Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested move)

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

@Humontroup Per this discussion please open full RM for all these PRITOP. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 10:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thilio What about the similar requests that have already been completed? 1isall (talk | contribs) 12:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@1isall Simplest way we should revert the completed ones and let @Humontroup do the bundles RM nom. I did three, then I felt something was off, then I started double checking their talk page and I found what I was looking for. @1isall, you did 4 or 5, I think. @TarnishedPath made it clear, and I agreed with him they/them on that. Also, @Dfadden simplified it to him here I don't know whether they are ignoring it or what; actually, I don't know, so please @Humontroup, next time just go straight to RM to save us from this kind of booby trap. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can undo it all for now and just put it in an RM. Also a quick FYI: I believe TarnishedPath goes by they/them, not he/him. (Unless I am told otherwise.) 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But aren't these all just redundant disambiguation? And these are Australian places, not American ones. 1isall (talk | contribs) 04:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@1isall, for most of them it probably is redundant disasmbiguation and I'm on the side of concision where it is clear that no other locality has the same name. My read of WP:NCAUS, is that it supports that position (there is disagreement on that though). The issue that I see is that I've previously started discussions for a bunch (I think I did about 5 or 6 of them) of bulk RMs about Australian places, in which I argued for losing the disambiguation. Even though everyone of them ended up being closed with most of the entries being moved, they all had at least some opposition and some of them I withdrew 1 or two of the entries (they were about 20 - 50 entries per RM from memory). Ergo, the RMs were contested. I think given that, these should all probably go to RMs. Regarding ones that have already been moved, I see no harm with leaving them as they are and we can address it if/when anyone objects.
Ps, it's he/him, but I'm not that concerned. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pps, See Talk:Stanhope Gardens, New South Wales#Requested move 25 June 2026 where a page that Humontroup had previously moved without discussion was moved back to its original position. They're getting some of their claims of PTOPIC wrong. TarnishedPathtalk 05:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


The article currently at Sekong, Laos is a longstanding primary topic, and everything else appears to be WP:PTM. Revert the undiscussed move, and open a discussion per WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both Sekong, Laos and Sekong province were created in 1984, maybe the river existed before that. Henrydat (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Before June 2012, Sekong redirected to Sekong River or Sekong province, I can say that the page was created incorrectly. Are cities or towns always the primary topic? Henrydat (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Henrydat I reverted your move, please create a move request and gain consensus. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 04:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can start a discussion by clicking the move button above. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 04:41, 21 July 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 21 July 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 21 July 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 05:21, 21 July 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 21 July 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 05:21, 21 July 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 21 July 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 05:21, 21 July 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 21 July 2026

    – why Example (talk) 05:21, 21 July 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 21 July 2026

    – why Example (talk) 05:21, 21 July 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. 94 discussions have been relisted.

