This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
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.
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 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.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
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.
If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help 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 "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
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.
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.
@Gold Broth - can you provide a link to your GS results? When looking at V vs L2 in since 2024 I see about a 2x return in results, but there is still clearly use as L2, and I don't have the subject matter expertise to understand that these two are the same, but I'm not sure that 90 vs 180 is showing a significant shift. This seems like there might be a shift going on, and I would suggest a full RM discussion on the talk page, which you seem to have started an informal one already. TiggerJay(talk)05:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've been stable for a year now without a primary topic, and nobody engaged at Talk:Sokol. I would say the time window for a technical reversal is gone after a few months of stability, no? So if one wants to make a redirect to the historical movement, that should not be done automatically, rather it merits further discussion in the talk pages. --Joy (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sokol movement is pretty clearly the primary topic based on pageviews, so throughout this period that has been the primary topic, and nothing that happens on a talk page can affect this objective reality. —Alalch E.23:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, edgy, claims of objective reality :D I'm sorry, but this is why we have discussion pages. The objective reality is also that the article about the Sokol movement encompasses a number of distinct topics that are also very clearly distinct in the page views, and there's a number of other views there that never proceed to the movement page despite it occupying a veritably huge chunk of the top of the list. Instead of trying to procedurally weave around having the discussion, just engage in it, per WP:CONS. --Joy (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rebochan, you can't move a page over an existing one unless it's a single-revision redirect to the page being moved in its place, otherwise you are correct to ask here. For the record, @Cubching90's closure was slightly irregular as it is expected that a closer is able to carry out the actual moves, which they clearly can't. ASUKITE20:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Cubching90 was blocked for sockpuppetry, I think that closure needs to be reverted, which means my move earlier might have been invalid as well. (Or... I don't know what to do, an admin should handle that as it looks like a couple other editors were blocked there, might be better even to just void the entire discussion and start over at this point) ASUKITE21:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the discussion was that all of those pages are not using the correct names of the shows according to primary sources. These all should have been uncontroversial moves, but people fight them anyway. Now all of my moves trying to follow what I had no reason to believe was a bad faith closure have been reverted by Hey man im josh who scolded me for it on my talk page. Rebochan (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rebochan Contested as recent activity shows there is controversy - after the related move is closed it may be possible to move this, but even then a discussion might be a good idea. ASUKITE15:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; this request based on an assumption/misunderstanding by the user. If she took the title, she defintely took the surname too even if she didn't use it. The obits may just be refering to her pre-marital name OR her case is similar to Rose Hanbury who is better known by her maiden name. Since she is referred as "Lady Reading" or "Reading" in the articles post-marriage, then she definitely took her husband's name. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for correcting me on this point. Still I wonder because I can see very little reference online to her being referred to as Margot Isaacs whether it would not be better to still correct the title with her forename(s) as above. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chadhaibhol→Chadheibhol (currently a redirect back to Chadhaibhol) (move·discuss) – The spelling Chadheibhol is the original and commonly used name of the village. The current title, Chadhaibhol, appears to be derived from an online census entry, which may contain typographical errors. More reliable sources, such as published books, government records, and local signage, confirm that "Chadheibhol" is the correct spelling. A search in Google Books currently does not show any references for "Chadhaibhol," whereas eighteen or more results appear for "Chadheibhol," many of which are from census publications: 1. 1964: [1] 2. 1965: [2] 3. 1972: [3] 4. 1976: [4] 5. 1977: [5] 6. 1980: [6] 7. 2011: [7] Additionally, the name Chadheibhol appears in reliable online sources, including: 1. The Times of India: [8] 2. Kalinga TV: [9] 3. Schools.org: [10] 4. Housing.com: [11] 5. ICBSE: [12] 6. The New Indian Express: [13] A previous argument against the move was based on Google search result counts: "Chadhaibhol" (3,060 results) vs. "Chadheibhol" (799 results). However, Google search results are not a reliable metric for determining correct spelling, as they include unrelated pages. A more authoritative approach is to prioritize books, newspapers, and government documents. Additionally, the National Highway 49 signboard in the village itself displays "Chadheibhol," further confirming local usage. The National Highway 49 signboard in Chadheibhol, showing the spelling in common use. Given this evidence, the move to Chadheibhol aligns with Wikipedia’s policy on WP:COMMONNAME, as it reflects the spelling used in historical records, government documents, and local sources. Khaatir (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiggerjay A well-reasoned discussion was initiated on the talk page, but no administrator or experienced user has responded. What can be done to expedite a decision on this matter? Can a specific administrator be notified, or is there any other necessary action? Khaatir (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Khaatir -- this board is only for technical requests of uncontentious nature, so your request does not belong here. What you need to do is open a "full RM discussion" by clicking on "discuss" above next to your request to start a full discussion on this topic. That will gather the attention of others to participate in the discussion. There is currently a big backlog for page moves, so it might take several weeks before your request is handled. After you open the full RM discussion on the talk page, please remove this thread here. Thanks! TiggerJay(talk)06:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a contentious PTOPIC grab between a redirect to a marginally viewed article, with the potential for a different article with also very marginal view numbers. The referenced talk page discussion was from over 5 years ago and the article has been stable at the current title for a while. It would seem like a full RM discussion would be required, especially because it would impact not only this page, but also the current redirect as well. TiggerJay(talk)05:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") 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 25 February 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:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
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.
}}
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.
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)andCricket. 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:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
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 "• SupportOppose".
