Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

< Wikipedia:Requested moves
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RM/C)
Shortcuts
This page 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. 47 discussions have been relisted.

December 24, 2025

edit

December 23, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Mercury glass → Silvered glassSilvered glass – My limited research gives me to understand that "silvered glass" is the most common term for this stuff today. Often it's found as "silvered (mercury) glass." Some sources say that "mercury glass" per se is just the stuff with actual mercury (tin-mercury amalgam) involved, which would make the silver-nitrate stuff off-topic for this article, and I don't think we want that. I think we want an article on all silvered (mercury) glass, with subsections on the amalgam and silver-nitrate subtypes if needed. (FYI, I got onto this topic while looking for information on "mercury mirrors," which as I understand it now refers specifically those mirrors made with actual tin-mercury backings.) --Quuxplusone (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 22, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Jolene → Jolene (disambiguation)Jolene (disambiguation) – The other topics with the exact name "Jolene" are a film, a band, and the album containing the Dolly Parton song, with the song being overwhelmingly in the lead for page views among those. While multiple famous people have the first name "Jolene", and some have substantial daily page views, I seriously doubt that most people typing in "Jolene" without any added words are looking for anything other than the Dolly Parton song. All of the people named "Jolene Lastname" are sufficiently disambiguated at Jolene (given name), which even has secondary sources confirming that the name rose in popularity after the song came out (and indeed, most of the famous people by that name are younger than the song). Just entering "Jolene" into Google without any other key words returns almost exclusively the Dolly Parton song or covers of it, and I found this to be the case long before Beyoncé's version existed. I got similar results in other searches, where typing "Jolene" by itself showed an overwhelming favor toward the Dolly Parton song. In short, I feel like anyone just searching "Jolene" by itself is almost unquestionably looking for the Dolly Parton song. And if they are looking for anything or anyone else, then Jolene (disambiguation) and/or Jolene (given name) should suffice. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kabyles hadra → Kabaile al-Hadra – "Kabaile al-Hadra" is the WP:COMMONAME. While the subject is non-notable, the few sources that refer to it in Google search, Google books and Scholar are more numerous for this name (or one of its variants, such as Kabaile el Hadra) than the one currently used. Being precise and less prone to misinterpretation, it also has the added benefit of making the above issue of the Gallicised term moot. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Leg warmer → Leg warmersLeg warmers – Following a recent undiscussed move to pluralize the title by @Killgirlswatch that has now been reverted, I'm neutrally opening this move request for the sake of putting that request through the proper channels. The original rationale for the move was that the subject is most commonly referred to in plural (and as far as I can tell the article has used the term "leg warmers" right from the lede since before the original undiscussed move). As such, it can be seen as an exception to NCPLURAL somewhat due to the plural form being commonly favored over the singular. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 21, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Swindon Stadium → Abbey Stadium, Swindon – The stadium opened in 1949 as Abbey Stadium. Swindon Stadium appears to be a 2000s–2020s trading name adopted by its owner, Gaming International, while Abbey Stadium has remained the name used in planning applications, redevelopment proposals, and press coverage. Third-party sources (such as the BBC) frequently use "Abbey Stadium"; "Swindon Stadium" is less used, and is even absent entirely in some publications. As the venue is due to close in December 2025, the article title should reflect its full historical identity, not a relatively recent branding period. Per WP:COMMONNAME, reliable sources (including the BBC, Swindon Advertiser, The Link, and Greyhound News) consistently refer to the venue as Abbey Stadium, particularly in coverage of its closure. "Swindon Stadium" is used far less frequently in reliable sources, if at all. Per WP:PRECISION, Swindon Stadium is ambiguous given other stadiums in Swindon (notably the County Ground). Abbey Stadium, Swindon is precise and unambiguous. Per WP:OFFICIALNAME – Wikipedia does not require article titles to follow an owner’s trading or corporate name when it conflicts with common usage. Therefore, I believe this move better serves readers after closure, when historical coverage will outweigh contemporary branding. Icaldonta (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Trump Gold Card → Trump CardTrump Card – Seeing there are many variants. (Personal) Gold, then Corporate Gold, (Personal) Platinum, and TBD Corporate Platinum. I request this article should be renamed to more generic "Trump Card". In his McD-drivenfueled wisdom I would not be shocked when he next announces Trump Black Card: "citizenship and never pay taxes anymore for life, for only 100M, get it now before there will be a never ending waiting list!"Foerdi (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC) Foerdi (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Anedjib → AdjibAdjib – Within this article, Anedjib is referred to only as Adjib, with the exception of the first paragraph and the gallery, the former of which claims that the more correct version of his name is Adjib. Additionally, the royal titulary section has his name listed as ˁḏ-jb (Adj-jb) with no "n" in sight. The name of the article should match the name used within the article. Veristune (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 11:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 20, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Meeker Massacre → Meeker Incident – “Meeker Massacre” shows implicit bias and disregards facts that do not support it being a “massacre.” History