Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:REQMOVE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves


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.

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the 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

  • Aphyocypris moltrechti → PararasboraPararasbora (currently a redirect back to Aphyocypris moltrechti) (move · discuss) – Fish is now back in the monospecific genus Pararasbora according to ECoF Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Link? Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins: ping in case you didn't see this question. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The ref: Fricke, Ron; Eschmeyer, William N. & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Species in the genus Pararasbora". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences.
    Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • CONMEBOL Sub 20 → South American U-20 ChampionshipSouth American U-20 Championship (currently a redirect back to CONMEBOL Sub 20) (move · discuss) – To restore the tournament's common name AlopexalHaqar (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

IMDB is seen as a generally unreliable source; see WP:IMDB. This does not seem uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does this "not seem uncontroversial?" Halbared (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where Time Began has been a stable title for 8 years. You're proposing to move it to a completely different title, offering only a 5-word rationale which is shaky at best. How is that uncontroversial? 162 etc. (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see that. The title change I propose brings it more in line with it's associated works and is faithful to it's original title.Halbared (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Halbared Moved to contested CNC (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was prior discussion on this in 2012 so moving this will require an RM. Bensci54 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the prior discussion was actually in 2008, but was archived in 2012. It was pretty wild. There was a consensus declared to move it to ABN AmroABN Amro, and then someone unilaterally said "Fuck the MOS" and moved it back. Then there was no consensus in the subsequent discussion. No consensus would seem to mean that it should be at ABN AmroABN Amro, but that's apparently not what happened. It doesn't look like much of a precedent that should be followed. (No opinion on the merits of the question.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 2008, not 2012. My bad. It looked to me like what you say is exactly what originally happened (i.e. the no consensus finding led to a move to ABN Amro) but that this was subsequently overturned via WP:AN. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive159#ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?. Some very heated discussion occurred. Needless to say, it doesn't quality as non-controversial due to all this activity. Bensci54 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-38031-16 This move is controversial and requires a requested move discussion (WP:RMCM). In the september move revert, Wbm1058 said reverting undiscussed move. please start a discussion at WP:RM to change from natural to parenthetical disambiguation. Best I can tell, this natural disambiguation is in sync with the Arabic and other wikis. HurricaneZetaC 00:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry should have looked at the history. I did not realize it was controversial. ~2025-38031-16 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

"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, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 4 December 2025" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 4 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 4 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 4 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2025‎ (UTC)[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 4 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 4 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 78 discussions have been relisted.

December 4, 2025

December 3, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Autonomism → Autonomist MarxismAutonomist Marxism – I have completed a rewrite of the article which added substantial information on the history and key tenets of this school of thought, which clarifies its Marxist lineage. While there is some overlap with anarchist thought, all three major book-length sources used currently (Cleaver, Eden, and Wright) make clear the differences in the practical and theoretical approaches, and introduce and refer to it as "autonomist Marxism" (Wright including it in his title). The treatment is similar in currently unused sources, such as Cyber-Marx by Nick Dyer-Witheford (based on the Google Books preview). There is also the question of whether this is the primary topic for the term "Autonomism" versus the articles listed at Autonomism (disambiguation), which I am not convinced of. — Goszei (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gary Plauché → Killing of Jeffery DoucetKilling of Jeffery Doucet – Person notable for only one event. As explained in WP:BIO1E, "[t]he general rule is to cover the event, not the person" in a case such as this. It rarely happens that the extraordinary political, social or historical nature of an event can make a single person merit their own page (Mangione, Kaczynski, Crooks), but the event in question here has no more relevance than any other notable true-crime cases that we usually cover on Wikipedia (most of which have WP:SUSTAINED and international coverage just like this one). I see nothing out of the ordinary here that would lead us to go against conventional standards and give this person an individual article that, in this case, overshadows the event itself. The previous move discussion should have been closed as no consensus at best. Two "oppose" !votes (one by a 1-edit account) didn't provide any policy-based reasoning. Out of the three !votes that did, two were the nomination and another "support" !vote. Plauché is clearly not more important than the event itself, given that all of his "notablity" is related to this event and nothing else. V. S. Video (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Konstanty Ostrogski → Konstiantyn Ostrozky – Discussion from this page from several years ago seemingly came to a consensus for moving to the modern Ukrainian spelling of his name (using the national romanization). While the argument could be made that the family itself should be primarily referred to by Ostrogski instead of Ostrogsky due to its role during the period of Polish rule over Ruthenia, I don't see any reason why an ethnic Ruthenian who served the Grand Duchy Lithuania before its union with the Kingdom of Poland should be referred in Polish. He did not serve the Kingdom of Poland, did not live in the Kingdom of Poland, and was not an ethnic Pole. Konstiantyn Ostrozky is also the spelling name used by major reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine [4] and Encyclopedia Britannica[5] Azixw (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Princess Alexandra (born 1936) → ? – "(born 1936)" is only used when disambiguation is needed for two people sharing the same name, and occupation. There is no need for disambiguation here as the subject has a unique name. Now, since there's an issue with this title, maybe it could be moved to simply Princess Alexandra in which case the disambiguation page could be moved to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). Of course, the short description "British princess (born 1936)" would disambiguate it. Spectritus (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Destinyokhiria 💬 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Heterochromia iridum → HeterochromiaHeterochromia – The article states that "heterochromia iridum" is specifically when one has one eye of one color, and another eye of another color, while "heterochromia iridis" is when one eye has two colors (also called "partial heterochromia"). While the former seemingly takes up a lot of the article, it also seems to cover the latter, as well as mentioning that "heterochromia" can also affect the skin and eyes. ★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of Armenia → Arab invasion of Armenia – The current title doesn't follow WP:NPOV with respect to scholarship on the topic, which eschews the language of "Muslim conquest" in favour of "Arab invasion/conquest". This is clear from the Ngram, which producss nothing for the current title, and from the RS that support the page, which reference in turn: "The Arab Period in Arminiyah" (Dadoyan), "The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni" (Nina), and "The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia" (Ter-Ghewondyan). The sourcing (and WP:NPOV) doesn't really support an alternative to "Arab invasion/conquest", with "invasion" seemingly having the slightly greater RS profile of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2, 2025

