I appreciate the objections raised. I would not use the other terms. # crash‍: This appeared to be the most common noun used at the time of the last RM and in the initial wave of coverage. This term is widely used in reliable sources and is accessible to a general audience. It satisfies the naming WP:CRITERIA well: it is certainly recognizable, natural, precise, and concise. # collision‍: A few editors pointed out that in maritime terminology collision specifically refers to an incident involving two moving vessels (hence the prefix co-). Thus a "crash" between a moving ship and a stationary object such as a bridge is not properly described as a collision. This may explain why high quality sources used crash more often. Common usage does not make this distinction and many reliable sources do use collision and collide to describe this incident. On the other hand, where a suitable alternative exists (crash‍) it may be good editorial practice to avoid collision even if most readers won't notice. # strike‍: This had limited support but is reasonably descriptive and is found in sources, especially as a verb (The ship struck the bridge). # accident‍: Some sources including the NTSB do use this terminology. Though often used imprecisely in every day language, accident can imply that an event was unavoidable or that a finding of no fault has been made. Style guides for motor vehicle collisions often recommend against this word (e.g., Washington State Department of Transportation and this from Rutgers). # allision‍: This was raised several times and met with vigorous opposition. In maritime terminology, allision is the term for a moving vessel striking a stationary object. This word is found in dictionaries but will be inaccessible to most readers. Allision is not used in any article titles on WP. WP:DISASTER is silent on this usage question for maritime incidents but does have guidance for trains. I could not find many articles to review for consistency. 1938 Muncy Raft crash does involve a moving vessel striking a bridge. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC) Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gingalain → Fair UnknownFair Unknown – It is a general trope (aka tradition,[1] story type,[2] pattern,[3] or theme[4]) for a number of different characters, including the eponymous Tale of the Fair Unknown.[5] (The sample links above in particular classify Lancelot as a Fair Unknown type, and here for example is a discussion of Lancelot in relation to some other early instances of the "Fair Unknown romances":[6]) Gingalain is NOT the only other representative of such trope (etc.) and his excess material should be moved to Knights of the Round Table at the same time when the articles is being correctly retitled and quickly rewritten (it is important to also rewrite it while moving). Fair Unknown is right now just redirect but is actually the subject if this article, while Gingalain on his own is barely even covered as a character, thus should be moved to the the list of Knights as a new section. Actually I may handle it all myself, just notify me on my talk page after you change the title of this article here.

References

  1. ^ Archibald, Elizabeth; Edwards, Anthony Stockwell Garfield (June 16, 1996). "A Companion to Malory". Boydell & Brewer Ltd – via Google Books.
  2. ^ Walters, Lori J. (December 3, 2015). "Lancelot and Guinevere: A Casebook". Routledge – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Severe, Richard (December 16, 2015). "Arthurian Literature XXXII". Boydell & Brewer – via Google Books.
  4. ^ "The Arthur of the French: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval French and Occitan Literature". University of Wales Press. October 15, 2020 – via Google Books.
  5. ^ "Lancelot of the Lake". Oxford University Press. June 16, 2000 – via Google Books.
  6. ^ Severe, Richard (December 16, 2015). "Arthurian Literature XXXII". Boydell & Brewer – via Google Books.