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.
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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – Precursor chemicals → Precursor chemicals (drugs) – The current title is overly broad and ambiguous. In chemistry, the bare term "precursor chemicals" may be used to refer to any starting materials used in general chemical synthesis.[2] The term is often used to refer to explosive precursors as well. The article specifically addresses precursor chemicals in the context of illicit drug manufacture. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) – Previous discussion has shown there is rough consensus that Russian invasion of Ukraine is no longer the ideal way to describe the subject of this article: the three-year period of hostilities in Ukraine and parts of Russia which began on 24 February 2022. Editors have generally agreed, especially following the events since 2024 in the Kursk province of Russia, that an article covering 2022–2025 ought to be titled war and not invasion. This also corresponds with the trends that one may find in sources (WP:COMMONNAME), which have increasingly abandoned the term invasion in favor of war to refer to the events currently taking place, as well as the events of the past three years as a whole. If disambiguation with Russo-Ukrainian War becomes necessary as a result of this move, I propose moving that page to Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present). As a result, Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present) and Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) will exist simultaneously for a temporary period of time during which separate discussions will be had on how to proceed. A word to the wise: if you have proposals to change the scope of this or other articles, or to rename other articles, please save your suggestions for later. Previous experience has shown that everyone seems to have their own different convoluted plan on how to rearrange titling and scope across multiple articles. Such tangents will only serve to diverge our positions and derail the conversation. We can sort the rest out in future discussions; let us try in this RM to take the first step by staying focused on what I think many of us agree on, which is that invasion is no longer the appropriate term for an article covering 2022–2025. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Florida Parental Rights in Education Act → Don't Say Gay law – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL acts of legislation should be referred to by the most common name reliable sources use to describe them. The most common name for this law is the "Don't Say Gay law". Comparing the number of Google search results published in 2022 or later for the queries "parental rights in education act" "florida" and "don't say gay law" "florida" shows a ratio of 15,500:62,500 in favor of the latter; narrowing the search results to just news shows an even higher disparity in usage with a ratio of 1,220:7,270, and limiting the results to only books, likewise, proves the latter to be the more common name with a ratio of 157:355 between the two. Most reliable sources also seem to prefer the name "Don't Say Gay law", for example, NPR[14][15], TIME[16], NYT[17], PBS[18], The Independent[19], ABC[20] and others. Even the article's Etymology section acknowledges that the law is more commonly known as Don't Say Gay or as Don't Say Gay or Trans. A quick ctrl+f search over the references used in the article returns 78 matches for "Don't Say Gay", while a search for "Parental Rights" returns only 5. For these reasons, i believe the article should be renamed as either "Don't Say Gay law" or simply "Don't Say Gay". Gremlin of the wiki (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tom Manning (murderer) → Tom Manning (terrorist) – Tom Manning was a member of the United Freedom Front, a far-left terrorist group originating in New England which bombed buildings, robbed banks, and in one notorious instance shot dead a police officer. These actions were done in the name of several interrelated left-wing causes célèbres of the '70s and '80s, including prison reform, black power, Puerto Rican independence, and Palestinian liberation. The member who was convicted of shooting the officer was Tom Manning, the subject of this article. That he's a convicted murderer is not in doubt, but using "murderer" as a disambiguating tag is misleading. This would make one assume that he committed murder out of anger, or as part of some other criminal enterprise. Following the guidelines of WP:NCPDAB, I believe it's clear the most appropriate term to describe Manning would be "terrorist" as he is most famous for his membership and activity in the UFF, an organization which committed violence in the service of political ends, i.e., terrorism. This is not an attempt to rehabilitate the man, which has been attempted. Others have tried renaming this article to "political prisoner" or "political activist," which are plainly biased descriptors. But being known primarily as a terrorist is no compliment, it's simply the most appropriate term for this killer. (P.S., if you're interested in learning more, I recommend /Days of Rage/ by Burroughs.) Garnet Moss (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
February 23, 2025
(Discuss) – Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy → Princess Alexandra (born 1936) – I've seen Princess Alexandra be simply referred to as Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra on official royal family announcements and social media. Could it be possible that her official title was switched to simply "Princess Alexandra"? I haven't really seen her being referred to as The Hon. Lady Ogilvy except for the royal family members index and older references. This could be possible because when Princess Alice became Princess Alice, it was never really announced. EDIT: I understand the Gazette still uses her husband's title with her name, but I just also want to point out that "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" renders way less results on Google rather than "Princess Alexandra of Kent" and simply "Princess Alexandra"... Rexophile (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wassoulou Empire → Mandinka Empire – See discussion above. The most specialized and well-attested sources in the literature use 'Mandinka Empire' or alternatives such as 'Samorian State', or 'Samorian Empire'. 