    July 21, 2026

    July 20, 2026

    • (Discuss) – IFSC Climbing Asian Youth Championships → Asian Youth Climbing Championships – The current title is outdated and uses unnatural word order. Official sources have variously used "IFSC Youth Asian Championships", "IFSC Asian Youth Championships", and, for the 2026 edition, "World Climbing Asia Youth Championship". Independent English-language sources use the more natural "Asian Youth Climbing Championships". Because the article covers the historical championship series across different federation branding periods, "Asian Youth Climbing Championships" is a concise and stable descriptive title. Phetoy6 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy → 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis – This article is about a diplomatic crisis consisting of several parts: Zelenskyy's naming of the military unit; Nawrocki's revocation of his award; and reactions to both of those actions by Polish and Ukrainian politicians and others. The current title focuses only on the second part, while the title proposed in the previous RM focused only on the first. I suggest removing "controversy" from the title and naming it as an event according to WP:NCEVENTS. Including "controversy" forces us to choose one thing that defines the controversy (which was an issue in the previous RM), and this article is about one specific incident, not about controversy surrounding UPA commemoration or the Order of the White Eagle in general. I think 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis is the best title that fulfils WP:NCWWW and describes this event as a whole. Sources calling this a diplomatic crisis: Notes from Poland, Reuters, Euronews, TVP World, Euromaidan Press, Deutsche Welle, RFI, France24 - Polish, Ukrainian, and international sources all use this term. An argument in the previous RM was that the UPA unit name was the primary source of the controversy and should be in the title. However, there is no requirement in WP:NCEVENTS that incident articles must be named after the first thing in the chain of events. While Zelenskyy's decision was the starting point of this incident, not all sources agree that it started the diplomatic crisis, e.g. Reuters (President Karol Nawrocki's decision to strip Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Poland's top honour due to a dispute over the naming of an army unit after insurgents who ‌massacred Poles in World War Two unleashed the biggest diplomatic crisis between the neighbours since Russia's 2022 invasion.), France24 (The decision by President Karol Nawrocki threatens to unleash a serious diplomatic crisis between the two neighbours). Regardless, the "diplomatic crisis" title does not require us to decide what started the crisis, while a "controversy" title does require us to choose one part of the controversy, so the "diplomatic crisis" title is also more NPOV-friendly. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Deir ez-Zor Airport → Deir ez-Zor International Airport – The airport has recently been reconstructed and upgraded to handle international flights. According to the official announcement by the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) of Syria, scheduled international flights operated by Syrian Airlines to Kuwait City are set to begin on August 3, 2026 (Source). Additionally, the newly installed external signage at the airport terminal now explicitly labels it as "International Airport" (Source). Moving the page to "Deir ez-Zor International Airport" is necessary to accurately reflect its current status and official designation. –yeagvr · ✉ 11:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Oisín GAA → Oisín GAA (Manchester) – The proposed title provides clear geographic identification of the Manchester club and is consistent with the title used for St Peter's GAA (Manchester). The club is listed publicly by Lancashire GAA as “Oisín's GAA Manchester”, supporting the inclusion of Manchester in the title. I am connected with Oisín CLG and disclose that connection; I am therefore requesting independent community review rather than moving the article directly. OisínCLG (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Operation Kikusui I → Operation Ten-Ichi-Go – I hate to open another move request so soon after the last one closed, but it looks like the previous move was done without reference to sources. Unfortunately, I believe the new name chosen was incorrect. The Japanese plan for resisting the American invasion of Okinawa was named Ten-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven). In the initial planning, Ten-Go did not include a naval component. It only included ground force elements and a series of aerial kamikaze attacks designated Kikusui Sakusen (Operation Floating Chrysanthemum). After the Emperor noted the lack of the Navy's participation, the attack by the Yamato and company was added at the last minute. This was designated Ten-Ichi-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven 1). The Japanese Wikipedia helpfully includes the actual text of the order, with source: 「航空攻撃有利なる場合、1YBは特令により出撃し敵攻略部隊を撃滅す。本作戦を天一号作戦と呼称す」 "Should conditions for an aerial offensive prove favorable, the 1st Surface Attack Unit shall sortie under special orders to annihilate the enemy invasion force. This operation shall be designated Operation Heaven 1." Source: Official Japanese war history (Senshi Sōsho), Vol 93, pg 258-259 Each of the ten Kikusui attacks was numbered one through ten, i.e. Kikusui I, Kikusui II. Note they do not include the word Sakusen (Operation). The aerial attacks are distinguished in reliable sources from the attack by the Yamato. For example, 'Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945 : the Naval History of World War II' mentions the two separately (pg. 407). Tagging original requestor: @Palm Dogg, relisters: @Bunnypranav, @Sophisticatedevening, @Jeffery34964, and closer: @FOARP Voteins (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 06:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Sujatha Baliga → Sujatha baliga – Documentation exists from multiple sources to show that the subject has a strong, consistent preference that her name be undercapitalized. Per MOS:LCITEMS, a Wikipedia article may use this style of capitalization for personal names when the subject has expressed their desire and the usage is "regular and established" in reliable third-party sources. In 2023 this page was moved from "Sujatha baliga" to "Sujatha Baliga" based on evidence drawn from a single 2019 news cycle (see ). The 2023 discussion counted 3 conventional sources (with 1 of those three consistently using lowercase in the body of the article) vs. 2 lowercase sources. Wire/desk outlets (NYT/UPI) tend to normalize all personal names to their own house style regardless of subject preference, so that capitalization is evidence of their own style guides, not of her name. While the sources who are engaging with her directly (MacArthur Foundation, the profile pieces, her own decade-plus usage) consistently use lowercase. Also, in the previous move discussion the Imprint was categorized as "may be less reliable than the others". I would push back against that a bit as the Imprint is a nonprofit newsroom covering child welfare/juvenile justice with an professional editorial staff (John Kelly is its senior editor). The evidence against standard capitalization has grown substantially since that discussion and the move. See below for at least five independent third-party sources, plus the subject's own documented usage since 2011: 1. The MacArthur Foundation ( and ): an institutional, third-party source (not a wire-service) has used lowercase consistently since the 2019 fellowship announcement. That consistency is corroborated by viewing the archived captures on the Wayback Machine (). 2. The Imprint (formerly The Chronicle of Social Change) (), FWIW published the same week as the NYT/UPI pieces, states explicitly: "She prefers that her name be uncapitalized." 3. Independent third-party profile pieces in Lion's Roar ( and ), Bioneers (), Just Beginnings Collaborative (), and TransformHarm.org () all use the undercapitalized form. 4. The subject has used the undercapitalized form as her own display name since May 2011 on her X/Twitter account (). This predates the 2019 press cycle announcments by eight years. 