is always told by the winners and this was no different: Governor Pitkin campaigned on the removal of the Utes from their lands, and inflammatory press statements were being made frequently… long prior to the Meeker Incident. They were negotiators, first and foremost. Both Thornburgh and the Utes intended to negotiate with Meeker. This type of conflict and tension had not happened with prior agents… Meeker wasn’t the first agent they had, simply the first that had such issues, and that is due to the political climate and pressure he was under. Further, at the incident, various primary sources show that Meeker and the employees engaged the Utes first, as the women and children were told to hide in the milk house. Much of this information is found in already-cited secondary sources, and of course, I can find more of these sources. There is little, factual and proven information that the Utes attacked and massacred the agency. The main title being termed “Massacre” implies that the employees were defenseless and that the Utes were the primary aggressors, which is a largely disproven narrative and factually incorrect version of the story that has, for some reason, remained the primary naming of the incident. Aprilrbchistory (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kisii people → Gusii peopleGusii people – This page has been edited to remove mentions of Kisii people, with Abagusii preferred. The name of the people in their own language is Abagusii, with the prefix "aba" being a common Bantu prefix in many Bantu languages (and in the term "(A)bantu" itself) for plurals, especially people, so it literally means "Gusii people". There is a strong case for moving the page, but WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, and how the people are referred to in English is what is required on English Wikipedia. On that score, Google doesn't give good evidence. Kisii gets 8 million hits, but many / most refer to the Kisii district. The locality is Kisii, but the people are not, except in Swahili and (perhaps) English. Gusii gets over a million results and Abagusii gets 250,000. I believe Google-fu is not reliable to answer this question. Thus I have conducted a source review of all sources used in the article, plus Encyclopaedia Britannica as a tertiary source. The result of this review (collapsed below) is that Gusii is clearly the COMMONNAME in sources. 24 sources unequivocally prefer Gusii / Gusii people, 3 unequivocally prefer Abagusii and one unequivocally prefers Kisii (and that one is old). The COMMONNAME in modern English language sources is Gusii.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission → Nuclear espionage in the Indian Himalayas – I wasn't able to find the phrase "Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission" in major sources, "Plutonium Mission" is a very vague idea and gives the wrong ideas about Pu-238 vs Pu-239 and the actual espionage purpose, "Mission" fails to indicate the article scope as multiple separate climbs, "Nanda Devi" fails to indicate the successful mission on Nanda Kot, I believe "CIA espionage in the Indian Himalayas" would also be appropriate as while it was a joint mission it was clearly initiated and led by the CIA. Doeze (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 19, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – List of biggest box-office bombs → List of films with the largest box office losses – The term "box-office bomb" is potentially contentious and not always used when discussing films that lose on budget. Whereas the criteria for inclusion here is more appropriately defined by just looking at the size of the box office loss and thus far less contentious (eg the case like for a critically acclaimed film like the Wolfman above). This also makes it easier for links back into this page, as unless there is sourcing that calls it a "box office bomb", using the current name can be an issue. The lede should still discuss what a box office bomb is (eg that most films on this are considered as such). Note that any other title suggestions similar to my suggested one is fair. I'm using "largest" over "biggest" since the loss of money is a quantifiable aspect. Masem (t) 19:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Popular Army in Rafah → Shawqi Abu Nasira groupShawqi Abu Nasira group – Their name refers to Rafah but other sources indicate they are based in Khan Yunis. I understand the existence of Abu Nasira's group has only been revealed recently, and more information has yet to come out, but such an important contradiction like this will likely confuse readers. I propose that both the name provided by FDD and the apparent contradiction be referenced in the lede, something along these lines: "The Shawqi Abu Nasira group is an anti-Hamas Palestinian militant group led by Shawqi Abu Nasira, a former Palestinian Authority officer. His group reportedly operates as part of the Popular Forces and is composed of around 30 fighters. The existence of the group was only revealed in late November 2025, however it has been active since several months prior. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' Long War Journal has reported that Abu Nasira's group is called the Popular Army in Rafah, however other sources have reported that the group is based in Khan Yunis." Evaporation123 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Killing of Robert Brooks → Murder of Robert BrooksMurder of Robert Brooks – The cause of death was ruled homicide per Brooks's autopsy, released in February 2025, ruled that his death was a homicide, caused by compression of the neck and multiple blunt force injuries. Several of the perpertrators have either taken plea deals on 2nd degree murder charges or have been convicted of them. Ryuudou (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jesse Green (theatre critic) → Jesse Green (writer) – Subject is no longer working as a theater critic, though he spent 12 years as one, he previously did journalism and is doing it again, and will presumably become better known for his current work as time goes on. either way, theatre is not correct for American English, especially for someone at the NYT (which corrects even proper names to theater). Bringing this up as discussion instead of a bold move for feedback: would Jesse Green (journalist) be better? BrechtBro (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 18, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Kennedy Center → ? – I'm creating a requested move to reach consensus on what the name of this article should be, following the name-change announcement by the Trump admin. Some ideas: * A: Kennedy Center (current) * B: John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (stable title) * C: Trump-Kennedy Center * D: Official name as announced by the Trump administration * Wait Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Romanization of Serbian → ? – Serbian hasn't had to be romanized for over a century now, and this article largely doesn't actually describe the time periods when it did; rather, most of it is about the more recent times when it's been digraphic. The title should reflect that reality (the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe). What's a better title for it - maybe Serbian use of Latin, Digraphia in Serbian, or something else? I tried to get to the bottom of this a few years back in #Article title and scope, but we didn't make progress at the time, possibly also because of an oversized influence of an editor who got indefinitely blocked in the meantime. Here's hoping this discussion doesn't get disrupted. Joy (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. HurricaneZetaC 17:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Republican makeup → Mar-a-Lago faceMar-a-Lago face – These pages are already merged, so the question is the post-merge title. “Mar-a-Lago face” is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources and is overwhelmingly the reader search/traffic term (see Pageviews tool and widespread coverage), while “Republican makeup” is less-used and narrower. There is and has been absolutely zero, none, consensus to merge this TO the target of Republican makeup. A handful and tiny minority of editors saying there is cannot make it so, and views by User:Jimbo Wales are also irrelevant except on the level of a lone editor, which has negatively and inappropriately influenced this entire mess negatively. My edit here on Talk:Mar-a-Lago face, which contains all relevant merge discussion unlike the far lower activity/traffic/non-WP:COMMONNAME Talk:Republican makeup, summarizes the actual consensus, which was barely to merge to Mar-a-Lago face but was evolving toward a unique third name. There was no valid reason to turbo rush these merges until our alleged leader put his thumb harmfully on the scales. It's time to do this properly by policy and consensus alone. Rename to Mar-A-Lago face or undo until we do it properly to a WP:RS sourced third name. On Talk:Mar-A-Lago face, at the actual merge discussion, which was closed by @Theleekycauldron:, who wrote:  : Based on the numbers and the strength of the arguments, I find a rough consensus to merge. The discussion seems to lean towards Mar-a-Lago face as the target, and I think the sources and traffic stats given below lean that way as well, but more discussion might result in a different answer that one or both articles could be merged to. Patently what it says, which is what I said. Consensus to merge toward Mar-a-Lago face if there was a merge. The move close misread the consensus and reframed it incorrectly in the exact opposite direction. I cross posted this to Talk:Mar-a-Lago face here and to User talk:Jimbo Wales here for transparency and to notify watchers there who previously weighed in. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – British colonisation of Tasmania → British colonisation of Lutruwita – Wikipedia routinely avoids applying later or modern place names to historical events where they introduce anachronism. This practice is evident in article titles such as Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire (rather than Iran), Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (rather than Mexico), Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire (rather than Peru), and British conquest of Sindh (rather than Pakistan). Wikipedia’s approach in comparable cases is not simply to prefer colonial-era names, but to use the name by which a territory was known at the time, where that name is historically attested and appropriate to the subject matter. Indigenous names for the island pre-date European contact and were used and recorded during the early period of early British occupation and administration. In 1829, George Augustus Robinson recorded the island’s name as Loe.trou.witter, derived from a Palawa (Tasmanian Aboriginal) language. Contemporary Palawa kani place name spellings, including Lutruwita, are reconstructed from such early phonetic renderings. Using Lutruwita therefore reflects a historically attested Indigenous name adapted into modern orthography, rather than retroactively applying the later colonial name “Tasmania” to a period in which it did not exist. === Policy considerations === * WP:ACCURACY – The current title applies a name not used during the period covered by the article. * WP:PRECISE – Lutruwita refers unambiguously to the island without introducing a later colonial term. * WP:COMMONNAME – Wikipedia does not favour familiar or modern names where they create historical inaccuracy. * WP:NPOV – The proposal does not remove or minimise colonial terminology, which remains fully addressed within the article text. CineBrick315 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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 — [23], [24], [25]), and this, I propose that this article be reshaped to fit that purpose. — Anonymous 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 18 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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 17, 2025

edit

Elapsed listings

edit
Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – WFNZ (AM) → WPZS – The call signs of these stations have all changed since their respective format flips on December 11. The page for the former WPZS was already moved to what is now WLNK-FM with no apparent issues. Also, each page has already been edited to include their new call signs in the article itself along with a note at the top referencing the previous station that used the corresponding call sign. mcy919 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

edit
See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

edit
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

edit
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1329173731"