'Wassoulou Empire' is a misnomer with no historical foundation and creates confusion with Wassoulou, so I believe keeping the current name is the worst option. Catjacket (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Non-League football → Non-league football – I'm on the fence between simply moving this one or splitting some of its contents to a different article, but the current content definitely should not exist under this title. "Non-league football" is a generic concept that can exist in various countries (as is discussed here), while "non-League football" (with a capital L) is understood to refer specifically to English football (as seems to be the main focus of this article. Either the whole article can be moved, or the sections not specific to England could be split away. The former seems simpler and more practical. — Anonymous 02:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Landtag Styria → Landtag of Styria – The current title of this article is grammatically incorrect when following English grammar rules. While "Landtag Styria" aligns with German conventions, English Wikipedia adheres to English grammar. Saying "Landtag Styria" is as incorrect as saying "Mayor New York City" instead of "Mayor of New York City." To omit "of", the title would need to be "Styria Landtag". Furthermore, there is no official translation that uses "Landtag Styria", which would be the only valid justification that comes to mind for adopting this unconventional form. –Tobias (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.DrKay (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) → The Hatter – This is the previous title of the article. While the WP:COMMONNAME is probably, in my opinion, Mad Hatter, a previous discussion found consensus against it. Per WP:NATURALDIS, naturally disambiguated titles (the proposed title) are generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation (the current article title). Normally, WP:THE discourages titles like this; however, this RFC there has concluded that exceptions are allowed in the event that it would provide natural disambiguation, which is the case for this article. This particular disambiguator is unusually unwieldy. The title of the novel is long, has been adapted many many times, the novel itself sometimes is referred to with variations upon the title, and it would be nearly impossible to cover all required redirects needed to properly send everyone to the article they are looking for regardless of what the title of the adaptation they are coming from is. Most glaringly, there was no redirect here for Hatter (Alice in Wonderland). Just moving the page to remove the disambiguator will fix this issue, and make the title better as well. Edit - Pinging previous participants, because I forgot: @Evertype, Andrewa, Pmanderson, Gavia immer, J04n, Alison, Sswonk, Born2cycle, EurekaLott, SarekOfVulcan, LtPowers, DL5MDA, DavidWBrooks, Curtis Clark, BDD, and Nohomersryan:Ladtrack (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Epic → Epic (disambiguation) – An "epic poem" is usually called an epic, as in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Homeric epics (part of the Epic Cycle). I have never heard anyone call these "epic poems", and ngrams unequivocally support this. The three aforementioned epics form the foundation of Western literature and have significantly influenced Western culture, so by historical and academic significance alone, it is the clear primary topic. Epic (disambiguation) lists one other primary-topic contender, epic film, a genre that was specifically derived from epics in the classical literary sense; no other topic is anywhere near these two in terms of notability. Per WP:NOTDICT, we can disregard the adjective meaning "heroic or grand", and even that was derived from the literary genre as well. Epic is widely understood to mean an ancient long poem, and it is the first definition you get if you look up the term on any major dictionary (notice how "epic poem" is not a valid dictionary definition). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Auckland Region → Auckland region – The proper names of the regions of New Zealand do not include the word "Region", which is found mostly lowercase in sources when included. Past discussions support keeping region as natural disambiguation (as opposed to putting it in parens), which I agree with, but there's no need to keep it capitalized. The decision here would also apply to lots of subsidiary articles ("... of the X Region" etc.). Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk12:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to alternative title suggestions; my proposal is simply what seems to me to be the easiest way to resolve this. (Renaming this page to BYD Seal would require an alternative name for the article currently at that title.) Sable232 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk) 07:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.ROY is WARTalk!04:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Blue Bloods (TV series) → Blue Bloods – Blue Bloods is currently a redirect to the disambiguation page Blue Blood, but is one of the only titles on the page that is natively both capitalized and in the plural, and I would assert is the clear primary topic for that title with that stylization. Circumstances have evolved since the discussion five years ago, with the show having continued and then wrapped, and now having spawned a spin off. BD2412T22:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lucy Letby → Lucy Letby case – Lucy Letby is only notable for the case brought against her. This page goes into great detail about her trial and conviction, and now doubts and possible review to the CCRC etc. But this is not, in fact, detail about Letby, the person. This is a lengthy article about a criminal case. WP:BLP1E pertains, although the case is certainly notable. We have previously moved similar cases in this way, for instance, see Lucia de Berk case. This page is gaining information about people and events that are relevant to the case, but not to Letby - for instance discussion of Dewi Evans or the Shoo Lee panel. The page has morphed well beyond a biography of a living person. It is an article about the case, and the title should reflect that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Pretty Polly Stakes (Ireland) → Pretty Polly Stakes – The Pretty Polly Stakes in Ireland is a Group One category - the very highest in racing and vital for breeding purposes, too. The Pretty Polly Stakes (Great Britain) is Listed race, three steps below a Group One. A valid football comparison would be between the Premier League and League Two in England or for baseball the Major Leagues and A-Grade in North America. Hence the Irish race is much more significant and prestigious. A hatnote at the top of the new page should refer to the Pretty Polly Stakes (Great Britain). Respective page views in this instance may be misleading, for these are likely indicative of a much larger audience and population in Great Britain looking at the less important British race. Finally, the disambiguation page should be deleted Billsmith60 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nugal, Somalia → Nugal, Puntland – Nugal, Somalia follows like centralism; thus, I prop Nugal, Puntland the governor of Nugal region has been appointed by Puntland President and therefore has no connection with Somalia. Since Puntland has declared independence state and pulled its recognition from FGSQalasQalas (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk08:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – La dolce vita → La Dolce Vita – I'm opening this RM for the sake of completeness with the RMs at Talk:I Vitelloni, Talk:La Strada and Talk:I clowns. I see a strong pattern toward English-style title case for the title of this film in the cited mainstream English-language sources (Variety, IMDb, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, Roger Ebert, Los Angles Times, The New York Times, BBC News, Entertainment Weekly / Filmsite, TimeOut, The Telegraph, Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian, The Observer). Consistency among these Fellini films seems desirable. This would revert a move performed one year ago that was suggested by Bensci54. I see no indication that anyone checked what English-language sources are doing when considering that prior suggestion. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – I clowns → The Clowns – Most of the English-language cited sources seem to refer to this film as The Clowns. I don't see a need for disambiguation, despite the fact that the suggested title leads to a disambiguation page. Using the English title would avoid the need to decide between I clowns and I Clowns for the capitalization. See also the open RMs at Talk:I Vitelloni and Talk:La Strada (and the 2022 RM at Talk:La dolce vita). — BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Persian Caravanserai → List of caravanserais in Iran – As noted above, the recent AfD closed with merging List of Caravanserais of Iran due to content-forking and citation concerns. At the same discussion, I recommended that, after consolidation, we widen the scope of this article into a larger list article for all caravanserais in Iran. For a few reasons: *We don't need an article about the formal UNESCO World Heritage designation; the substantive topic here is the caravanserais themselves. This is true of most other UNESCO sites: we have articles about the sites themselves, not about their UNESCO designations, which is merely something to say about them. * A list of caravanserais in Iran is useful in and of itself, if properly sourced this time. * The current title, "The Persian Caravanserai", is the official name of the UNESCO entry but is not a good title for a Wikipedia article. We don't usually include "the" or uppercase for a common name unless it's the title of a work of art/literature (see WP:THE), and "Persian Caravanserai" on its own is not clear either, either for a list article or for a prose article. The UNESCO site should remain noted in the lead and the individually-recognized UNESCO sites should remain noted as such in the list itself, so not much would change other than expanding the list. PS: In the future, if editors want to turn this into a full prose article rather than a list with a brief intro, we could consider changing the title again, but at the moment the Caravanserai article already covers the topic in more detail. R Prazeres (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Arbitrarily0(talk) 21:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk)17:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Operation Ten-Go → Operation Kikusui I – Operation Ten-Go was the overall name for Japanese air operations during the entire Okinawa campaign, replacing the previous Sho operations. The Japanese-language version doesn't mention Yamato until the very end. The Yamato sortie was part of one of the sub operations, Kikusui I, as a last-minute add-on. Alternative, 'Last sortie of the Yamato' or a similar title would also be appropriate. Palm Dogg (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk)13:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Virginia Water Lake → ? – It is not Virginia Water Lake, but Virginia Water. (as pointed out in 2008!). I woud suggest that the article is renamed and the settlement article renamed Virginia Water (village). (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Prithivivallabh → Prithivivallabh (novel) – Pageviews indicate that there is no clear WP:PTOPIC for the term "Prithvi Vallabha" (or other equivalent transliterations). The 1924 film, 1943 film and the T.V. series is an adaptation of the novel, and the novel named for Prithvi-vallabha royal title. Even though the royal title receives little pageviews, I think it could be the WP:PTOPIC due to WP:LTS. Alternatively, "Prithvi Vallabh" (and its variants) should be disambiguation page that points to all possible usage of the term. [Any post-move link cleanup should be done on case-by-case basis due to possibility of some misleading links.] —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})08:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Formula One racing → Formula One Grand Prix – “Formula One racing” is too broad and does not accurately reflect the article’s focus on the structure of a Formula One Grand Prix, including practice, qualifying, and the race itself. “Formula One Grand Prix” more precisely describes the subject, aligning WP:COMMONNAME. If ambiguity remains a concern, “Formula One Grand Prix weekend” is a suitable alternative. Pksois23 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – KBWG (FM) → KBWG – The target is currently a DAB page with two entries, one of which is an airport code that could easily be handled as a hatnote at the radio station article. Circumstances have also changed with KBWG no longer a low-power FM and having the unsuffixed call sign. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – AAGL → American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists – From the website "In 1971, Dr. Jordan M. Phillips and ten charter members founded the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. ... Today we are known universally by our acronym, “AAGL,” and we’ve evolved to epitomize our motto of “Elevating Gynecologic Surgery.”" Meaning that AAGL is an acronym, not the actual name of the association. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}15:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Marcus Cooper → Marcus Cooper (American football) – Not really the PRIMARYTOPIC, the artist Pleasure P sometimes goes by his birthname Marcus Cooper and gets more page views, and his first album was eponymous. Also the canoeist formerly known as Marcus Walz is an Olympic gold medallist with spikes in page views. DAB should be at basename. Page view stats [here]. Ortizesp (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Caleb Lawrence McGillvary → Kai – Before someone tries to speedy close this: The previous consensus was established because this article is about Kai himself and not just the hitchhiker incident. Because of this, the name change was made to his full official name. However, this is a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME, as he is most popuarly called Kai. Just Kai. Not the hatchet wielding hitchhiker. But just Kai, no one calls him Caleb Lawrence McGillvary, and this is such a violation of WP:COMMONAME and WP:CONCISE. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sequoia dakotensis → Sequoites dakotensis – Since discussion has taken place on at least four venues and two of the three editors concur that the article should be moved (with the third expressing willingness to accept this move), requesting it through a formal channel. A history merge will be required due to a copy-and-paste move. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – IÉ 8500, 8510 and 8520 Classes → IÉ 85XX Class – As Irish Rail’s official name [26] for the class (and one I’ve heard thrown around quite a bit), I feel this title would be a lot neater and less convoluted than the current title but I’m somewhat unsure about it, as some may think it’d break consistency with the other IÉ classes, and so I’d like to hear more opinions on whether this move is justified. 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Yeshivish613 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Killing of David Maland → Zizians – This article was originally written about a single killing, but has since sprawled into a complicated web of killings all tied to the "Zizian" group. As discussed on the Talk page, I propose renaming the page Zizians, a bland but neutral, accurate and commonly used name, and restructuring it along the lines of the Manson Family article to describe the group's leader, the group's beliefs and the various crimes they have been legally charged with (but not convicted of). Jpatokal (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Finest Hour (1992 film) → The Finest Hour – Nothing else on the Finest hour disambiguation page is called precisely "The Finest Hour" – instead they're at titles like "Their Finest Hour" or "The Finest Hours". Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, these variations can be enough to distinguish different topics; a hatnote on top of the article prevents confusion. I was about to revert the recent move that added the disambiguator, but since this article has been moved back and forth several times without discussion over the last two decades, I think a full RM discussion would be better. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sarma (food) → Stuffed grape leaves – There are clearly many names for this, which differ from country to country. I am aware that Sarma is common in Turkey, Armenia, and maybe Serbia, but it's not the name in Greece, the vast Arab and Assyrian cultural regions, Iran, Azerbaijan, etc. Per WP:COMMONNAME, why don't we just go with the most common English term? Wolfdog (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Suryavamsa Gajapatis → Gajapati Empire – There was no consensus for the previous name change, there was no explanation given and to top it off , I am pretty sure there is a spelling mistake with the current name, it's supposed to be "Suryavamsi Gajapatis", I can't find any results for "Suryavamsa Gajapatis". I was originally going to request a move to Gajapati dynasty but currently, that is not possible. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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) – East Bayfront LRT → ? – In recent years, the city and the TTC have been calling the project the Waterfront East LRT rather than the East Bayfront LRT. I believe this occurred when the proposal was extended east beyond the East Bayfront area into the Port Lands. Thus, I propose renaming the article to "Waterfront East LRT", although I would leave some mention of the old name in the project history for the earlier years. Any objections? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Roman salute → Fascist salute – Having "Fascist salute" redirected to "Roman salute", with the article making clear that "Roman salute" is a misnomer makes little sense and does not seem to be a neutral position. I suggest therefore that we rename the page to "Fascist Salute", and redirect "Roman Salute" to it. PatriziaDE (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wu Tao-yan → Wu Tao-yuan – This is the correct and also more common name. his name is 吳道源, the last part is Yuan, not Yan. I did some searches and while Wu Tao-yan is used by some sources, Wu Tao-yuan is more common. ISSF for example uses this. both official Olympic reports and Asian Games reports use Yuan. Sports2021 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Dr vulpes(Talk) 05:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk)16:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Captain Marvel (DC Comics) → Shazam (DC Comics) – Shazam is clearly the common name. At this point, Shazam has been the character's name in two major motion pictures, DC's animated universe, various collected editions since the 1970s, and more. DC distinguishes between the Golden Age and Modern versions of the character in terms of name; while the golden age Captain Marvel is undoubtedly more popular, it was only published for a total of 11 years; for comparison, DC has published content primarily under the Shazam name since 1972, or over 50 years now. Even if the character's official name is a subject of debate, I think this is a clear case where the common name of the character is, and has been, Shazam for a long time. ToaNidhiki0515:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – UAZ-469 → UAZ Hunter – The page is outdated, the car was called UAZ-469 in 1979-1985, UAZ-3151 in 1985-2003 and after that it was facelifted and rebranded, so the main picture also has to be changed and new information added. I don't think Hunter needs a separate page. Anon13131313 (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2022–2023 Moldovan energy crisis → 2022 Moldovan energy crisis – The current title is the result of an undiscussed move [28] by PoppysButterflies. I've wondered for a while if this was appropriate. It appears in February the energy crisis was already referred to in past language [29][30], and even in late January [31]. Energy prices decreased on 1 January 2023 [32], and they had already been decreasing on November 2022 [33]. The gist of the crisis was the reduction of Russian gas supplies to Moldova in October 2022 and its lack of alternatives. The deal with Transnistria to supply all Russian gas there in exchange of cheap electricity was reached in December 2022 [34], so by then government-held Moldova allegedly no longer used Russian gas [35]. Gas supplies through Romania to Moldova too started on December [36], so alternative supplies had been found by then, but I am not aware if this meant Romania was already supplying all of its gas to Moldova as happens today. There were conflicting reports throughtout 2023 as to when exactly had Moldova stopped depending on Russian gas. Though Moldova did receive EU funds to combat the energy crisis in early 2023, maybe this was just to replenish a depleted government budget, as the government handed over compensations for the increase in energy prices [37] (the system was created in October 2022 precisely). Looking through academic articles rather than news reports was unhelpful to decide on a timeframe for me. I am not sure ultimately because I did not follow this energy crisis in the news like I am following this one, and I am also not Moldovan. Nevertheless, I don't see much basis for keeping the current title, which was never elaborated on to begin with. But I'd appreciate it if other users could look into this and comment their own research. SuperΨDro 14:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.ToThAc (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) – Q clearance → Department of Energy security clearances – My overall suggestion is that we move this to a more general article, like the proposed name, then merge in the related L clearance article into it. Both are short stubs that will likely always have limited information available, and tend to remain stubs. Also making it a more general article might make it easier to flesh out and expand. (I know there was a previous suggestion in 2007 to merge with the general Security clearance article. I'm not proposing this, I agree that keeping it separate makes sense.)