5. Her personal/professional website ( and ) uses undercapitalized styling throughout, with a copyright notice spanning 2018–2024, also predating the 2019 coverage. Other sources can be found via a Google News search or (as was done by user Cinderella157 during the move discussion) The previous move was nominated by user Tol who argued that it is "confusing to present a proper noun in lowercase." However the undercapitalized naming convention is consistent with existing precedent for subjects with a documented lowercase-name preference, e.g. bell hooks and k.d. lang , both of which apply {{lowercase title}} to display the name in lowercase despite some capitalized coverage existing for both. By contrast, E. E. Cummings' name retains standard capitalization because his own actual personal practice was to sign his name with capitals, contrary to common myth. This case is the opposite, where the subject's own sustained, dateable practice is the undercapitalized form. If this move succeeds, I would also propose adding {{lowercase title}} so the displayed title reads 'sujatha baliga' in full, per the bell hooks and k.d. lang precedents cited above. Da.mappr (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:Guide to deletion → Wikipedia:Guide to AfD – The current title doesn't really match what the page covers. Right after the intro, the guide says outright that it deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Verifiability and No original research, which are [...] nominated on Articles for deletion. Everything past that point, nomination, discussion, closure, behaviour, contesting the closure, and so on, is about how AfD specifically works. The other XfD venues for deleting non-article pages are only covered in one sentence which just links out to their own pages, not actually explained here. So, per WP:MOVE, the title is misleading or inaccurate, and the scope is effectively much narrower than the title suggests. "Guide to deletion" implies coverage of deletion as a whole, but the content has always been a guide to AfD specifically, not to the other XfD processes. One of the page's own shortcuts, WP:GAFD, already reads as "guide to AfD", so editors have been treating it that way informally for a while. Renaming it would just bring the title in line with the shortcut and the actual content. Also, note that we already have a guide to all the deletion processes as a whole at Wikipedia:Deletion process: speedy deletion, PROD, and the full set of XfD venues, along with the general closing procedures, consensus determination, relisting, and so on. That page covers the general "how deletion works across Wikipedia", and it already links out to venue-specific pages while trying to explain their common features. Renaming this page to Wikipedia:Guide to AfD would just stop this page from implying, by its title, that it's the general deletion guide, when we already have that at WP:Deletion process. FaviFake (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Capital Gazette shooting → 2018 Capital Gazette shooting – A lack of other notable shootings at the Capital Gazette office 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 the Capital Gazette office 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, it must either have a special common name that does not follow the typical where and what format or it must be so incredibly well known that it can manage without a year. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. Unlike the Charlie Hebdo shooting, this is not the actual name of the newspaper. Raskuly 🐰 02:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Novopavlivka offensive → Dnipropetrovsk Oblast offensive (2025–present) – I had already expressed concerns over this article's scope at Talk:Novopavlivka offensive#Scope (I'll be pinging some users from that discussion). Essentially I expressed some doubt over the decision to focus this article on the settlement of Novopavlivka. To me it seemed back then, and still does, that this article focused more simply on Russian advances into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast than on this little settlement. The article itself currently states the following: The locality itself [Novopavlivka] is not particularly strategic, though its location just over the border of the Dnipropetrovsk region makes it significant as Russia has not entered this oblast in the first three years of their full-scale invasion. Therefore, it would mainly mark a moral blow for Ukraine, should Russia cross into the Dnipropetrovsk region and seize Novopavlivka. It puts more weight on the simple fact that Russia has reentered this oblast than on the advances towards this particular settlement, and I would argue WP:RS coverage has focused more on this too. Novopavlivka is a small settlement of 3,439 people (2001). Typically we've had articles on offensives on specific settlements for small towns, larger than this one. I Know I'm Not Alone, the author of much of this article, did make some fair defense on the use of Novopavlivka as the article's focus at the aforementioned discussion. Nonetheless, as you can see on the map (outdated by the way), most of the territory taken during the offensive covered in this article is located in a different part of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, near Velykomykhailivka. IiSmxyzXX also made some argumentation on this point and on the notion that this offensive being focused on Novopavlivka specifically might be WP:OR. I believe sources have focused more on the simple fact that Russia has achieved advances in a different oblast beyond Donetsk Oblast. This article is notable in my opinion largely due to this psychological and PR effect. Sources cited in this article seem to struggle giving this offensive a particular strategic sense, and I don't think there's many capable of doing this among the sources not already cited. Thus, I would like to propose renaming this article to better reflect its focus on, simply, Russian advances into this oblast beyond the Donbas region. It is necessary to differentiate these advances from the ones that took place in 2022 (see more at Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast#2022) and also to note the fact that this offensive is apparently still ongoing (though this article should be updated after the events of the 2026 Southern Ukraine counteroffensive). Such a format title is already employed in this topic area (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), Dnieper campaign (2022–present)) and it suggests treating the topic in a similar fashion to other in my opinion comparable cases, such as the 2025 Sumy offensive. We could still mention Novopavlivka in some section header, it would be completely fair in my view to divide this article into two axes, one for Novopavlivka and another for Velykomykhailivka (we've already done stuff like this, see the sections at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive). "Dnipropetrovsk offensive (2025–present)" could also be an alternative WP:CONSISTENT with the aforementioned Sumy offensive that has taken place in the oblast and not the city, and in this particular case it would be unambiguous as the capital is not called Dnipropetrovsk but Dnipro. But then we also have Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign for example. And given the apparent lack of a strategic single focus, with this article focusing more on military engagements taking place on a specific defined area, "campaign" might be a better choice over "offensive". I invite editors to discuss all possible options. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 00:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – 2021 Qatari general election → 2021 Qatari Shura Council election –
      1. Sources used in the article and sources overall overwhelmingly do not use the term "general election". 2. The official Qatar News Agency always calls it "Shura Council Elections", never "General", and Qatar has a "Media Support Committee for the Shura Council Elections" and a "Shura Council Elections Supervisory Committee".[1][2] 3. The term "general election" is ambiguous, and is often understood in English to mean elections that affect a government,[3] which is not the case here, nor in elections for similar bodies in other non-democratic countries, going against Precision from WP:CRITERIA. 4. WP:NCELECT does not have a specific guideline on "general election", and due to the particular nature of the Shura Council as a pseudo-legislature with limited powers, I believe that the appropriate guideline here is the following: "For elections to particular bodies or offices, default to the form "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [body/office] election"." Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC) غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Crocodilia → Crocodylia – The article should be moved from Crocodilia to Crocodylia. Both spellings have historical usage, but modern systematic and taxonomic sources increasingly use Crocodylia, especially for the crown group containing living alligators, crocodiles, gharials, and their extinct descendants. Reptile Database uses Crocodylia, IUCN Red List taxonomic data also uses Crocodylia for species classifications, and recent phylogenetic literature commonly treats Crocodylia as the crown-group name. Since the article is about the taxonomic order/crown clade rather than a vernacular concept, Crocodylia is the better title, with Crocodilia retained as an alternative spelling redirect. コロネン (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Pira-tapuya → Waʼikhana – per WP:AUTONYM, The names an ethnic group or Indigenous government self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided. The Piratapuyo call themselves Waʼikhana and have expressed preference for others to use their self-designation (Stenzel 2013). 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    July 19, 2026