94.246.147.217 (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)94.246.147.217 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 12:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – City West station → ? – The suburbs of Minneapolis and Perth are very far apart. Unfortunately, these article titles are uncomfortably close together. The culprit seems to be an ENGVAR-type issue in how railway stations are titled: in the United States, just "station", and in Commonwealth countries including Australia, "railway station". This is not my field for disambiguating, but here are some thoughts on my end: * Would City West light rail station or City West LRT station be appropriate for the one in Minnesota? * Would disambiguating by city, state, system, or country be appropriate? Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 3, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Hawaii (island) → Hawaiʻi (island)Hawaiʻi (island) – these moves were last proposed 5 years ago, and consensus at the time was split. Since then MOS:HAWAII has been revamped and now recommends that we use proper orthography as determined by the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which uses the ʻokina and macron where they judge it to be correct. Hundreds of articles on cities, communities, geological features and other local place names have been moved to their HBGN spellings, leaving only the major islands and Hawaiʻi County still to go, and AFAIK there have been no complaints about the moves or of the use of HBGN spellings in the articles -- including HBGN spellings throughout the articles listed above, all of which were copy-edited for compliance with the MOS months ago. The talk pages of these articles were tagged about 6 months ago that the spellings requested here are correct orthography [for example at the top of this page], but we wanted to wait a while to see how the revamped MOS panned out before making a move request for the main islands. Note that an ʻokina is not recommended for the state, archipelago or language, all of which should remain at Hawaii and Hawaiian, and that both the HBGN and the USGS have an ʻokina in Molokaʻi, which is otherwise variable. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Intersex → Intersex (human biology) – The current title Intersex lacks precision. Since there is a separate page for intersex conditions in non-human animals, this article should be clearly identified as covering intersex in humans. Renaming to Intersex (human biology) improves clarity and symmetry with Intersex (non-human biology), and follows conventions like WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURAL. Diana0134 (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Point location → Point location problemPoint location problem – The current title Point location is vague and does not clearly describe the computational geometry problem covered in the article. Most reliable sources and academic literature refer to this as the point location problem, not just point location. Adding the word problem improves clarity and aligns with Wikipedia's naming conventions such as WP:PRECISION and WP:NATURAL, similar to other titles like Shortest path problem or Set cover problem. This move would better reflect the content and terminology used in the field. Diana0134 (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2, 2025

  • (Discuss) – AZF (terrorist group) → 2004 French train bomb extortion scheme – There was apparently never a real AZF group; there was just a bomb threat extortion scheme (that involved constructing two workable bombs) that was attempted in February and March 2004 and was then abandoned. The scheme was primarily the effort of one man and was really too small to characterise as an organized group. There was no enduring organisation. The main perpetrator himself said AZF "n'était même pas un groupuscule" (was not even a small group). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 1, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Luton Airport Parkway station → Luton Airport Parkway railway stationLuton Airport Parkway railway station – Since the move is being contested, it's time for a full move discussion in the interest of getting consensus from the community :-) "[place] railway station" has become the standard naming convention for rail stations in the UK, with the obvious exception of London Underground stops. The only other article I'm aware of which goes against this convention is East Croydon station (there may be others that I don't know about, happy to be corrected), which makes sense as it is an interchange with bus transportation. However, Luton Airport Parkway is exclusively rail, even if DART is light rail. I'm proposing either of the following for the purposes of both naming conventions, and reader clarity: * Rename Luton Airport Parkway station to Luton Airport Parkway railway station, in accordance with convention due to it being a purely rail station or * Rename Luton Airport Parkway station to Luton Airport Parkway Interchange (open to suggestions on other/better options) along with other similar interchanges, like East Croydon - distinctly marking such articles as transport interchanges and not just "station". Danners430 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 16:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kirisuto no Haka → Tomb of Christ (Japan) – This article's current title uses the monument's Japanese name (romanised) instead of an English translation. I can't easily find an English source which refers to it as Kirisuto no Haka, rather, most tend to use translations such as "Christ's Grave," "the Grave of Jesus Christ," or "the Tomb of Christ." Similar translations are also reflected on the area's local signage. To best honour the spirit of WP:UE, I believe that the article should be renamed and moved to a space such as "Tomb of Christ (Japan)" — with the inclusion of "(Japan)" to remove ambiguity from other, similar monuments. ItsSwimm (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mossad infiltration of Iranian nuclear archive → Israeli infiltration of an Iranian nuclear archive – 1. Attributing the operation to Israel in the title is clearer for readers, specially for those not familiarised with the subject, and makes the article easier to find. In Wikipedia we most commonly use country demonyms rather than specific national organs for titling articles. See the articles at Category:Mossad, all articles but two including this one do not mention Mossad in the title. 2. "of Iranian nuclear archive" is not proper English. I propose using "an" but I am not opposed to other proposals. We could also use "the" or even flip the title somehow to avoid this awkward wording (from the top of my head, as an idea, "Iranian nuclear archive infiltration by Israel", though that's also weird). Noting that I started this RM over the second issue and only thought of the first as I was writing the RM. I don't have a particular preference so long as the next title employs proper grammar. Super Ψ Dro 21:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Korea Train Express → KTXKTX – Seldomly would anyone in the world call these two services by their full name. Thus the article titles being KTX and SRT instead would be more appropriate, in my opinion.