-- The Navigators (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk)00:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Games as a service → Live service game – "Live service game" is more commonly used than other terms to refer to these types of games. "Games as a service" should still be mentioned as an alternate title, but that's clearly not the more common term here. (I don't think this is controversial but wanted to check before doing it myself) Masem (t) 18:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk)22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Imjonseong Fortress → Imjonsŏng – I recently WP:BOLDly moved to the proposed target, but was reverted with rationale "the only source in the article uses Imjonseong Fortress". This is a perennial problem for romanization of Korean terms. In general, MOS:KO and WP:NCKO assume that a single attestation to a spelling is not enough to adequately establish a romanization, because there are so many conflicting romanization practices in use. Either way, the practice for this is clearly lined out in WP:KO-BUILDING: we establish COMMONNAME (I'd argue one doesn't exist; attestations to this fortress in English are sparse), and if one doesn't exist, we romanize following MOS:KO-ROMAN. KO-ROMAN says it's a pre-1945 concept, so we follow McCune–Reischauer, which is Imjonsŏng. seefooddiet (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk)22:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – France Bleu Breizh Izel → ici Breizh Izel – The France Bleu network changed its name in 2025, and the regional associate is now known as "ici Breizh Izel" (lowercase "i" intentional). I have not nominated the other regional articles since their status is a little more unclear right now, and I don't know how to bundle nominations. The Web site's home page has been updated to reflect this; [38] and the radio now refers to itself in this way [39], which should confirm the name change. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk)18:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Hodierna of Jerusalem → Hodierna of Tripoli – Firstly, she was the daughter of the King of Jerusalem, but it is more important that she was Countess of Tripoli. Secondly, she is mainly known under this proposed new title because this troubadour bloke supposedly fell in love with her and travelled to Tripoli to meet her. PatGallacher (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Cheng Tien-fong → Cheng Tianfang – According the WP:ZHNAME, we should prefer pinyin names for Chinese historical figures unless an alternate romanization is clearly more common. Per Google ngram, the pinyin version of Cheng's name has been dominant for some time now. A quick search of Google books confirms that many recent publications have indeed adopted the pinyin spelling for his name (Sino-German Encounters and Entanglements by Joanne Miyang Cho, Spymaster: Dai Li and the Chinese Secret Service by Frederic Wakeman, Between Mao and McCarthy by Charlotte Brooks). SilverStar54 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gunnison grouse → Gunnison sage-grouse – Far and away the most common name for this species. A search on Google Scholar for "Gunnison Sage Grouse" returns 1430 results. A search for "Gunnison Grouse" returns just 38, most only barely relevant. For some reason, IOC is using the name "Gunnison Grouse" for this species, and a few other sources that follow their names such as IUCN and Xeno-canto are using it, but I see no evidence that anyone within the United States where the species is actually found is following along. We already use the non-IOC name for greater sage-grouse. This is such a obvious case I considered not even doing a RM but I figure there's no harm in putting this up here for a week or two. Somatochlora (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk) 06:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)17:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tel al-Sultan attack → Kuwait Peace Camp airstrike – The current title is not great: it's not particularly natural, precise or descriptive, but is merely a vague and fairly non-descript geographical handwave. The more natural titling surrounding the event in question has tended to revolve around the nomenclature of "Rafah tent ..." or "Rafah tent camp ..." (with attack/massacre as the operative descriptor) but these options equally lack precision (given there have been numerous tent camp attacks/massacres in Rafah). And yet "Tel al-Sultan" ironically isn't that much of an improvement, since Tel al-Sultan is equally not a specific city block or even neighborhood, but a substantial urban area within Rafah, and the attack also did not even really take place in Tel al-Sultan, but at a temporary tent camp on a previously deserted patch of land to the northeast of some UN warehouses that were themselves located to the northeast of Tel al-Sultan, on the other side of a peripheral ring road. The current title also does not mention either the key words "tent" or "camp" and is entirely obscure, non-descript and wholly unnatural as a search term. By contrast, the "Kuwait Peace Camp" is the precise location of the attack, as first attested by the BBC on 27 May based on the video footage, and confirmed by the Guardian and CNN on 29 May, and used as the principle identifier by Amnesty by 27 August. So this name represents the precise location of the attack and as a bonus contains the keyword "camp", so further specifies the nature of the event. And then "airstrike", because it was an airstrike, so that's precise, and the news coverage largely uses the term "strike". Meanwhile, the use of "attack" in the context is somewhat vague and could be confused with a ground assault, of which there have since been many in the area. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Park Jun Yong → Park Jun-yong – this is the standard for Korean names, especially for MMA fighters. Want to make it consistent. This page was originally the anglicized version of "Jun Yong Park" but was changed abruptly. Currently, Park Jun-yong is a redirect page. Thanks in advance. [updated information] For the record, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_current_UFC_fighters all UFC fighters with the name are structured with the hyphen. Choi Doo-ho, Choi Seung-woo, Yoo Joo-sang, Kang Kyung-ho, Ko Seok-hyun, Lee Jeong-yeong, Lee Chang-ho. Park Hyun-sung. So I wanted it to be consistent Marty2Hotty (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Rick Levin → Richard C. Levin – Per WP:COMMONNAME. *"Richard C. Levin" clearly leads "Rick Levin" in Ngrams: [41]. **I'll point out here that "Richard Levin" leads both, but "Richard Levin" is a common name in general, and when looking through Google Books results for "Richard Levin" [42], I mostly see sources related to other people with the same name, such as UNC business professor Richard I. Levin [43], Stony Brook English professor Richard Louis Levin [44], and Nelson Mandela University visiting professor Richard Levin [45]. *"Richard C. Levin" is how Yale University, where this person is a professor and which this person was president of for twenty years, refers to him: [46][47][48][49]. *"Richard C. Levin" is the name that appears on his published books [50][51] and papers [52]. *"Richard C. Levin" is what sources like The New York Times [53] and The Washington Post [54] call him. Malerisch (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Assemblies of God → World Assemblies of God Fellowship – On 16 July 2007, Assemblies of God and World Assemblies of God Fellowship were merged. Reason was for disambiguation. This request is to unmerge the two pages for the same reason of disambiguation and accuracy. Once unmerge, this page should be redirected to World Assemblies of God Fellowship. The move cannot be made because the name World Assemblies of God Fellowship already exists in the Wikipedia database. It needs to be unmerged first. There is a contention by another author that Assemblies of God is the common name. However, when the average person says, “Assemblies of God,” they are either referring to the Assemblies of God USA denomination or to people in general who belong to an AG denomination. But this page is not about the USA denomination, nor is it about people in general who belong to an AG denomination. This page is about the global cooperative body of over 170 Pentecostal denominations. It self identifies as World Assemblies of God Fellowship, and it is consistently referred to by others as such (per the references cited on the page). Calling this page Assemblies of God does not meet the precision test for article title. Tinihere (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Intrisit (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!09:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Syracuse → Syracuse (disambiguation) – The ancient Sicilian city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per long-term significance, with its 2,700 years of history compared to 200 years of Syracuse, New York. It has a very rich history and it is listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. The Italian city has a slight lead in page views ([58]), and it gets most of the clicks from the disambiguation page, almost double that of the American city ([59]). Vpab15 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Neo Geo (system) → Neo Geo – I would like to thank @Sceeegt: for messaging me regarding this. The last couple of times this was proposed, I don't think it was formatted correctly. But they have done a lot of work preparing for this change so I think it is worth looking at again, and I agree with the move, so...let's try again. SNK has released multiple products that use the "Neo Geo" name. The majority of these products are the original arcade cabinets and its many home variations (AES, Neo Geo CD, Neo Geo X, Neo Geo Mini, etc.). All these products play from the same library of ~150 games (List of Neo Geo games). All of that is the subject matter of Neo Geo (system). Now, beyond that, SNK applied the "Neo Geo" name to two other products, the Hyper Neo Geo 64 (a commercial flop / rarely discussed) and the Neo Geo Pocket Color. When sources talk about "Neo Geo", they are usually talking about the original arcade platform, its game library, and associated family of home hardware. [60][61] The brand of "Neo Geo" (encompassing the Hyper NG 64 and Pocket) is rarely discussed, and arguably not notable. So I'm proposing to take the current content at Neo Geo, which discusses the brand, and merge it into SNK#Products. And then after that, move Neo Geo (system) to Neo Geo as it is the primary topic. TarkusABtalk/contrib19:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Classical education in the Western world → Classical education – This article completely describes classical education including a summary of the Classical education movement, the only other entry on the dab page. The dab page used to have more entries before I wrote this article, but all forms of classical education are now included under this heading. The article has never included any detailed information or sources about Eastern "classical education", because the several forms are unrelated and have their own articles. As these are listed as see alsos at the dab page and they are also so listed in this article, there is no reason for disambiguation any longer. Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Suchir Balaji → Death of Suchir Balaji – Per past practice regarding articles about people whose notability hinges largely on the unfortunate circumstances of their death (see examples above). In this case, the question seems to be: would we have an article about Suchir Balaji at all if this was a case of an ordinary, uncontested suicide? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Martin Peyerl → Bad Reichenhall shooting – The shooting is much more significant than its perpetrator. Existing German and Polish wikipedia articles are titled "Bad Reichenhall shooting". Articles about Peyerl's killings focus more on the shooting than Peyerl as an individual. Nearly all of them refer to the shooting in Bad Reichenhall, not the mass murderer Martin Peyerl. See Amok by Bannenberg in 2010, Amok und andere Formen schwerer Gewalt by Hoffmann and Roshdi in 2018, and Amoklauf und School Shooting by Scheithauer and Bondü in 2011 for references to "Bad Reichenhall shooting" rather than Martin Peyerl as the main subject. Compare Mark O. Barton to 1999 Atlanta day trading firm shootings move for similar reasoning. Rubintyrann (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Mielec) → Grzegorz Lato Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE18:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Miejski Stadion Piłkarski "Raków" → Raków Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE18:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Branding subtitles – Subtitles and possessives used for brand recognition may be omitted for concision, unless they are being used for natural disambiguation.