    • (Discuss) – 2000 England v Germany football match → October 2000 England v Germany football match – Ambiguous title. There were two football matches between England and Germany during 2000; one that took place in June 2000 as part of Euro 2000, and the one being described in this article. Both attracted significant media attention for different reasons (the June match was England's first win over Germany since the 1966 World Cup final, and a major upset which eliminated the tournament holders; the October match was the last match at the original Wembley Stadium and directly led to Kevin Keegan resigning as team manager), so with its current title someone could quite easily link to the page thinking it was referring to the June match. DaveJB (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 11:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Aktion T4 → Euthanasia in Nazi Germany – This article is about various Nazi involuntary euthanasia practices and programmes from 1939 to 1945. "Aktion T4" is not the common English name for the various Nazi forced euthanasia practices. Any of the following titles would be more natural, recognisable and precise: WP:ARTICLE TITLES. # Euthanasia in Nazi Germany; or # Nazi involuntary euthanasia programmes; or # Nazi 'euthanasia' programmes "Aktion T4" is the German name for a particular Nazi euthanasia programme; ie. the centrally planned adult involuntary euthanasia programme that ran from October 1939 to August 1941. In English language sources this programme is most often called "Operation T4", "the T4 programme" or just "T4". The German language Wikipedia article on Aktion T4 correctly uses it in this sense: 71,000 people were killed under Aktion T4/Operation T4; but total deaths from all Nazi "euthanasia" programmes and practices is estimated at 300,000.[4] The specialist literature usually differentiates between: # The centrally organised child euthanasia programme from July 1939 to 1945 (targeting children with mental or physical disability) # The systematic SS/Wehrmacht murder of the occupants of psychiatric wards and hospitals in Nazi occupied eastern Europe # The centrally organised adult euthanasia programme targeting adults with mental or physical disability from October 1939 to 24 August 1941 (German: Aktion T4, usually called in English "Operation T4" or "the T4 programme" or "Action T4") # "Action 14f13": the systematic murder of people with mental or physical disabilities in concentration camps. # The decentralised adult euthanasia programme from August 1941 to May 1945. (Usually conducted by the management of individual hospitals/nursing homes). This is how historian Alex Kay puts it: "Following the official stop to Operation T4 – the murder by gas of the mentally and physically disabled in the German Reich – on 24 August 1941, a second wave of mass killing commenced later the same year, gaining in intensity from summer 1942 onwards. This was the third major series of measures taken to kill the sick in Germany and the annexed territories following the Reich Committee scheme in the more than thirty so-called special children’s wards and Operation T4 in the six killing centres. During this third phase, it was no longer gas but rather intentional neglect, over doses of medication or – and above all – food deprivation that were employed to bring about the death of patients. More victims of ‘euthanasia’ perished after the stop order of August 1941 was issued than before. This local or decentralised ‘euthanasia’ campaign claimed the lives of almost 120,000 people between late 1941 and 1945."[5] So Kay, like almost all specialists in this topic, is distinguishing between the child euthanasia programme, the centralised adult euthanasia programme (Operation T4/Aktion T4), and the decentralised "euthanasia" killings that took place after Operation T4 was officially closed. So we either create a new article called "Euthanasia in Nazi Germany" and move half the content of this article there, or we call this article "Euthanasia in Nazi Germany" which is the more accurate title. The English language literature also often refers to the "T4 organisation" which is the organisation originally tasked with conducting the centralised adult euthanasia programme. The T4 organisation continued up to 1945, but after Operation T4 was formally suspended in August 1941 it had a much more limited role in the various other euthanasia programmes and practices. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – January 2019 Louisiana shootings → 2019 Ascension–Livingston shootings – Alts: 2019 Louisiana shootings; Ernest–Theriot family murders (latter could imply hyphenated name, but I want to hear thoughts about it). A lack of other notable spree shootings across the parishes of Ascension and Livingston 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 spree shootings across Ascension and Livingston 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. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. This is a situation where there is no clear and obvious WP:COMMONNAME, but having "January" in the title is unnecessary disambiguation as there was no other notable shooting in Louisiana in 2019 (and no, the year is not disambiguation). Because of this, I've suggested two other alternatives, and I encourage participants to try to think of other potential alternatives as well. The current title does not follow naming guidelines for events, and needs to change one way or another. Raskuly 🐰 07:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    July 18, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Luddite → Luddites – This article specifically talks about Luddites, not specific workers described as 'a Luddite'. The bold text at the start of the article literally states "The Luddites..." not "A Luddite is a...". Most links to this page are also written as 'Luddites' or 'Luddite movement', not the singular 'Luddite'. 'Luddites' is also the more common name for the historical group, whereas 'Luddite' is more often used as a descriptor of a person (usually meant to insult, see modern AI drama) and should honestly have it's own article on the descriptor itself, but I digress; that is a matter for another time. For now, this should be moved. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Unguja → Zanzibar Island – We have got these three articles: * Zanzibar, which is about the Zanzibar Archipelago, which by which it describes as consisting of two main islands: Zanzibar island (Unguja), Pemba island (but not Mafia island). * Zanzibar Archipelago, which is also about the Zanzibar Archipelago, which it describes as consisting of three main islands: Zanzibar island (Unguja), Pemba island, and Mafia island. * Unguja (this article) which refers to (what is basically always called) Zanzibar, the island. Unguja is by a very large margin called Zanzibar by native English speakers. Here is some evidence: * This google Ngram flat out proves it. There's not even the tiniest argument in the face of that. * This google Trends chart, same deal. Overwhelming. That's worldwide, but even in Tanzania it's the same deal. * And I mean, come on. Have you even heard the term "Unguja"? The title of John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, for instance, specifically references the island only. Because of course; he needed to use a term for the island that people understand. And so forth. I get that we would like to use endonyms instead of exonyms (Zanzibar is from Persian). It is polite and we do that often. But only if it's supported by a good percentage of English speakers worldwide, which Unguja isn't. We need to rename this article to "Zanzibar Island". The current article Zanzibar Archipelago should stay, but the article currently named "Zanzibar" needs to be folded into Zanzibar Archipelago (altho that article is much smaller... possibly fold the smaller article into the larger, delete Zanzibar Archipelago and rename Zanzibar to Zanzibar Archipelago, and make "Zanzibar" a redirect to this article. It'd take an admin to do all that. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Donkey Kong (1981 video game) → Donkey Kong (video game) – This article should be a shoe-in for WP:PARTIALDAB. The only other video game titled just Donkey Kong is Donkey Kong (1994 video game). One is a later Game Boy release that according to its article "was overshadowed by Donkey Kong Country, released later in 1994." The other is one of the most important video games of all time. Arguably the foundation for the entire platformer genre, the reason Mario exists, the foundation of Nintendo's transformation into a globally recognized brand, and one of the highest grossing arcade games of all time. This article typically gets about 5-6 times the daily page views of the Donkey Kong (1994) and not infrequently that jumps to 10-20 times. Donkey Kong (1981) is pretty clearly the primary topic here, and so should be partially disambiguated as such. It's not lost on me that this would revert the title back to what it was three years ago. In that discussion, the point was raised that there are lots of Donkey Kong games, so calling this "Donkey Kong (video game)" would be ambiguous. But this is quite frankly not how our disambiguation works, we don't title Final Fantasy (video game) as Final Fantasy (1987 video game) because someone might believe the article is actually about Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy XII. Other Donkey Kong games have well known, commonly used taglines and subtitles that readers can be expected to understand. On the other hand, readers may not be expected to have the release date of a 45-year-old video game memorized. Donkey Kong (video game) is the disambiguation that is most consistent with WP:NCVGDAB and WP:PDAB, which provides consistency for both readers and editors and makes it way easier to figure out which arbitrary parenthetical phrase gets you to the article you actually want. Whipmywillows (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    July 17, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Dominican Creole French → Dominican Creole – Is the "French" disambiguation really needed? I've done a quick Google search and it seems that "Dominican Creole" is by far a more common name– even in academic research relating to the language. A search for "Dominican Creole French" mostly yields results that seem to be based off of the Wikipedia title. It should be noted that Dominican Creole English redirects to Kokoy, "Kokoy" being its proper name both in common usage and in academics. This is different from the situation in Grenada, where there is actually some ambiguity in common parlance: an everyday reader is much more likely to have confusion with the term "Grenadian Creole" (it may mean Grenadian Creole French or Grenadian Creole English). It seems that most Dominican sources refer to it as "Dominican Kwéyòl" but this probably wouldn't be suitable for the English Wikipedia, right? CROIXtalk 23:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Nepal Workers Peasants Party → Nepal Workers' and Peasants' Party – Nepal Workers and Peasants Party is the common name in English, while the party's website uses the English name Nepal Workers' and Peasants' Party. Looking up both terms on Google will produce the same results because it doesn't treat the two as different search terms. On Google Ngrams, the title without the apostrophes is the more common name in books. The existing title has no mention on Ngrams and only a few hits on Google Book, Scholar, and Search. Because the two titles are similar with no significant/meaningful difference(s), I think using the one the party does makes more sense.
      Also, a literal Nepali translation doesn't help because to my understanding it translates to Labour(er) and Farmer, not Workers and Peasants. Yue🌙 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – 2011 St. Louis tornado → 2011 Good Friday tornado – This page was once named as such back then (specifically 2011 Good Friday Tornado), due to the event occurring on Good Friday, April 22, 2011. It was then moved on April 24, 2011 by @Cyclonebiskit to 2011 St. Louis tornado, because it was "less ambiguous" to name it for a single tornado event and that it immediately reflects the affected area (that being directly St. Louis, Missouri), and that naming it as such could refer to other tornadoes that have occurred that same day. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the local NWS office, but especially many press sources have referred this specific EF4 tornado as the Good Friday tornado in the wake of the event, and even as far as a decade or more after it happened. I personally do not find both names bad, but I am leaning more on the WP:COMMONNAME policy on renaming this article back to what it originally was named as by the creator, @Strikerforce. And despite literally being named by the media industry from in and around the St. Louis, Missouri metro as just the Good Friday tornado, it definitely would need the 2011 parenthesis to not conflict with another violent EF4 tornado (has a draft by @Lightbulb Noob) and outbreak that also occurred on Good Friday, on April 10, 2009 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Please share your thoughts on this. If any of the original editors from over 15 years ago are still present, it would be awesome to still have you around! Sharkeston (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar district → Nawanshahr district – Despite the Nawanshahr district being officially renamed to Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar district in 2008, "Nawanshahr district" remains the WP:COMMONNAME despite this renaming, as per Google Ngrams: - it has been 18 years since this district was renamed and the fact that Google Ngrams does not come back with any results for this new name is quite telling. Searching "Nawanshahr district" on Google brings back 1,010,000 results while searching "Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar district" brings back 918,000 results. Searching for "SBSN district" gives 32,600 