Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RSPM)

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.

  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

@[[User:TenghuiHadath}|TenghuiHadath}]] No, kingdom should be lowercase; see other pages in Category:Kingdoms of Sri Lanka, Category:Former kingdoms etc. It's only capitalized when its the first letter of the title. Vestrian24Bio 13:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TenghuiHadath - fixing ping. HurricaneZetaC 18:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t the case for other kingdoms though, such as “Ryukyu Kingdom”, “Indo-Greek Kingdom” or “Bosporan Kingdom” (all of these are capital K)
This is inconsistent and should be rectified accordingly. The correct directions in which to rectify these errors is towards using a capital K for all of these kingdoms, because it’s firstly easier, and secondly actually grammatically correct. TenghuiHadath (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VDVSK waiting for sources before moving (note that while English-language sources are preferred, non-English are acceptable if that's all there is) ASUKITE 18:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Asukite and @Tenshi Hinanawi. Doesn't COMMONNAME invite articles to have their most used name? Both the Russian and Turkish Wikis list the title as "Invincible and Legendary" but I also found some sources that refer to it by that title as its primary title:
  1. http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/download.php?fname=nesokr2
  2. http://a-pesni.org/ww2/oficial/nesokruch.htm
  3. https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/nesokrushimaia.htm
  4. https://mikessite.co.uk/soviet-and-russian-songs-this-one-is-called-indestructible-and-legendary
If you also Google it on YouTube then you'll get more results under IaL than SotSA. I believe IaL was the original title when the song was composed but it was changed after the renaming of the Red Army? I ain't too keen on the specifics so take that last sentence with some salt. VDVSK (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VDVSK it appears this request has been contested, so it would be best to open an RM by clicking the discuss button in order to discuss the proposal. CNC (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ExcitedA I think π is the symbol specifically and not the number, and I can see this being controversial. Plus, it isn't as easy to type. HurricaneZetaC 23:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ExcitedA Symbols... should never be used in titles Mach61 03:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anti k-h Pppery said that a history merge isn't needed here, and this isn't the place for histmerges anyway. HurricaneZetaC 23:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 It looks like the undiscussed move was in 2013? It's been at that stable title for long enough that I believe an RM is needed to change it back. HurricaneZetaC 17:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TryKid It's been nearly 2 years since that move, so I believe it's been too long to revert per WP:RMUM. HurricaneZetaC 17:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The punctuation of the title seems incorrect, as if describing a slaughter riot that is anti-cow. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 As far as I know, primary topic grabs are never considered uncontroversial. (Page movers have contested requests like these in the past. Please read WP:PCM.) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 04:07, 20 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 20 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 20 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:39, 20 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 20 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 06:39, 20 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 20 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:39, 20 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 20 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 06:39, 20 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 20 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 06:39, 20 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. 51 discussions have been relisted.

December 20, 2025

December 19, 2025

  • (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) – 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

  • (Discuss) – Mansu Hill Grand Monument → Mansudae Grand MonumentMansudae Grand Monument – Per WP:COMMONNAME according to these sources: * "Mansudae Grand Monument – DPRK Guide". Young Pioneer Tours. Retrieved 2025-12-18. * "Mansudae Grand Monument – North Korea Travel Guide". Koryo Tours. Beijing. Retrieved 2025-12-18. * "Mansudae Grand Monuments". KTG. Retrieved 2025-12-18. Unlike other North Korean places like "Mansudae" not "Mansu Hill", including Mansudae Assembly Hall. Absolutiva 23:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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 — [16], [17], [18]), 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

  • (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

  • (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

  • (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

  • (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]

December 13, 2025

  • (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]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – 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]

Backlog

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

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
06:39, Saturday, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1328353859#Requesting_a_single_page_move"