Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:PCM)

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

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

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

  • 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 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. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

@Meganinja202 Could you add and source this in the article first? HurricaneZetaC 14:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, You read my mind here! You know what; that source is from Fox Corp themselves – so thus a press release – and "Fox Latin America" is part of Disney as evidenced by its own notable page here. Should third-party sources confirm this and it does happen, we'll support it. Intrisit (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Meganinja202 is referring to this. More sources needed, perhaps, but I'd support a move to Fox (Latin American TV channel), with a hatnote back to Star Channel (Latin America). Both Fox (Mexico) and Fox (Latin America) are incorrect, per WP:NCBC. 162 etc. (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At least "Fox (Latin America)" is a redirect, which you re-targeted yourself to the same title I nominated at RFD over 18 months ago and Sammi Brie here altered its current look with her vote, however incorrect. Intrisit (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
exactly @162 etc.this why i mean, Fox Corp. is fusing Fox Mexico with Tigo Sports Centro America
about the name change, i see no problem to move to that one ethier Meganinja202 (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a messy topic. The article as it stands is in the wrong spot and should be at Fox (Mexican TV channel), because per the reasonable expectation clause of NCBC, the words "TV channel" should be in the disambiguator if (as here) other topics exist named Fox that are not TV channels. The recent Central American expansion suggests Fox (Latin American TV channel). I would also endorse an RfD to repoint Canal Fox and Fox+ to this title. Because of the situation that has led to this Fox competing with Fox Sports (Mexico), title precision is more important than usual. You will need multiple hatnotes. I'd like a full RM. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie i am in favor of Fox (Latin American TV channel) for the move also helps to split it with the mexican sports
im ok also with move Canal Fox and Fox+ considreing the new fox is also using those as well Meganinja202 (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I and the commenters here would support a renaming of this if more sources are/were confirmed this; we shouldn't rush to rename titles based on a single press release whose info is not even on the page whose title you're nominating here for a renaming, from where I see it live on the page as at this edit. For now, it's exclusive to Mexico. It could be in the future, so as to comply with this. If more info is added to page, which you should be doing before bringing this title here, we would have supported it. Intrisit (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pluralmath We don't update article titles as soon as something changes name; we use what the reliable sources call it. We will need to wait until sources are released post–name change, and see what they call it. See WP:NAMECHANGES {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 16:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The rebrand took place in March 2025, according to the article text. It's been more than a year since. SVG-image-maker (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2026 (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

"WP:RSPM" redirects here. For entries on the perennial sources list that start with "M", see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/5.
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. 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 25 May 2026" and sign the post for you.

The reasons for the move can be summarized 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.

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 25 May 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2026 (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 25 May 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2026 (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 25 May 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2026‎ (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 25 May 2026

    – why Example (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2026 (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 25 May 2026

    – why Example (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Commenting on a requested move

    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. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as per WP:RMEC.

    Alternatively, the opener of a discussion can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the requested move has not had any comments yet, or the request was initiated via block evasion. As per WP:WITHDRAW, an opener of a discussion should use strikethrough on the nomination statement when it is prematurely closed through withdrawal.

    Relisting a requested move

    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. 90 discussions have been relisted.