results results and searching for "SBS Nagar district" gives 794,000 results results. In a similar move discussion, Mohali district's article's title was not renamed to Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar district despite its name also being officially changed to it by the government, see: MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – WHX Dubai → ? – The full, official name of this international event is "World Health Expo Dubai". While the acronym "WHX Dubai" is used in branding, Wikipedia naming conventions (WP:ACROTITLE) strongly prefer the full, unabbreviated title for the main article to ensure encyclopedic clarity and accuracy. Moving it to the full name will better serve readers searching for the comprehensive expo title, while "WHX Dubai" will remain as a seamless redirect. Ezgiayoz (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 08:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Santos Bravos → Santos Bravos (TV series) – A February RM was closed as no consensus. The sole oppose !vote cited pageviews. Since April, pageviews for the group have been greater than those for the series. Adding my comment from March 2026: I don't think the series meets WP:PT2 as there is little coverage of the series after its finale. This RM has been open long enough that the group has released their debut EP and gotten a bit more media attention. The articles are primarily about the group and refer to the series as part of the group's creation (or not at all). (This is just looking at English-language sources, not Spanish or Portuguese.) Wracking talk! 03:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    July 16, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Merina Kingdom → Kingdom of Madagascar – The page should be moved to Kingdom of Madagascar. This was the official name of the state. From Radama I and onwards the monarchs of the state officially used the title King/Queen of Madagascar, not Imerina. The 1881 Code of 305 Articles [1] which was issued by Queen Ranavalona II and is often considered Madagascar’s first proto-constitution, officially referred to the state as the Kingdom of Madagascar. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Septilici family → Șeptilici family – Author Revengetaker11 reverted an undiscussed move to the proposed title I carried out two years ago on the basis that the family's name was more commonly used in English without diacritics. Simply this family does not receive coverage in English-language sources . Most of the coverage is, quite unsurprisingly, in Romanian. It is likely there is some in Russian and Serbian too. But this family had no links with English-speaking countries. Despite some titles having been translated, out of nine sources present in the article, only one is in English. Of course, the ones in Romanian use the diacritic, as it represents how the family's name is actually pronounced (ș=sh). The one in English does not , but then there's one Romanian-language source with an English summary which does use the diacritic . The English source actually only makes one passing mention of a member of this family, it does not even discuss it (the Romanian-language one with an English summary does). I don't think this is proof of a deliberate choice to omit the diacritic in English but likely simply a detail that was forgotten on a 521-page book. I see no reason to exclude the diacritic. The vast coverage of this family seems to be in Romanian, with minimum English one. While the author's contributions are an obvious net positive, they've extended their practice to even more obscure (not meant as disparaging or insulting) figures such as Vasile Septilici, of whom I can find quite literally zero English-language coverage (5 out of 6 sources there are in Romanian, all use the diacritic). Super Ψ Dro 01:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – List of storms named Urmil → Cyclone Urmil – Sam Sailor reversed an admin move via their page mover rights as "undiscussed" and will obviously oppose this, so I'm bringing this RM up for you the community to decide. As stated in my request for the move, regardless of whatever and you can check both titles' page histories for that, is that speculation barely matters here on WP, because other than these notable cyclones, no other storm of this sort has ever been notable by this name enough to warrant an article, but will instead get redirected to the related parent broader storm season article. So as and when such at that arises, we can revisit this and deliberate the reverse/opposite, but for now, .... Intrisit (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Robinson list → Opt-out registry – The article should be moved from Robinson list to Opt-out registry. The current title appears to be region-specific and potentially unclear to readers who are not familiar with the term "Robinson list". The article itself defines the topic more generally as an opt-out list or register for people who do not wish to receive marketing communications by email, post, telephone, or fax. The examples in the article also show that many jurisdictions use other terms, such as "National Do Not Call List", "Do Not Call Register", "Do Not Call Registry", "Telephone Preference Service", and "Public Registry of Oppositions". Under WP:TITLE, article titles should generally be recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. I do not think "Robinson list" is the most recognisable or natural title for the broader international concept. It appears to be one regional or historical name for a wider class of opt-out registers. "Opt-out registry" would be a more descriptive and internationally understandable title. The proposed title may also better satisfy WP:PRECISE, because it describes the general subject of the article rather than one particular name used in some jurisdictions. It may also better reflect WP:COMMONNAME in a broad sense, as the article covers several national systems that are not commonly called Robinson lists. Even if individual schemes have specific names, the general concept is more clearly described as an opt-out registry. This move would also help with WP:CONSISTENT and WP:WORLDVIEW, because the article discusses systems in multiple countries. A title based on one regional term risks giving undue prominence to that terminology, whereas "Opt-out registry" is more neutral and descriptive across jurisdictions. This request is also relevant to the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do not call list, where editors are considering the relationship between Do not call list and Robinson list. If overlapping content is merged, the target article should ideally have a title that is clear, internationally understandable, and broad enough to cover telephone, postal, email, and fax marketing opt-out systems. For these reasons, I think Opt-out registry would be a better title than Robinson list. Kirbylegal (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Squawk7700 (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    July 15, 2026

