Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

< Wikipedia:Requested moves
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RMC)
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. 51 discussions have been relisted.

December 21, 2025

edit

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]
  • (Discuss) – Lakes of Titan → Lakes and rivers of Titan – The notable subject here is liquid bodies on Titan's surface created by its hydrological cycle. Titan's lakes depend on its rivers and its rivers feed into its lakes. The infobox at the end of this article already groups Rivers into the "Lakes and seas" section and there are external sources like WIRED and Space.com that talk about Titan's lakes and rivers in the same article. This article already talks about "dark drainage channels" that Huygens saw, "the formation of Titan's river deltas", "Some appear to have channels associated with liquid and lie in topographical depressions", "Channels in some regions have created surprisingly little erosion, suggesting erosion on Titan is extremely slow, or some other recent phenomena may have wiped out older riverbeds and landforms". After the move, more information on the rivers can be added here as well as a list of rivers that could link to other articles like Saraswati Flumen. Vid Flumina is already linked by this article but in the description of an image thumbnail. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:18, 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 — [11], [12], [13]), 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
  • (Discuss) – WFNZ (AM) → WPZSWPZS – 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]

December 16, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Protagonist (Persona 3) → Persona 3 protagonistPersona 3 protagonist – There appears to be no naming conventions for articles about fictional characters who do not have ANY of the following: 1) a singular canon name (or one of many canon names that falls under WP:COMMONNAME, especially when the same character can be different genders and the canon names are not gender neutral as in the case of this character) 2) a singular code name that can be used no matter what the character's real name is (e.g Joker (Persona)) 3) a common unofficial name that fans and/or sources use (e.g. Death Angels (A Quiet Place)) 4) a common noun that the creators/publishers use to generally refer to the character (e.g. Heroes III, IV, and V of the Dragon Quest series, I've never interacted with the series before so correct me if I am wrong on this one. With that in mind, I am not a fan of the title of this article, as it falsely implies that the (common) name of the protagonist from Joker 3 is "Protagonist". Per Wikipedia:NATURAL and the fact that there is no common or canon name, this article should be renamed to "Persona 3 protagonist." Even if this article stays as its currently title, we should have some sort of naming convention for characters like this one. Alternate proposal: Protagonist of Persona 3 Edit: apologies if "Joker 3" comes up at all from this discussion, my mind morphed together Joker from Persona with the Joker movies (despite there only being 2). I did accidentally request the move to "Joker 3 protagonist" at first. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Specialty registrar → Registrar (medicine) – PThe current name of this article only refers to the post-MMC StR grade, despite also covering the pre-MMC SpR grade following the merger of that article into this one. It also refers only to the term in the UK context, despite the fact that the position of Registrar is used in health systems in multiple other nations, especially those in the Commonwealth, which could be considered a WP:NPOV violation on the grounds of ethnocentric bias. A move to the more generic title of Registrar (medicine), in common with the Consultant (medicine) article would be easier and more intuitive to search (considering many people call all manifestations of the grade just "registrar" anyway, WP:COMMONNAME), open the article up to cover the use of the term in the global context, and better represent the existing content of the article. The article could then go on to discuss the StR and SpR grades. Dan :] (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 15, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Kidnapping of Noa Argamani → Noa ArgamaniNoa Argamani – This request had been made before on June 10th, 2024, and was opposed. However, since then, she has become a prominent advocate (to the extent of making the Times 100 Most Influential List in 2025). Given her notability as an advocate (with her post-rescue activities section being the longest section in this article), this article is more about Noa Argamani than her abduction, and the title can be changed to reflect as such. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Black belt (martial arts) → Black beltBlack belt – This would revert an undiscussed move of 2005 (performed without an edit summary by an editor who I will notify). "Black belt" currently redirects to a disambiguation page at Black Belt, where the other topics generally use uppercase for "belt" and would typically also use extra words or special context for clarity in writing or conversation. The ordinary native English speaker would expect the term "black belt", by itself with lowercase for "belt", to be the belt/rank/rating level in martial arts. I don't think pageviews tell the whole story here (because of uppercase/lowercase and other factors), but here they are for what they're worth. Wikinav data for the disambiguation page is more mixed, but again I point out that this mixes together uppercase and lowercase uses of "belt". The martial arts meaning is the only meaning provided in the Cambridge dictionary. Collins provides other meanings but explicitly only for when "belt" is capitalized. Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Wiktionary provide secondary meanings for geographical and ethnographic regions (the details for Oxford are paywalled). All dictionaries agree that the primary meaning has to do with martial arts (referring to the physical object, the practitioner who wears it, or the associated level of skill. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. → Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery – Proposing to address whether this potentially controversial move would be a feasible alternative. This article was initially created as "Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix" based on Netflix's bid to acquire Warner Bros.'s studios and streaming assets part of Warner Bros. Discovery. That was before Paramount Skydance launched its hostile takeover bid. Now that there is no clear winning bidder, including either name in the title would be WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:CONCISE. However, the present title may be confusing and/or misleading because the bids propose acquiring assets not necessarily exclusively part of Warner Bros., as addressed in arguments in this discussion, which have called for this move. Either bid proposes purchasing assets from the company, with Netflix's bid offering to complete a spin-off of select assets before such an acquisition closes, so each bid is still for the entire company as it stands officially. There have also been earlier historic acquisition proposals of Warner Bros., so it could be disingenuous not to use the full company name, per WP:RECENTISM. Because other recent moves have been carried out in haste, I am seeking a formal determination. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette → Marquis de LafayetteMarquis de Lafayette – This is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for the Marquis. While WP:NCPEER normally suggests titling the article "Personal name, peerage name", there are a couple of strong reasons to not follow that norm here. The first is that NCPEER also says that there is an exception to this rule "when one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", which is true in this case. Marquis de Lafayette already redirects here, and the only competitor we have would be his father Michel du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette, who is much much less important. This change would match the article with a number of others, including Lord Byron, the Marquis de Condorcet, Lord Mountbatten, the Marquis de Custine, Lord Kelvin, and the Marquis de Sade. The second reason is that this article is written in American English, as the subject has strong national ties to the United States. That's the reason we use the American spelling "Lafayette" in the article and not the standard French spelling "La Fayette". In the United States, the use of "Gilbert du Motier" is incredibly obscure; as you can see here, "Marquis de Lafayette" is about ten times more common in books, and this is including sources that just mention "Gilbert du Motier" and then proceed with "Marquis de Lafayette". In fact, the name is so sufficiently obscure that including it in the title harms searching, as Lafayette does not show up at all when you type "Marquis" into the search bar, when it should probably be either right before or right after Marquis de Sade. "Marquis de Lafayette" is effectively treated as his full name in nearly all cases, and most are unaware that he has another name at all. Ladtrack (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 14, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – -ade (suffix) → -ade-ade – Wikipedia does not describe anything else called exactly "-ade", and indeed -ade-ade redirects to this article, making it WP:MISPLACED at the current title. There were a few moves several years ago, including one that added the disambiguator "(drink suffix)", but that would only make sense if the general suffix (e.g. in "blockade") were likely to get its own separate article. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) – 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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Frederica of Hanover → Frederica of GreeceFrederica of Greece – She was Frederica of Hanover, until she married King Paul of Greece and she became (Queen) Frederica of Greece short for Frederica Queen Consort of the Hellenes. When her husband died she gained the title of Queen Mother of the Hellenes as the mother of King Constantine II of Greece. Thus, she needs to be named by her last and highest title defined by law: Frederica of Greece, the title displayed on her tomb. Also, the most recent Greek Queen is named Anne-Marie of Greece and not Anne-Marie of Denmark, and her sister-in-law, Queen Sofia of Spain, is named Sofia of Spain, and not Sofia of Greece. That is even more clear in Frederica's case, in which Frederica was Princess only for one year of her life! Thus, when she married into Greek monarchy 20 years later, she wasn't even a princess - legally by the Weimar Republic! To conclude, the judgments are backed by clear evidence, first of all that the only inscription on her tomb is Frederica - Queen of the Hellenes. Also to address your claim about maiden names of consorts, the Greek Constitution (both 1911 and 1952 versions) did not use the term consort. And royal decree and international recognition, the king’s wife was styled as “Queen of the Hellenes” not Queen consort. The evidence is clear and points to Frederica of Greece. Lastly, using n grams and using different POVs, we can see that the name Frederica of Greece is more dominant in American and British English. Also, there is another Frederica of Hanover, Princess Frederica of Hanover. Thus, Frederica of Greece competes with both the Princess and Queen, still it remains higher. In conclusion, the name of Her Late Majesty is: Frederica of Greece. Walterfgnn (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

edit
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 13:34, 12 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=1328635572"