    May 25, 2026

    May 24, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Zamboanga City crisis → Zamboanga siege – WP:COMMONNAME for both events, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the 2013 siege. Zamboanga City crisis is a relatively vague term only used on Wikipedia, while Zamboanga siege often refers to the 2013 event.[5][6][7][8][9] To differentiate the 1898 event, I suggest using its alternative name siege of Fort Pilar that is already used throughout the article and by the Philippines government itself.[10]
    Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Jeremy Glinoga → Jeremy G – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the sources refer to him as "Jeremy G". Check it out here: * Pulp Magazine: When I arrived at SOS Poblacion for the media conference and listening party of ODDicted—the latest album by singer-songwriter, host, and actor Jeremy Glinoga, better known as Jeremy G—my heart was pounding, and my hands were trembling. * Billboard Philippines: When creating his sophomore EP, Jeremy G (also known as Jeremy Eriq Glinoga) didn’t want to just go about his normal conventions. * Philippine Daily Inquirer (USA Version): Filipino-American singer-songwriter Jeremy Glinoga also known as Jeremy G... * ABS-CBN (Primary source): Singer-songwriter Jeremy G... * Manila Bulletin: Kapamilya singer Jeremy G... * Rappler: Jeremy G is performing on Rappler Live Jam![...] * SunStar: While many have been complaining of boredom due to being restrained within the four walls of their homes because of the pandemic, artist Jeremy G made good use of the opportunity. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – 2022 Paris shooting → December 2022 Paris shooting – The name is kind of unspecific, as there was an earlier mass shooting in Paris that same year on 18 July, when two gunmen killed one person and wounded four others at a bar. In the grand scheme of things, Paris is a giant city and to simply label the attack "2022 Paris shooting" is not only ignorant of the prior mass shooting, but ignorant of the general situation of gun violence in the city of Paris, which has been marred by various unfortunate incidents throughout the years. The only name I can think of is December 2022 Paris shooting but I want to see if that name works for other people or if you have something better. MountainJew6150 (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Novosvitlivka refugee convoy attack → 2014 Novosvitlivka refugee convoy attack – A lack of other notable attacks on refugee convoys in Novosvitlivka does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable attacks on refugee convoys in Novosvitlivka because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. A year is especially pertinent in this case given the ongoing conflict and the sheer number of attacks across Ukraine. Raskuly 🐰 03:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Buffalo, Minnesota clinic attack → 2021 Buffalo, Minnesota, clinic attack – A lack of other notable attacks at clinics in Buffalo, Minnesota, does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable attacks at clinics in Buffalo, Minnesota, because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. I added a comma after "Minnesota" to make it in-line with MOS:GEOCOMMA. Raskuly 🐰 03:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Indianapolis FedEx shooting → 2021 Indianapolis FedEx shooting – A lack of other notable shootings at FedEx locations in Indianapolis does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable shootings at FedEx facilities in Indianapolis because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. Raskuly 🐰 03:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Ferrocarriles Argentinos → Nuevos Ferrocarriles Argentinos – I would suggest moving this article from “Nuevos Ferrocarriles Argentinos” to “Ferrocarriles Argentinos”, as the latter is both the historical and current legal name of the company. “Nuevos Ferrocarriles Argentinos” was primarily a commercial/public branding used around 2015 in some logos and institutional communications, but it was not the formal corporate name of the state railway holding company itself. The company was legally created and has continued to operate under the name Ferrocarriles Argentinos (first as Ferrocarriles Argentinos Sociedad del Estado, later as Ferrocarriles Argentinos S.A.U.). Per Wikipedia naming conventions, article titles should generally follow the most commonly recognized and officially established name of the subject, rather than a temporary slogan, marketing identity, or graphic brand. In this case, “Ferrocarriles Argentinos” is overwhelmingly the historically significant and legally accurate denomination used across Argentine railway history and current state documentation. A mention of “Nuevos Ferrocarriles Argentinos” could certainly remain in the article body — for example, in a “Branding” or “History” section explaining the 2015 rebranding initiative and associated logo usage — but it does not appear appropriate as the title of the encyclopedia article itself. I believe this move would improve accuracy, consistency with reliable sources, and alignment with Wikipedia naming practices. REGARDS Genova1990 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 00:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    May 23, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Ottoman–Persian War (1775–1776) → Ottoman–Persian War (1776–1779) – On page 929 of Middle East Conflicts from Ancient Egypt to the 21st Century by Spencer C. Tucker, it is referred to as "Ottoman-Persian War of 1776-1779", despite on the same page saying that Basra was already attacked in 1775; "In 1775 Karim Khan attacked and captured the Ottoman town of Basra, prompting a declaration of war by Sultan Abdul al-Hamid's (r. 1774-1789) in June 1776." On the same page, the source concludes; "Ottoman armies then raided Persian territory from Baghdad and Mosul but internal power struggles between Ottoman commanders and local governors allowed Karim Khan to repel these attacks and retain Basra. He made plans for a joint Persian-Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire, but his death in March 1779 put an end to this undetaking and restored an uneasy peace between the two empires" Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World by Alexander Mikaberidze (page 693) calls it the "Ottoman-Iranian War of 1776-1779", despite also mentioning that Karim Khan already attacked Basra in 1775; "In 1775, Karim Khan attacked and captured the Ottoman town of Basra (south Iraq) prompting Sultan Abdul al-Hamid's (r. 1774-1789) declaration of war on Iran in June 1776." On the same page, the source concludes; "Ottoman armies raided Iranian territory from Baghdad and Mosul but internal power struggles between Ottoman commanders and local governors allowed Karim Khan to successfully repel these attacks and retain Basra. He made plains for a joint Iranian-Russian attack on the Ottoman Empire but his death in March 1779 put an end to this undertaking and restored an uneasy peace between the two empires" The Cambridge History of Iran volume 7 (page 311) also pretty much says the same; "Abd al-Hamid I (1774-89) responded with a declaration of war on Iran in June 1776." On the same page, the source concludes; "Karim Khan also made an agreement with the Russians for a joint invasion of eastern Anatolia (1778), but his own death on 1 March 1779 and the quarrels which followed among his heirs put an end to this expedition." HistoryofIran (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Marie-Caroline of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duchess of Berry → Princess Marie Caroline of Naples and Sicily – When Marie Caroline was married in 17 June 1816, she was a "princess of Naples and Sicily", not a "princess of the Two Sicilies", a kingdom that would only be formally created by the union of the crowns of Naples and Sicily in 12 December 1816, almost six months after her wedding. It is standard in pages of other such princesses to name them "of Naples and Sicily" if they were married before 12 December 1816, for example Maria Amalia of Naples and Sicily, who was alive when the kingdom of the Two Sicilies was formed, but was never a "princess of the Two Sicilies" because she was already married to the Duke of Orléans when it happened. Marie Caroline was a "princess (fille) of France" when the kingdom came into formal existance—the dual monarchy was informally known as the Two Sicilies for a long time before that—and she was married as a "princess of Naples and Sicily". As for the exclusion of the title "duchess of Berry", it would be because the French version of her name, "Marie Caroline", by which she is best known, would be different from other princesses Maria Carolina, and because she would no longer be "of Bourbon-Two Sicilies", so there would be little risk of confusion. By the way, perhaps most importantly, "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" is used for princesses who weren't yet married by the time the kingdom ceased to exist in 17 March 1861, so it makes even less sense for her to be known as "of Bourbon-Two Sicilies". I hope I have succeeded in making my case and that you will agree with me and move the page. Thank you for your time. M. Armando (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 11:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    May 22, 2026