    • (Discuss) – She Chinese → Shanke dialect –
      Noting that many people may not be familiar with this language. I think it is necessary to explain the reason for the move. The study to the Hakka or Hakka-like variant spoken by the She (Shanke) people is the niche study of niche studies among existing studies to the Chinese language using English language as a medium. The study to this dialect in English is very uncommon, so it is very hard to have a uniform commonly known name in English. Different scholars used different names to call this dialect. Not to mention in English, the National Ethnic Affairs Commission AND other branches of the Chinese government has not even confirmed an official name for this dialect in Chinese. In another word, it doesn't even have an official standardised Chinese name. The language only has a widely acknowledged native endonym called "山客话 (shānkè huà)". According to the interlanguage links to this concept, there are three Wikipedia articles to this concept in three different languages, which are Chinese, Indonesian, and English. Both articles in Chinese and Indonesian Wikipedia use this language's native endonym by its native users, which is "山客 (Shanke / Shanha)" as the name for this concept. In Chinese Wikipedia, it is called "zh:山客话 (shānkè huà)". In Indonesian Wikipedia, it is called "id:Bahasa Shanha". In either way, they are based on this language's native endonym "山客话 (Shanke dialect)" called by its native speakers. Now, let me explain why it is appropriate to change the name of this article from "She Chinese" to "Shanke dialect" in English. 1: The term "She Chinese" is never found in English to refer to this language. No matter whether you search "She Chinese" in Google Scholar or in other English databases, you will never find this two words "She Chinese" to be used to refer to this language. In some occasions, "She Chinese" may be used to refer to the She people, but "She Chinese" is never used to refer to this language in English. At the same time, you can find "Mandarin Chinese", "Xiang Chinese", "Yue Chinese", "Gan Chinese" everywhere in their studies. 2: "———— Chinese" is the fashion to name primary branches of the Chinese language, not varieties under primary branches. To be named "———— Chinese", the branch needs to be either large enough or distinct enough (if not large enough). "She Chinese" is neither large enough like "Mandarin Chinese" and other nine primary branches of Chinese, nor distinct enough like "Waxiang Chinese" as an ancient although tiny Chinese branch. This is quite important. For example, Huizhou dialect and Huizhou Chinese are entirely different Chinese varieties. Huizhou Chinese implies that this is a primary Chinese branch, but Huizhou dialect should be under a primary branch (although Huizhou dialect is still disputed regarding whether it should be under Hakka Chinese or Yue Chinese). "She Chinese" is apparently not large enough, and at the same time, it is not as distinct as Waxiang Chinese, because the mainstream linguists classify it as a dialect under Hakka Chinese. 3: "Shanke" as the English name for this language is not a new invention in English. It has already been used in academic journals for long to differentiate itself from other languages used by the She people, such as Dongjia language and Huonie language, and from the exonyms to this language. In 2021, in publication "Insights From Y-STRs: Forensic Characteristics, Genetic Affinities, and Linguistic Classifications of Guangdong Hakka and She Groups" on PubMed Central and PubMed, it says "She people speak the She language with different dialects such as Shanke, Dongjia, and Huonie. She language is a branch of Sino-Tibetan language families and is the primary language for the She group." In 2009, in publication "Languages of the She Minority: A Review of the Literature" on the UC Berkley's journal Journal of Chinese Linguistics collected in JSTOR, it says "The Han people call the language spoken by the She Shekehua 畲客话 or Sheminhua 畲民话 ('speech of the She guests' or 'speech of the She people'), but the She people call their own language Shankehua 山客话, or Shanhahua 山哈话 'speech of the mountain guests'." The name "Shanke" as the dialect's English name in its English spelling has been used and collected by academic authorities for a long time already. 4: According to the WP:COMMONNAME, it says "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". All of the four names I have seen in English publications, which are the two native endonyms "Shanke dialect (山客话)" and "Shanha dialect (山哈话)", and two externally defined exonyms "She dialect (畲话)" and "She language (畲语)" referring to this same language, are uncommon, because the study to this language itself is uncommon. Scholars improvised different translations to the name of this language each time when they need to mention this language in English. There is no standardised name or widely known name. You can't even find an entry for this language in a Chinese dictionary, English dictionary, Chinese-English dictionary, or English-Chinese dictionary. There are in fact many Chinese topics that are rarely discussed or not at all discussed in English. For example, Younian dialect of Chinese spoken by ethnic Yao people is almost never discussed or mentioned in any English source (Google Scholar search result), but it still has an English Wikipedia article. Therefore without a common name (or without a pre-existing name at all) in English is never a real issue. As long as a good translation is created or selected. There is a policy in Chinese Wikipedia called zh:WP:名从主人 meaning the name needs to follow what is defined by its owner (主人). That is why "山客话 (Shanke dialect)" is used as the name in Chinese Wikipedia. When the Chinese government does not confirm a standardised name for this language, the native users of this Chinese dialect should be ranked the second to define how this language should be called. There are similar proposals in English Wikipedia in Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/COMMONNAME sandbox, but not in official policies. Therefore I request to move the article from "She Chinese" to "Shanke dialect", following how this language is called in Chinese Wikipedia as "山客话 (Shanke dialect)" and in Indonesian Wikipedia as "Bahasa Shanha". "Shanke" should be preferred, because "Shanha (山哈)" represents the phonetic loan Chinese character for "Shanke (山客)". "Shanke" is like the true spelling of an English word. "Shanha" is like a common misspelling of an English word. We use the true spelling, not the misspelling.
      Sinowriter (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 21:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Pine View School for the Gifted → Pine View School (Florida) – Pine View School is a disambiguation page. Reviewing WP:NCDAB, I see the use of option 1 for a more complete name, but for the Gifted does not remove ambiguity when multiple schools have similar names. The school does not use for the Gifted as its identification on social media, entrance signs, or school seal. I sometimes see the full name referenced in press releases. My request is based on option 3, using a parenthetical disambiguation. It seems most logical when reviewing articles with Pine View in their name , and the school is for grade 2 to 12 students. – The Grid (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Adelaide Eagles → Adelaide University Eagles American Football Club – The club is no longer affiliated with the former University of South Australia. Following the merger of the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide, the club is now affiliated with Adelaide University and competes as the Adelaide University Eagles American Football Club. The current title does not reflect the club's present identity or official name. A move to "Adelaide University Eagles American Football Club" would better reflect the club's current status and distinguish it from the former UniSA Eagles and Adelaide Eagles identities. Rfwikip (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Francisco Cavalcanti Pontes de Miranda → Pontes de Miranda – WP:CONCISION/WP:RECOGNIZABILITY/WP:NATURALNESS: Pontes de Miranda is the widely used name form in both academic and general sources, as well as the form he used to sign and publish his works.[6][7][8] This is how his name appears in both English and Portuguese-language scholarship,[9][10][11][12][13] judicial decisions,[14] and legal treatises/textbooks/encyclopedias (e.g: NADER, Paulo. Introdução ao Estudo do Direito, 47. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2025. p. XXI / Enciclopédia Jurídica da PUCSP: Tomo 10 - Direito Civil, Representação).[15] The title of the Portuguese-language entry is Pontes de Miranda, and he is frequently referred to by both students and professors as simply Pontes. Laptss (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Laptss Laptss (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    July 14, 2026