    In previous discussion, there are people who said "There is another KTX that does not have its own article but appears notable", which I am not able to locate from internet search, but even if that is the case those can be resolved using disambiguation. C933103 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 30, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Heart of Moldova Republican Party → Heart of Moldova PartyHeart of Moldova Party – WP:COMMONNAME and shorter. Party is not discussed in Google Scholar or Google Books. In regular Google results, -wikipedia "heart of moldova republican party" gives me 12 results (including 2 Wikipedia mirrors) while -wikipedia "heart of moldova party" gives me 9. But the party has barely ever been discussed in English. In Romanian, -wikipedia "Partidul Republican Inima Moldovei" gives me 71,300 results, while -wikipedia "Partidul Inima Moldovei" gives me 121,000. In Russian, -wikipedia "Республиканская Партия Сердце Молдовы" gives me 1,030 results while -wikipedia -"Республиканская Партия" "Партия Сердце Молдовы" (if I did that search right) gives me 3,820 results. It is not ideal to employ regular Google searches to determine the common name of a subject as results can vary depending on the location of the user. But it is not surprising if it is argued that sources most of the time do not employ the long formal name. I prefer having a shorter title and I believe it is backed by Wikipedia policy. I invite other users to give their opinion and do their own research. Super Ψ Dro 17:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gaik Vartanyan → Gaik VartaneanGaik Vartanean – WP:COMMONNAME. Figure is not discussed in Google Scholar or Google Books. In a regular Google search, -wikipedia "Gaik Vartanyan" gives me 212 results, -wikipedia "Gaik Vartanian" gives me 3,240 and -wikipedia "Gaik Vartanean" gives me 22,000. While regular Google results can be unreliable as they can very depending on the location of the person, this is such a vast difference that I'm pretty sure the latter is the clear common name. All of these yield English-language results ([11] [12], [13] [14], [15] [16]), so while most results in Google are in Romanian, it doesn't seem like English-language sources follow a different spelling from them. This is also how this person presents himself in social media [17] [18] [19] and in his own party [20]. "Vartanyan" is closer to the native ethnic Armenian spelling, but it is clear this person is discussed more often in sources dealing with Moldova rather than Armenia. Super Ψ Dro 17:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 29, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Shaun Shui (disambiguation) → ? – Likely misplaced or malformed disambiguation page, given the number of redirects and small details capitalization present in the lead. However, this did raise my interest when it caught my attention and these three titles will likely need to be assessed for WP:SMALLDETAILS. I think a PTOPIC will need to be determined and then a disambiguator created for the remaining title. Chasing down the three of these with the respective redirects at different capitalization was a little confusing intially as I was browsing from WP:NPP. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Capsule toy → Capsule toy vending machineCapsule toy vending machine – The current name of this article is very misleading, suggesting it is about the toys sold by this type of the vending machine. Instead, the article is clearly about the vending machines themselves. The article should be renamed accordingly. I am unsure if capsule toy should have its own article one day. For now it can safely redirect to the "capsule toy vending machine" article (note: it did not exist, I just created it now as a temporary redirect here). Side note: there is also confusion about how this topic is different from Gashapon, which on en and ja has a stand-alone article. But most interwikis here - i.e. to capsule toy (vending machine) article are known as gashapons in other languages. Compare: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11294641 vs https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1204526 . From what I can tell, Gashapon is a specific brand name of a capsule vending machine. I am unsure if any merge is needed (leaning no), but I wanted to mention this before someone suggests renaming this article here to Gashapon. Interwikis at wikidata might merit some cleanup too, sigh;in fact the Wikidata article is about the capsule toy (not capsule toy vending machine), although most of the interwiki'd articles, like ours, are about the vending machine. A mess. PS. What needs to be done: Wikidata needs a page about capsule toy vending machines, pretty much all interwikis from Q11294641 need to be switched to that page (it can be an intentional sitelink to redirect to our capsule toy redirect). I'll do it later this year if nobody jumps on this first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Na Woon-gyu → Na Un'gyuNa Un'gyu – Defaulting to MR per WP:KOREANNAME. Seems like there isn't a single dominant spelling. No results for any spelling of his name in ngrams. He clearly appears in English-language scholarly literature though, but haven't checked what they use. Note that "Woon-gyu" is ad-hoc and doesn't even fit the modern Revised Romanization system that South Korea uses. RR would recommend "Ungyu", and if you use the common modification of RR with a hyphen in the name, it'd be "Un-gyu". grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ABC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference TMR2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Even if the dictionary definition did take priority, wikt:taskmaster is the only definition I can find that includes "supervises workers"; Oxford Dictionary of English, New Oxford American Dictionary and Merriam-Webster all define it as a person who imposes a harsh or onerous workload on someone (or words to that effect). Despite the fact that TaskmastershipTaskmastership redirects to Supervisor, I can find no evidence that modern usage of the word "taskmaster" indicates a synonymous meaning with "supervisor", so there's no reason why Supervisor would be the primary topic here.
Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:43, 29 June 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) – Kamurú language → Pedra Branca languagePedra Branca language – My suggestion is to rename Kamurú to Pedra Branca. Let me explain: according to Azevedo (1965), there are records of four Kariri dialects (or languages?), namely: (1) Kipeá (well-documented by Mamiani), (2) Dzubukuá (documented by Nantes), (3) Sabujá, and (4) Pedra Branca. According to the same author, only vocabularies of 100 to 150 words survive for the last two dialects (or languages?), found in von Martius. Rodrigues (1948) notes that Kiriri is an alternative name for Kipeá, Kariri for Dzubukuá, and suggests that Kamurú may be an alternative name for Pedra Branca: “Pedra-Branca (Kamurú?)”. Pedra Branca was the name of a village visited by von Martius. From the Pedra Branca vocabulary, according to Rodrigues—and merely as a point of interest—there are a large number of Kipeá words as documented in Mamiani’s grammar. Also according to Rodrigues, “Curt Nimuendajú encountered a few Kamurú individuals” (although by that time, no Kariri language was still spoken…). Queiroz (2012) is more categorical in affirming that Kipeá, Dzubukuá, Sabujá, and Pedra Branca (which he also refers to as Kamurú) all belong to the same Kariri language family. The same is true of the only source cited in this article: “Kamurú* (Camurú, Pedra Branca)”. Apparently, the confusion stems from Ethnologue, which suggests that Pedra Branca is synonymous with Sabujá. In fact, I also cite: “Eduardo Ribeiro points out that the languages spoken by the ‘Cariri’ tribes of Ceará are essentially unknown. The only Karirian languages for which there is any documentation were those spoken in Bahia and Sergipe (Kipeá, Dzubukuá, Sabuyá, Pedra Branca).” My suggestion to rename Kamurú to Pedra Branca stems from the fact that the latter is the name used by von Martius, the only primary source we have for this language. Why rely on a name coined by Nimuendajú—one that has also caused confusion elsewhere—when documentation is so scarce and there appears to be no more established term? In such cases, I believe it is best to adhere to the primary source, which will always be revisited whenever the topic is researched. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 09:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 19:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fall of Maximilien Robespierre → Coup of 9–10 Thermidor – The current title centers on the personal downfall of Maximilien Robespierre, whereas the article addresses a broader political event: the orchestrated overthrow of Robespierre and his Montagnard allies on 9 Thermidor Year II. "Coup of 9 Thermidor" is a more historically accurate and neutral title. It is consistent with the naming conventions of similar events (e.g., the "Coup of 18 Brumaire") and better reflects the article’s focus on the political context of the Thermidorian Reaction, rather than solely Robespierre’s fate. Marissa TRS (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
Extended content

In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[a] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also § National varieties of English, below. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous[b] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability: People * Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) * Mansa Musa (not: Musa I) * Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) * J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling) * Bono (not: Paul Hewson) * Mark Antony (not: Marcus Antonius) * Shirley Temple (not: Shirley Temple Black) Places * Germany (not: Deutschland) * Great Pyramid of Giza (not: Pyramid of Khufu) * North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea) * Westminster Abbey (not: Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster) Scientific and technical topics * Aspirin (not: acetylsalicylic acid) * Diesel engine (not: compression-ignition engine) * Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus) * Polio (not: poliomyelitis) * Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic) Product names and fictional characters * Windows XP (not: Windows NT 5.1) * Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino) * Darth Vader (not: Anakin Skywalker) Other topics * Cello (not: Violoncello) * FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football) * Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election) * Proxima Centauri (not: V645 Centauri or Alpha Centauri C) In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".[c] When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[d]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test.

— Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names

Notes

  1. ^ This includes but is not limited to usage in the sources used as references for the article. Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional off-site sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals. "Common name" in the context of article naming means a commonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily a common (vernacular) name, as opposed to scientific name, as used in some disciplines.
  2. ^ Ambiguity, as used here, is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, "heart attack" is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction.
  3. ^ Add this code in the search: -site:wikipedia.org.
  4. ^ Add this code in the search: -inauthor:"Books, LLC" (the quotation marks " " are essential); Books, LLC "publishes" compilations of WP articles.
Currently the article title for Grass is a redirect to Poaceae and the word "Poaceae" is a scientific term for grass that we do not use everyday but the word "grass" is the common word that we use for that plant. Vitaium (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Massview Analysis". wmcloud.org. Retrieved 27 June 2025.
  2. ^ "WikiNav". toolforge.org. Retrieved 27 June 2025.
Aoeuidhtns (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2017 Hamas charter → Hamas Document of General Principles and Policies – The current title does not reflect how this document is most commonly and neutrally described in reliable sources, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. An analysis of sources shows that sources more frequently use "document" or similar terms than "charter", even when generously counting sources that use "charter" only with qualifications like "could be considered." Among sources that consider whether this constitutes a charter, there is no consensus, with some explicitly noting the document "does not replace the charter." The proposed title uses the official name given by Hamas, reflects the predominant terminology in sources, and maintains neutrality on the contested question of whether this document constitutes a new charter. If you're concerned about the length of the proposed title, please indicate whether an alternative 2017 Hamas policy document would be preferable. The current name is the result of a move that was done without a RM despite being clearly controversial and was challenged almost immediately here, so it doesn't constitute a stable consensus version. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 17:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cancún → CancunCancun – In 2021 there was an attempt to do this. At the time, people argued that since Zürich wasn't changed to Zurich, Cancún shouldn't be changed either. Now, Zürich is listed under its common English name, Zurich. At the time people were cherrypicking the subsection of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources), "WP:DIACRITICS", selectively using the phrases "The use of modified letters in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged" and "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters" as a reason not to move the page, yet ommiting the accompanying phrases, "when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" and "if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources", respectively. Google Ngrams shows that "Cancun" has always been the common name in English. As stated above, the city's tourism agency ommits the accent in the English version of the website (in the same way Celine Dion's website does it in English vs. French). Spanish is not an official language in Mexico, and insisting that the accent is required merely for "respect for other languages" would support the argument for changing "Mexico" to "México", since that is the country's de facto colloquial name in Spanish. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Army of the Czech Republic → Czech Armed ForcesCzech Armed Forces – The Army of the Czech Republic is a literal translation of the Czech name of the military (Czech: Armáda České republiky) not supported by relevant official sources. Recent documents issued by the Czech Ministry of Defence in English (and cited in sources, namely The Czech Armed Forces Development Concept 2035 and Czech Armed Forces in 2022) use the term Czech Armed Forces. Similar example of such naming convention policy may be the Swiss Armed Forces (German: Schweizer Armee; French: Armée suisse; Italian: Esercito svizzero; Romansh: Armada svizra; lit. 