    • (Discuss) – B. Riley Financial → BRC Group Holdings – The company changed names to BRC Group Holdings, Inc. on January 1, 2026. My own analysis found very few independent, non-AI-generated news articles to make a NAMECHANGES determination on regular post-change use in independent sources. I am neutral and filing this to bring a request (made in February and again on May 14) by disclosed paid editor Kathleenmarg to its proper venue. There is also a related edit request on this talk page. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Unreal Brands → Unreal Snacks – Brand name change in 2024 (the company is still Unreal Brands LLC, per website, but is trading as Unreal Snacks). While ProQuest turns up more hits for Brands, news articles in the last two years use Snacks, which is their primary product range. I am neutral and filing this to bring a request (made in February) by disclosed paid editor Brooke at Unreal Snacks to its proper venue. There is also a related edit request on this talk page. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Sultan-Murza → Sultan Larsinsky – "Murza" is a silly name as its a title similar to "Prince", it could be misleading for the page name to be "Sultan-Murza" as some people might assume Murza is his name. He is mentioned in the sources as "Sultan Larsinsky" and is only called "Sultan Murza" when refered naturally; so Sultan Larsinsky, as he is the owner of Lars and thats what he is called, is more fitting for this article. Ch3rk.essk0 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    May 21, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Third Eye Shoppe → Third Eye Crossing – Please rename this article from "Third Eye Shoppe" to "Third Eye Crossing" and update the business description to reflect the recent ownership and name change. The business has officially rebranded as Third Eye Crossing (see: ). Please also update the lead sentence to reflect this new entity. I have provided the necessary citations to verify these changes; thank you for reviewing this request. D3rockk (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Puskás (disambiguation) → Puskás – The long-term significance aspect of WP:PTOPIC was barely implied in the previous discussion, but the presence of engineering pioneer Tivadar Puskas definitely means Ferenc Puskas is not the primary topic, because there's definitely at least comparable educational value in telling readers about more people when they land at this Hungarian surname. As the previous status quo of almost two decades had no actual issue guiding readers interested in the footballer there, I don't think it ever surprised anyone, and we should return to that. (I will post further about history and statistics below.) --Joy (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Mayoral Strategic Authority → Strategic authority – The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 creates the legal entity of a “Strategic Authority” (SA) It establishes 4 types of SA. Mayoral Strategic Authorities are only one of the four types. I’m pleased that this article has been created, but I think it would be better to cover all types of SA. SAs will cover all CAs, CCAs, the GLA, and future single‑council strategic authorities. The government intend to ‘complete the map’ of English devolution so every part of England has one of the 4 types of SA. I think we need an article to cover all of these. Thanks. Simon373737 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Space Brothers (conspiracy theory) → Space Brothers (extraterrestrial) – Open to other options (maybe aliens or something) but this is not a conspiracy theory. Not a single source here describes it as a conspiracy theory. The sources outside of the article do not describe it as a conspiracy theory. Barkun, despite being a whole book about conspiracies, does not describe it as a conspiracy, but as a mainstay of the UFO literature. Surveying the literature, I was unable to find any, least of all a majority of sources, that describe it as a conspiracy theory. The sources I found describe it as a type of extraterrestrial that appeared in a certain era of UFO narratives, supplanted by more ominous stories. The lead sentence is unsourced in the article and was only added after the move. Analyzing it on its own merits, since we have no sources saying it is, it simply isn't a conspiracy theory - where is the conspiracy? Conspiracy theory is not an idea that is bad, or wrong, or a myth, or a lie, it is a very particular narrative that there is a conspiracy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    May 20, 2026