    As you can see from the navbox above, most of this template family already lives at spelled-out names (Space+double, Double+space, Space+single, Space+parenthesis, Single+double+single, etc.) with the bare symbols kept only as shortcuts. However, {{'s}} and {{`s}} are the odd ones out, sitting at symbol-only names that do not describe what they do, which runs against WP:TPN: (emphasis supplied)

    Template names should be made of one or more words, and describe the template clearly [...]. Avoid having templates whose names differ only in case, spacing, or punctuation.

    The only other rule-breaker is {{'}}'s target, {{Apostrophe}}, which is actually the version with a small leading space for use right after italic markup, while the plain, unspaced version for use after bold markup is at {{`}} and has never had a spelled-out name. Going by how every other spacing template here is named, in theory the spaced {{Apostrophe}} apostrophe should be "Space+apostrophe" and {{`}} should be Apostrophe, but that would be too complicated. So, the simplest solution is to move {{`}} to {{Unspaced apostrophe}} to keep the names distinct but still intelligible per the policy. Of course none of this touches existing transclusions, since old names remain as working redirects like all the other {{Quotation mark templates}} FaviFake (talk) 17:58, 14 July 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.

    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.
    1. ↑ "Shura Council Elections...National Entitlement". Qatar News Agency. 2021-09-30. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
    2. ↑ "Arab, Global Recognition of Shura Council Elections in Qatar". Qatar News Agency. 2021-10-03. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
    3. ↑ "general election". dictionary.cambridge.org. 2026-06-17. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
    4. ↑ Kay 2021, p. 266.
    5. ↑ Kay 2021, p. 254.
    6. ↑ https://biblioteca.pge.rj.gov.br/bnportal/pt-BR/search?exp=%22MIRANDA,%20Pontes%20de%22%2Fautor&page=1&filter=
    7. ↑ https://hollis.harvard.edu/discovery/search?vid=01HVD_INST:HVD2&tab=Everything&offset=0&search-banner-input=Pontes%20de%20Miranda&query=any,contains,Pontes%20de%20Miranda&lang=en
    8. ↑ https://research.ebsco.com/c/nmabui/search/results?q=AU%20(Pontes%20de%20Miranda)&autocorrect=y&expanders=thesaurus&expanders=fullText&expanders=concept&limiters=cl%3AGEntTP%3AY&searchMode=all&searchSegment=all-results&skipResultsFetch=true&sqId=sq%3A0b4301d0-0ee1-4d52-ba80-e17aabf84864&p=1
    9. ↑ https://forhistiur.net/2024-07-silveira-siqueira-de-carvalho-siqueira/abstract/?l=en
    10. ↑ https://rsdjournal.org/rsd/article/view/49411
    11. ↑ https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-43872014000100007
    12. ↑ https://periodicos.fgv.br/getulio/article/view/61546
    13. ↑ https://civilistica.emnuvens.com.br/redc/article/view/211
    14. ↑ https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/pesquisar.jsp?livre=PONTES+PROX2+MIRANDA&operador=E&b=DTXT&tp=T
    15. ↑ https://enciclopediajuridica.pucsp.br/verbetes/representacao/

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1364633663"