(Discuss) – Mountain Parkway Byway → Mountain Parkway (West Virginia) – The name of this page is a bit ambiguous as to which highway it is pertaining to; "Mountain Parkway" is a bit of a generalized name. Furthermore, this article actually pertains to two separate similarly named highways; the aforementioned "Mountain Parkway Byway," as well as the "Mountain Parkway Backway." The current article name gives undue weight to the former in spite of the fact that it covers both in an equal amount of detail. It can be further argued that the two highways are really just one singular one with two separate designations, therefore having a simpler name of "Mountain Parkway" would much better represent the the topic in an equivalent manner. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Imzadi 1979→08:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Burzenland → Țara Bârsei – WP:COMMONNAME. The last RM was rejected for no particular reason, no policy was invoked against WP:COMMONNAME that I argued applied here, I will argue more elaborately my RM now and ask for any opposing users to base their rationale on Wikipedia policies. "Țara Bârsei" is the Romanian name for an originally German ethnographic region today in Romania. "Țara Bârsei" is overall more common than "Burzenland" (the German name) in English-language sources in Google Scholar, it has 577 results vs. 477 results for Burzenland. We can see that the Romanian name has sharply increased in use in the past, showcasing a shift in academia: only 19 English-language sources from before 2000 use Țara Bârsei, vs. 89 for Burzenland, the ratio became 1:2 in 2010 (79 vs. 151), Burzenland was surpassed in 2019 (353 vs. 347), and more than double of sources since 2023 have used Țara Bârsei (75) compared to Burzenland (35), completely reversing the situation. Not only is Țara Bârsei overall more common, it has never been used as widely as today in English. Romanians form today an ethnic majority everywhere in the region (based on the #Towns section of the article) except for Apața, where they are a plurality. Having quickly checked all settlements listed there, I don't think I saw a single one where Germans reached even 2% of the population (the German population of Romania has decreased very sharply, from 786,000 in 1939 to 22,907 in 2022, info on why here [62][63]). The region is named after a tributary located fully in Romania, the article of which uses its Romanian name: Bârsa (Olt) (Burzen in German). Opposers of the previous RM stated that this article's topic mostly covers the historical moment when this region still had a German majority, but the name of Țara Bârsei sees widespread modern use (e.g. a local magazine that had published as recently as December 2023 [64], a 2024–2027 development project co-funded by the EU [65], a 2025 cultural event [66] or really just rather regular local news [67][68][69][70]). Țara Bârsei is more common both by English-language academia and by the native population, which has not abandoned the name, and it also follows the language of the namesake tributary it is named after. Previous policy-based arguments were dismissed without an appeal to policy. SuperΨDro00:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Friedmann, Yohanan (2011). "The Ahmadiyyah Movement". Oxford Bibliographies. Archived from the original on 14 December 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2019. The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam is a modern Muslim messianic movement. It was founded in 1889 in the Indian province of Punjab by Ghulam Ahmad (b. c. 1835–d. 1908). Having been accused of rejecting the Muslim dogma asserting the finality of Muhammad's prophethood, the movement aroused the fierce opposition of the Sunni mainstream. During the period of British rule in India, the controversy was merely a doctrinal dispute between private individuals or voluntary organizations, but after most Ahmadis moved in 1947 to the professedly Islamic state of Pakistan, the issue was transformed into a major constitutional problem. The Sunni Muslim mainstream demanded the formal exclusion of the Ahmadis from the Muslim fold. This objective was attained in 1974: against the fierce opposition of the Ahmadis, the Pakistani parliament adopted a constitutional amendment declaring them non-Muslims. In 1984, in the framework of Ziya al-Haqq's Islamization trend in Pakistan, presidential Ordinance XX of 1984 transformed the religious observance of the Ahmadis into a criminal offense, punishable by three years of imprisonment. The ordinance subsequently became an instrument of choice for the harassment and judicial persecution of the Ahmadi community. Following its promulgation, the headquarters of the Qadiyani branch of the Ahmadi movement moved from Rabwa, Pakistan, to London.
^"Ahmadiyya Muslim Community – An Overview". Alislam.org. Archived from the original on 16 March 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2012. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace be on him) (1835-1908) of Qadian. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founded the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889 as a revival movement within Islam, emphasizing its essential teachings of peace, love, justice, and sanctity of life. Today, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the world's largest Islamic community under one Divinely appointed leader, His Holiness, Mirza Masroor Ahmad (may Allah be his Helper) (b. 1950). The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community spans over 200 nations with membership exceeding tens of millions.
(Discuss) – Kuwohi → Clingmans Dome – Article was moved, without any discussion I am able to find, in late 2024 following an official renaming by the US government. This was a clear violation of Wikipedia's longstanting policy of using WP:COMMONNAMES rather than WP:OFFICIALNAMES as WP:TITLES. Perhaps Kuwohi will become the common name in time, perhaps it won't, but at the present time there is no evidence Kuwohi has supplanted Clingmans Dome in common use. The move was premature. Jbt89 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – KN-02 Toksa → Hwasong-11 – These cases are similar to Hwasong-7 and Hwasong-10. The Hwasong-7 and Hwasong-10 are commonly referred to using external name given by United States (Rodong/Nodong and Musudan, respectively). These articles using official North Korea desginations. According to a The Hankyoreh article (here), "In many cases, the names given by other countries have entered more common usage than the names given by the countries that actually produced them. This has to do with the practice of most countries declining to give the actual name of missiles in the development stages or actual key use, due to reasons of military secrecy". KN-02, KN-06 and KN-19 have official North Korean designation (Hwasong-11, Pongae-5 and Kumsong-3, respectively), suggesting the revelation of official names. The M142 HIMARS (whose common name is HIMARS), and UGM-133 Trident II (whose common name is Trident II or Trident II D5) using official United States's designations, therefore, it seems unfair for North Korean missile articles to use the US designation (KN-xx) as title, although the official North Korean designations are known. And the common name policy appears to be not suitable for these cases. Therefore, the above articles (KN-02 Toksa, KN-06 and KN-19) should be moved per above. TCU9999 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TCU9999 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Gdynia) → Gdynia Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]