    • (Discuss) – 2026 alleged Iranian strikes on Azerbaijan → 2026 Iranian strikes on Azerbaijan – Either include information into the article cited to reliable sources arguing that the strikes may have been conducted by another country, or restore the previous title (moved from it without discussion). Evaporation123 moved the article per the following rationale: After several weeks, it's pretty clear that this is still a muddy he-said-she-said situation; Iran continues to deny responsibility for the strikes. This is all completely meaningless. States denying responsability over their own actions is nothing new nor has it prevented us from attributing responsability in Wikipedia; examples include the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Gaza war. We will need something more substantial rather than simple official Iranian denial. Super Ψ Dro 13:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Downtown Mountain View station → Mountain View station (Caltrain) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, most secondary sources refer to the station as just "Mountain View" and as a Caltrain station: Even the VTA station is simply referred to as "Mountain View": Even if some physical signage at the VTA station may appear to still use "Downtown Mountain View", the VTA themselves now commonly refer to the station as simply "Mountain View": Having "(Caltrain)" as a disambiguating parenthetical also makes it WP:CONSISTENT with the other Caltrain station articles that use it and have other connecting rail services like San Francisco station (Caltrain). Furthermore, the station has an already long-established history as a railway/Caltrain station all the way back to 1888; the VTA station only opened in 1999. The article's infobox is also heavily structured around Caltrain; the style, title, physical railway line, fairzone, and ridership are all about Caltrain. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Lord Voldemort → Voldemort – WP:COMMONNAME. In the books, the character is initially introduced as plain Voldemort (both by Dumbledore talking to McGonagall in PS chapter 1, and later by Hagrid to Harry). "Lord" is portrayed as a title of respect generally used by his supporters (first by Quirrell, I believe), but usually (though not always) omitted in the narrative of the books, and in dialogue by these opponents who dare to use the Voldemort name. Also, and more relevantly, in real-world popular culture, plain Voldemort seems to be much more common. Mats84 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Manifestation (New Thought) → Manifestation (popular psychology) – A read of the sources doesn't indicate to me that the pop-psych manifestation that is the subject of this article is inherently part of New Thought. Source 2 links them, but it says Like many New Age-y practices, manifesting comes with its fair share of paradoxes, where if you think about it too hard, none of it makes any sense. And yet its ideas have stood the test of time: The law of attraction, the belief that all thoughts eventually become things, and if you think positively, positive things will come to you, has existed since the New Thought spiritual movement of the 19th century., which draws the through-line of the ideas, but does not assert that the current manifestation is overtly part of that religious movement. ~ A412 talk! 23:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Zaxby's → Zaxbys – This requested move is on behalf of @Epicazowski, who orginally made a nomination at AFD, which is not the right venue to request a page move. Their rationale is as follows:

      I want to retitle the main page to Zaxbys, because it changed to this name in 2024.

      Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    May 19, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Macon Transit Authority → Macon-Bibb County Transit Authority – The current article title, Macon Transit Authority, appears to be inaccurate or outdated. The agency's formal name is Macon-Bibb County Transit Authority, which is already used in the article lead and infobox and is the name used by the agency's official website. The proposed title is more precise and better reflects the subject's official name. I have a professional connection to the agency, so I am requesting review by uninvolved editors rather than moving the page directly. MBCTA (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Philadelphia metropolitan area → ? – We are approaching about one year now since this page was moved from "Delaware Valley" to "Philadelphia metropolitan area". I do recognize I was the one who spearheaded this change in the first place, but I fear the current name does not completely conform to Wikipedia standards. The basis for the change back then was the fact that "Delaware Valley" could be confused with the entire valley that follows the Delaware River, which extends well beyond the Philadelphia suburbs all the way up to North Jersey and Northeastern Pennsylvania. Here are some facts from some searching I have done. * An Ngram comparison shows results dramatically in favor of "Delaware Valley", with "Greater Philadelphia" very far behind, then "Philadelphia metropolitan area" under that by a decent amount. * While not totally reliable, after doing a basic search of keywords on Newspapers.com, I found ≈98 million matches for Delaware Valley, ≈32 million matches for "Greater Philadelphia", and ≈4 million matches for "Philadelphia metropolitan area" With that, I ask: * It is known that "Delaware Valley" was a media invention, but could the argument be made that it is our duty to apply the most commonly-used name based on what reliable media sources choose, no matter what? * If we do agree that "Delaware Valley" is just too confusing, then I believe there is a still a legitimate argument in favor of "Greater Philadelphia" over "Philadelphia metropolitan area". Should we: * A: Revert the title back to "Delaware Valley" * B: Change the title to "Greater Philadelphia" * C: Leave as-is with "Philadelphia metropolitan area" * D: Change to some other name not mentioned here Red0ctober22 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 09:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    May 18, 2026