'Swiss Army'). Mossback (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Morning dew (disambiguation) → morning dewmorning dew – Unnecessary " (disambiguation)". The base topic is "dew" AKA "morning dew" (lowercase), the first list entry on the DAB page. The capitalized items (the lead entry, which is the primary topic for Morning Dew but not morning dew, and other list entries) are songs and a ship, and maybe more will turn up later. Given the mixed-case entries, morning dew is the appropriate title for the DAB page, we just don't need the parenthetical tacked onto it. Everyone looking for a song or ship knows that's capitalized (if they're competent to be using an English-language encyclopedia), and if they bork it up anyway, the entries at the DAB page will get them where they're intending to go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nuseirat rescue and massacre → Nuseirat raidNuseirat raid – The term massacre is absent from neutral and pro-Israel sources and thus violates NCENPOV. Two reasons, the RfC on EuroMed as yellow and always attribute and WP:TITLEWARRIOR, which called out opinion pieces and failing to recognize authorial voice (newspaper quotes X who says massacre, therefore newspaper says massacre which is false). This is similar to Entebbe raid, and the AP (premier neutral source) has also clarified less than a month ago that the Paletinian deaths ocurred during a gun battle during the raid (see [39]) Closetside (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Andrew Boden → Andrew Boden (politician) – Now that we have an article about Canadian writer Andrew Boden, it's no longer clear that the American politician, who served 200 years ago, would be highly meganotable enough to keep WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights anymore, as his daily average over the past month is just two page views per day (with no page views at all on some days) according to the pageviews analysis tool. There's a good chance, further, that even his peak viewing day across all of 2025 combined, nine pageviews on May 29, might even have been attributable to people looking for the writer rather than a sudden spike of interest in the politician.
    I'm proposing a disambiguation page at the base title for the time being, as the Canadian writer just got his article today and thus can't be feasibly measured for meaningful pageview comparisons yet — however, considering that he's just coming off a significant literary award nomination for his debut novel, there's a good chance that we'll have to revisit it in the future, with far more chance of a living contemporary writer overtaking a fairly obscure 19th-century politician as primary topic than there ever will be of the obverse. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Garsh (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Standee → ? – Possible new titles include Cardboard cutoutCardboard cutout, Cardboard cut-out, etc. (I'm open to other suggestions!) I raised WP:COMMONNAME concerns on the article's talk page last month, but as there have been no replies, I'm bringing it here. A Google Books Ngram Viewer comparison between the terms standee, cardboard cut-out and cardboard cutout as nouns (here) shows that usage of cardboard cutout is significantly more common. Also, even though the article previously claimed that standee was an American term, neither Merriam-Webster,[1] the New Oxford American Dictionary,[2] nor the Oxford Dictionary of English[3] actually list this definition of the noun standee. (Many of the 'Recent Examples on the Web' listed automatically by Merriam-Webster are examples of this usage, but this only shows that the use of standee to mean "cardboard cutout" may be more frequent than the use of standee to mean "standing passenger", not that standee is the most commonly used term for a cardboard cutout.) As noted in the article, it's true that They are typically made of foam-board; if the title were changed to include "cardboard", it would be easy to expand this sentence to (eg.) Despite their common name, they are typically made of foam-board, to explain the discrepancy. I'm interested to hear what others think on this!

References

  1. ^ "standee". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 5 May 2025. noun : a standing person : one who occupies standing room
  2. ^ Stevenson, Angus; Lindberg, Christine A., eds. (2015). "standee". New Oxford American Dictionary (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199891535. Retrieved 5 May 2025. noun — a person who stands, especially in a passenger vehicle when all the seats are occupied or at a performance or sporting event.
  3. ^ Stevenson, Angus, ed. (2015). "standee". Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191727665. Retrieved 5 May 2025. noun — a person who is standing rather than seated, especially in a passenger vehicle.
Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterionMono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 6 May 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.


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
05:12, Sunday, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1296220490"