  • (Discuss) – House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies → House of Bourbon – Two Sicilies – or House of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies. The hyphen seems grammatically incorrect. An unspaced en dash would also not be correct, as this is not expressing a "between" relationship, but rather a context of this being a branch of the House of Bourbon that is from the Two Sicilies. I also see the suggested alternative with "of the" in some cited sources. I also found "House of Bourbon Two Sicilies" (with a space and no punctuation) in some sources, but that doesn't seem correct either. Some constructions seem to imply a House that is of a place or lineage called "Bourbon Two Sicilies", but this is not about "Bourbon Two Sicilies" or "Bourbon-Two" Sicilies. It is about a House of Bourbon in the Two Sicilies. There are also 22 other Wikipedia articles that have "House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" somewhere in their titles that should presumably be moved too, but I thought I would just start with the main topic's article title and then worry about the others. I took a look, and the 23 articles seem to generally have almost no English-language sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Astro Box Office → Astro Thangathirai – As far as I can tell, Astro Thangathirai is the only "Astro Box Office" channel still running. The current channel seems to be formally called Astro Thangathirai, but is still called "Astro Box Office Thangathirai" on that page. According to this article, the current "Astro Showcase" isn't an "Astro Box Office" channel. I couldn't find a sports channel on Astro that calls itself "Box Office Sport," so I don't think any of them would count either. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Libyan civil war (2014–2020) → Second Libyan Civil WarSecond Libyan Civil War – Multiple high-quality academic, policy, and journalistic sources already refer to this conflict as the Second Libyan Civil War, using the same retrospective naming conventions that Wikipedia applies to older multi-phase civil wars (e.g., First/Second Boer War, First/Second Sudanese Civil War, First/Second Congo War, First/Second English Civil War). Numbering civil wars after the fact is a standard historical practice once multiple related conflicts have occurred, and this conflict has fully concluded. At this point, reliable sources such as Brookings, Chatham House, International Crisis Group, RAND, various peer-reviewed journals, and major international newspapers routinely use the “Second Libyan Civil War” terminology. Wikipedia’s current naming (“Libyan civil war (2014–2020)”) is an internally-created date-based disambiguation that was appropriate during the conflict but is no longer consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of comparable cases. Once a sequence of civil wars exists and widely-used retrospective names appear in the literature, Wikipedia typically adopts the standardized proper-noun naming format. Renaming to Second Libyan Civil War improves clarity, aligns with reliable sources, and brings Libya into consistency with Wikipedia’s established naming conventions for multi-phase civil wars. Prestdobmei (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)|2=LLM content}} — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Marthe de Pillecyn → Marthe De PillecynMarthe De Pillecyn – Please Don't delete the target article but histmerge the two instead. The title with capital D is the correct one, this one with lowercase "d" is wrong. I had added a mergeto tag on the article, but the article creator insisted in reverting it away because it was "ugly". So I use the less correct "requested move" instead of the more correct "mergeto", to get this done without further interference (I hope). Fram (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Fixer (person) → Fixer (journalism)Fixer (journalism) – Moving is step one of cleaning this page up, step two being the removal of large amounts of trivial content. This article as it exists currently is a clear example of a DICDEF covering three separate topics at once, only one of which appears to be notable in its own right; a "person who gets things done" is not an encyclopedic topic and we already have an article on match fixing. The usage in journalism is the only one that appears to have the potential for an article of its own (plenty of sources to be found — [11], [12], [13]), and this, I propose that this article be reshaped to fit that purpose. — Anonymous 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Upton-upon-Severn → Upton upon SevernUpton upon Severn – I want to reconsider the 2019 requested move. I have gathered more data both for and against. I don't want to burden the Requested moves page, so I'll add full analysis to the Talk page. Tl;dr - the town's name, according to the majority of local references, is Upton upon Severn; its addresses are formally Upton-upon-Severn although town businesses' websites often ignore that. I believe the style currently used for its name within the town itself, almost universally, is the more appropriate page title. David Brooks (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – KEXP-FM → KEXPKEXP – The WP:COMMONNAME for this station/organization is obviously "KEXP" without the "-FM" suffix. The Wikipedia:Article titles policy would support to using "KEXP". WP:RADIONAMING is a Wikiproject home page, not a policy document. It links to the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), which states:  :Articles in [...] the United States are almost universally call sign-titled—that is, the title is the current call sign issued by a national regulatory authority. In these countries, all such stations are issued a call sign. There may, of course, be cases where a group of stations has a common name title. (emphasis mine) The guideline has a clear provision to allow common name article titles even in regions where call sign titles are the norm. A move to "KEXP" would use the common name title while still utilizing the shortened, more common form of the callsign. The suffix present in the official call sign is not needed for disambiguation. "KEXP" also better represents the overall parent "arts organization" described in this article that happens to run two radio stations; "KEXP-FM" and "KEXC" could exist as sub-sections in the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mar-a-Lago face → Republican makeup – I merged Mar-a-Lago face into Republican makeup per the discussion at § Distinction from Republican makeup, but the direction of the merge was contested. Since a RM was proposed during the merge discussion itself, and the consensus on the target wasn't clear, i think a proper move discussion is needed. I'm personally open to alternatives but for now I consider Republican makeup to be a better target, as was very nicely explained in this comment by @Herostratus:

    "Republican makeup" is more or less value-neutral while "Mar-A-Lago face" is lowkey insulting, inflammatory, and female body-shaming (even tho "Republican makeup" is intended to be pejorative, it's not that bad; you can certainly envision someone saying "I'm proud of my conservative dress and Republican makeup" straight-up but not "I'm proud of my Mar-A-Lago face" so much except as an asteism (rather than rejecting an insult, transforming it into a badge of honor) which is not the same thing at all).

    [...] I don't care how many sources use the phrase Mar-A-Lago face. [...] If the article was primarily about the phrase (etymology etc) rather than the phenomenon that'd be different. But it's not.

    FaviFake (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Optus blames 'significant' outage in Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula on vandalism". ABC News. 26 November 2025. Archived from the original on 26 November 2025. Retrieved 26 November 2025.
  2. ^ "Rights probe alleges sexual violence against Palestinians by Israeli forces used as 'method of war' | The United Nations Office at Geneva". www.ungeneva.org. 2025-03-13. Retrieved 2025-12-01.
  3. ^ Robertson, Nick (2024-02-19). "UN experts condemn 'credible' reports of executions, sexual assault by Israeli soldiers". The Hill. Archived from the original on 2024-04-09. Retrieved 2025-12-01.
  4. ^ "Video appears to show IDF soldiers sexually abusing Palestinian detainee". Sky News. Retrieved 2025-12-01.
Rockwizfan (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 30, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Street storming → Đi bãoĐi bão – 'Street storming' is one way to translate 'đi bão', but I much more commonly hear 'go storm', 'go for a storm', 'go make a storm', 'riding the storm' and all sorts of variants of that. It would be best for the article to treat đi bão as a proper noun for a global audience and refer to it as such within the article, since there is no agreed upon English term that can be attested, especially outside of Vietnam. It is kind of like 'nhậu' - the best way to refer to it in English is also 'nhậu' since there is no agreement on an English translation that can capture its nuance. QUYE7 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Windows Media Player (2022) → Media PlayerMedia Player – Hello everyone. The current title is problematic for a number of reasons: *The name of the software is simply "Media Player", including in all the menus and the about page. The ONLY place where the prefix "Windows" appears is outside in its Microsoft Store page and only in the title, simply for the purpose of indicating to users on the Store that it is Microsoft's own product. Otherwise read the rest of the page and there is never another mention of "Windows" as a prefix:[3] **"Media Player is designed to make listening to and watching your multimedia content more enjoyable." **"We designed the new Media Player to make listening to and watching your multimedia content more enjoyable on Windows 11" **"Media Player replaces Groove Music" And support articles on the Microsoft website also state simply "Media Player".[4] Anything with the prefix refers to the legacy Windows Media Player, not this. Simply put, the product name with the "Windows" in front is not officially correct. *"(2022)" is not an ideal way to distinguish a software product - to me the title sounds like it's a temporary product or an event from the year 2022 - but more importantly it is not exact anyway and misleading because technically Media Player was first publicly available in November 2021![5] Therefore I think it should be renamed to the simple and accurate 'Media Player'. At the moment that article is a redirect to 'Media player' but because it is merely a capital P and there is no other article with the same exact whole word, it shouldn't be an issue I think.

References

  1. ^ "Al-Qaida in Yemen driven from 2 major strongholds". Deseret News. Associated Press. 2012-06-12. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
  2. ^ Coombs, Casey L. (2013-02-20). "Yemen's Use of Militias to Maintain Stability in Abyan Province". Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
  3. ^ https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9wzdncrfj3pt?hl=en-US&gl=US
  4. ^ https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/codecs-in-media-player-d5c2cdcd-83a2-4805-abb0-c6888138e456
  5. ^ https://www.ghacks.net/2021/11/18/media-player-windows-11/
~2025-37524-73 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kirk → ? – It seems fairly clear that the term meaning 'church' doesn't have a clear primary topic over the surname or the given name. Further, there are numerous (some very relevant) people with the surname, which further prevents a clear primary topic for the term. It should be noted, though, that according to Wikinav, people who end up on the term's page are, to a decent extent (although not in large amounts), going to the disambiguation page and from there often to people with either the given name or surname. [19]. However, people strictly coming to the disambiguation page are overwhelmingly looking for the surname or the given name. [20] GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 05:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – King Buppan Peak → Cerro Mudugndoe – According to the article's description, the references don't clearly show a map or visual aid for its location; however, a map from 1889 helps pinpoint the peak's exact position. Observing nearby geographical features and analyzing them through GeoNames, the peak in question is now called Cerro Mudugndoe, with an altitude of 754 meters. No other peaks in the area reach this height, so there is 100% certainty that it is the ancient King Buppan, but with a Ngäbe name, the indigenous group currently residing in the area. The name appears in Panamanian legal documents (Law 33 of 2012, page 40 of the PDF in "3. Corregimiento San Pedrito (Jiküi)". Taichi (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – NHK Party → Collaborative Party – The party was officially renamed in Nov 2023, over two years ago. The leadership dispute keeping the old name alive appears to be effectively ended now that the NHK Party parliamentary group is no more and Tachibana has been arrested, so it's past time we moved this to the actual name, as ja-wiki did quite some time go. Asamboi (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29, 2025

November 28, 2025

  • (Discuss) – OKD → OKD (company)OKD (company) – This is a three-letter acronym also used in a wide variety of fields of endeavor, and this mining company does not appear to be the primary topic for it. Per WP:DPT, we can for example look at: * All-time monthly page views comparison between the top two meanings shows that it's unlikely that the average English reader strongly associates this term with the company, when the readership of the article about this and other software is 50 times larger (!) than the readership of the article about the latter * Google Books Ngrams for this and related terms indicate the company is occasionally mentioned, but there's no clear indication that it's the most commonly known topic, let alone more common than all others combined * With a Google Books search for OKD, in the first 10 results I only get 1 that mentions the company, 2 that mention the software, and 7 others I already disambiguated a handful of incoming links and disambiguated it, but the move was then reverted as "potentially controversial". I don't quite see the controversy, but let's have a formal discussion just in case. The other 'issue' was that the OKD software doesn't have a standalone article, but that's not relevant as it meets the standard of WP:DABMENTION. All in all, when even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic, I don't think there can be a genuine discussion about there being a primary topic by usage. With regard to long-term significance, I don't think there can be any substantial advantage for a nationally-known company that is not active in the English-speaking parts of the world, when compared to internationally-known software in English usage. Even if it is technically 10 times older, both are generally recent. Plus the language and the airport in other parts of the world, too. This acronym is simply ambiguous, and we should not risk surprising English readers by presenting them a false lack of ambiguity. Joy (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 27, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 25 Words or Less → 25 Words or Less (board game) – The game show has been on TV for six years now and has substantially more page views and inbound links than the board game it's based on. Extensive searching on Google, GBooks, GNews, etc. turned up almost exclusively information about the game show. The board game's article is a one-paragraph stub, while there is far more to say about the game show. This seems a prime example of an adaptation being more notable than its source material, in the same vein that The Fox and the Hound is widely understood to reference the Disney film above the book on which it was based. I think it's abundantly clear that almost everyone looking for something called "25 Words or Less" is looking for the game show. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Killing off → Character death – "Killing off" is an overly vague term that can apply to real life (like "coral are being killed off by global warming"), and also implies a specific form of fictional death in which a character in an ongoing television series that was previously not planned to die was "killed off" due to extenuating circumstances such as an actor's real-life death. This article is about essentially all forms of fictional character death. If moved, "killing off" may have to be deleted entirely due to vagueness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
00:33, Thursday, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1322120788"