    • (Discuss) – John Pringle (biologist) → John Pringle (American biologist) – This move has previously been reversed, so I must seek consensus here. To try to keep it brief: * Wikipedia:NCPDAB seems quite clear: in general, article names have to be sufficiently specific that they could not refer to two different people—or at the least, not to two notable people who already have dedicated English Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the existence of John William Sutton Pringle alongside this article indicates that "John Pringle (biologist)" is not a suitable name for an article in English Wikipedia * The major exception to this is when one subject is so prominent over all others as to be the primary topic for the name. But it does not seem likely that John R. Pringle NAS is pre-eminent enough over John W. S. Pringle FRS (the first scientist ever to get recordings from single neurons in insects, apparently) to be recognised as the primary topic for "John Pringle (biologist)". Clearly someone could make the case, but note that arguing that "John Pringle (biologist)" has a primary topic is arguing for a primary topic for a partially disambiguated name * The evidence suggests that John W. S. Pringle was and is commonly referred to just as "John Pringle", although he did use "J.W.S. Pringle"/"John William Sutton Pringle" as his author name in (some or all of) his scientific publications. (In fact by MOS:NAME it seems that the British Pringle's article title should just be "John Pringle", if it weren't necessary to disambiguate.) * I'm not aware of anything in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) or elsewhere on the site which ought to change the outcome here. Naturally if there is some specific guideline which is relevant, please inform me * I'm not strongly advocating that this page should move to "John Pringle (American biologist)" specifically. It seems that "John Robert Pringle" would be a suitable alternative, for instance. Another possibility is a pair of name changes to eg. "John Pringle (geneticist)" and "John Pringle (zoologist)", though that route has its own problems. But a single "John Pringle (biologist)" → "John Pringle (American biologist)" move is now the least disruptive possible change, while the status quo is not acceptable (again, unless someone can make a strong argument for John R. Pringle as the primary topic, or cite some revelant specific exception) . RW Dutton (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2026 (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) – 2026 Virginia redistricting amendment → 2026 Virginia redistricting referendum2026 Virginia redistricting referendum – (For conciseness throughout this requested move, "AM" will mean and refer to "2026 Virginia redistricting amendment," and "RE" will mean and refer to "2026 Virginia redistricting referendum".) Per WP:CRITERIA, article titles must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. I reason that AM checks 4/5 boxes on that list, while RE checks all 5. I do not hold that AM is precise. First, I believe AM is not precise because the amendment was struck down in court; therefore, it is not an amendment to Virginia’s constitution and calling it as such is inaccurate. Now, one could argue that regardless of whether a constitutional amendment referendum succeeds or not, the term “amendment” is still okay to use as its name, because that's what it had sought to do: (amend the constitution). And, it would be illogical to change the title to something like "2026 Virginia proposed redistricting amendment”, because that would violate the concise rule of WP:CRITERIA. However, because the amendment failed and there is no true official name in usage, it makes sense to use the most precise name which is, in this case, referendum. (We find ourselves in a bit of a unique situation here in regards to how this should be named in order to be consistent with other articles. Referendum articles are typically named based on how the referendum was numbered by lawmakers (e.g. 1998 South Carolina Amendment 4, 1976 Massachusetts Question 1, 2010 Oklahoma State Question 755), but this measure was not numbered because it was by itself on the ballot.) So, my argument follows the path of: Was there an amendment to the Virginia constitution? No. Were voters asked to decide an amendment in a referendum? Yes. Per WP:COMMONNAME, how secondary sources refer to the topic has a lot of weight on how something is named; the official name in this circumstance is, arguably, "2026 Virginia proposed constitutional amendment," as, on the ballot, above the question and the "Yes" and "No" options, was "Proposed Constitutional Amendment".[4] However, the following secondary sources, to name a few, refer to the measure as a referendum, supporting the case of RE becoming the title by WP:COMMONNAME standards: CNN,[5] NYT,[6] Associated Press,[7] NBC News,[8] TIME,[9] Politico,[10] The Hill,[11] and CBS News.[12]

    References

    1. ↑ "About". NEMSA. 2024-03-19. Retrieved 2026-05-23.
    2. ↑ "The North East Mayoral Strategic Authority". South Tyneside Council. Retrieved 2026-05-23.
    3. ↑ "Western Sydney International Airport, Western Sydney Airport — Explore — Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 19 May 2026.
    4. ↑ "Commonwealth of Virginia, Sample Ballot" (PDF). Fairfax County. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 11, 2026. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
    5. ↑ "Virginia redistricting referendum". CNN.
    6. ↑ "Virginia Redistricting Referendum Results". NYT.
    7. ↑ "Virginia Supreme Court strikes down Democrats' redrawn US House maps, giving Republicans a win". Associated Press. "A person votes in the Virginia redistricting referendum at Fairfax Government Center.".
    8. ↑ "Virginia voters approve Democrats' redistricting plan, giving the party a midterm election boost". NBC News. "With 97% of the vote in, the "yes" vote on the ballot referendum held a narrow lead of 3 percentage points.".
    9. ↑ "Trump Declares 'Huge Win' After Virginia Court Strikes Down Redistricting Referendum". TIME.
    10. ↑ "Republicans get massive win in fight for House with Virginia court ruling". Politico. "Signs are seen outside Fairfax Government Center during the Virginia redistricting referendum, on April 21, 2026, in Fairfax, Va.".
    11. ↑ "Virginia redistricting ruling deals blow to Democrats' midterm hopes". The Hill. "The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday dealt a blow to Democrats’ hopes of flipping the House this fall, throwing out the redistricting referendum that was set to give Democrats a midterm boost.".
    12. ↑ "Virginia Supreme Court tosses out congressional map that favored Democrats". CBS News. "The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday tossed out a congressional redistricting referendum passed by Virginia voters last month, striking a blow to Democrats hoping to gain a more favorable map and increase their number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.".
    Delcoan (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog

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

    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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1353297326#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves"