Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a222aa1b48e9231f

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 77 discussions have been relisted.

July 28, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Fuchs Group → Fuchs Gruppe – Fuchs Group is the established English designation of Fuchs SE, the MDAX-listed lubricants manufacturer in Mannheim, which brands itself as Fuchs Group throughout its English-language communications and is several times larger by revenue and English-language coverage. The current title is therefore ambiguous and points readers to the wrong company. English-language sources refer to the subject of this article as Fuchs Gruppe, including its own English-language site at fuchsgruppe.com/en and independent coverage such as Grant Thornton UK; the name is a proper noun left untranslated in English, comparable to Deutsche Bahn. The proposed title is more precise (WP:PRECISION) and provides natural disambiguation without a parenthetical qualifier. "Fuchs Group" should be retargeted to Fuchs SE after the move, with a hatnote there pointing here. MB at Fuchs (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 27, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Div and span → Div and span elements – It doesn't seem necessary to have a separate {{Correct title}}. W3C is fine calling it "the div element" in its entry and this is a naming convention consistent with other articles in Category:HTML tags. It is not "necessary to […] use another substitute" which is the rationale for WP:FORBIDDEN workarounds. – Mullafacation『talk』 22:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pat Collier Frank → Pat Frank (politician)Pat Frank (politician) – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Frank has been overwhelmingly known as "Pat Frank" during her career, not "Pat Collier Frank." A search for "Pat Collier Frank" on Newspapers.com without date or geographic restrictions shows only 134 matches total. A search for "Pat Frank" in Tampa, Florida, in the year 2004 alone (when she ran for county commission) shows 186 matches. A search for "Pat Frank" shows 9,035 matches in Tampa alone from the early 1900s to the present, which dovetail exactly with when she was in public life. Her information on the Hillsborough County website archived from 2020, when she was last clerk, identified her as "Pat Frank." When she was in the state senate, she appeared as "Pat Frank" on the ballot in 1978, 1980, and 1984. When she ran for statewide office in 1988, she appeared on the ballot as "Patricia (Pat) Frank." Accordingly, as WP:COMMONNAME requires, "Pat Frank" is the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). PA Uploader (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mai Chinese → MaihuaMaihua – "Mai Chinese" never appeared in any English source. Can it be found in Google Scholar or CNKI? No. Can it be found in any book or newspaper? No. Nevertheless "Maihua" and "Mai dialect" can be found in some academic sources written in English. I understand some people may dispute it is uncertain that Maihua is a dialect under Yue Chinese. Therefore it is not appropriate to call it "Mai dialect". Neverthless, that uncertainty does not mean that it should be treated as a primary Chinese variety, such as Yue Chinese with "Chinese" being put after the core name, not to mention that "Mai Chinese" has never been found in any source. Remember WP:OR. We should not do any original research on Wikipedia. For unclassified OR disputed Chinese varieties, "Junjiahua", "Cantonese", "Shanghainese", "Hokkien" are all good naming examples. There are fervent advocates who want to transplant western views on "languages" and interpret Cantonese and Hokkien as languages, but there are also strong conservatives who holds Chinese common sense and interpret Cantonese and Hokkien as dialects. Then no "dialect" or "language" should follow the core name to avoid any further dispute Sinowriter (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Akbar → Akbar the GreatAkbar the Great – Akbar is widely known in English as "Akbar the Great", and the lead already identifies this as a widely recognized epithet. I propose moving the article to "Akbar the Great" because it is a common English name used for the emperor. This would also make the title consistent with other historical rulers commonly known by the epithet "the Great", such as Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, and Catherine the Great. Also Infobox name should be changed as well it currently does not contain "the great" title. Smg20837 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Santika Club fire → 2009 Bangkok nightclub fire2009 Bangkok nightclub fire – The disaster is more commonly known along the lines of the "Bangkok nightclub fire", rather than by the club's name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should follow what is most common in English language sources, and the proposed title actually does a better job of explaining where the fire took place as Santika Club was not a notable venue. The year has been added to better follow WP:NCWWW, as this event follows the typical naming scheme of where and what, and the majority of article titles should say when as well. Only a few articles with unique common names or are exceptionally well known pass WP:NOYEAR. Sources that say things closer to "Bangkok nightclub fire" (some are less specific and say Thai, but that would be a hindrance to explaining where): [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Sources that say "Santika Club fire" or similar:[23][24][25][26] These sources were found by looking at the live sources existing in the article and by searching for the keywords of "Bangkok", "nightclub", "fire", and "Santika Club" between the day of the event and by the end of the year. Most international coverage ended after a few months. Raskuly 🐰 18:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Deir ez-Zor Airport → Deir ez-Zor International AirportDeir ez-Zor International Airport – The airport has recently been reconstructed and upgraded to handle international flights. According to the official announcement by the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) of Syria, scheduled international flights operated by Syrian Airlines to Kuwait City are set to begin on August 3, 2026 (Source). Additionally, the newly installed external signage at the airport terminal now explicitly labels it as "International Airport" (Source). Moving the page to "Deir ez-Zor International Airport" is necessary to accurately reflect its current status and official designation. –yeagvr · ✉ 11:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – IFSC Climbing Asian Youth Championships → Asian Youth Climbing Championships – The current title is outdated and uses unnatural word order. Official sources have variously used "IFSC Youth Asian Championships", "IFSC Asian Youth Championships", and, for the 2026 edition, "World Climbing Asia Youth Championship". Independent English-language sources use the more natural "Asian Youth Climbing Championships". Because the article covers the historical championship series across different federation branding periods, "Asian Youth Climbing Championships" is a concise and stable descriptive title. Phetoy6 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 16:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Executive order → Executive order (action), (but deletion is more appropriate) – In 2003, the page Executive order was created, about the action by the president of the United States and with some OR acting as if it was some global legal concept (this can be forgiven, OR had not yet been formulated). For most of that page's history, it was located at Executive order (United States), until a 2018 RM moved it to Executive order as the clear primary topic. In June 2025, an IP added unsourced OR acting as if it was some global legal concept and unsourced information about other countries. In June 2026, a TA split the information about the US action into this order. In effect, this is reversing an undiscussed and controversial move. I attempted to resolve this with an AfD of this article, but it ended in no consensus, largely due to editors who did not understand the nom.
    To the best of my knowledge, for the competition of primary topic, we have a Nigerian power named for the US order that was invented in 2017 and has been used two dozen times (no presence on the encyclopedia), an action in Liberia (a former US colony, also no presence on the encyclopedia), a subset of the rulemaking power of the president of the Philippines (a former US colony, two sentences on the encyclopedia), and a little-used Hong Kong power (four sourced(!) paragraphs in the Executive order article). The US order is the clear and overwhelming primary topic. Once this move is successful, the other page should probably be deleted as OR and the Hong Kong information moved to decree, which is its proper location. Whoever closes this needs to leave a notice at WP:REPAIR, because this is a gigantic failure of attribution we are sitting on. 1brianm7 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Noa (Japanese singer) → ? – I'm reopening the discussion from Talk:Noa (Israeli singer)#Requested move 27 May 2026. There are currently articles for three Japanese singers who go by Noa. First, I think Noa (Japanese singer) should be a DAB for all three singers. As for the three articles themselves, here's where it gets confusing. In Japanese, all of them write their names differently, so there's little disambiguation for that. The female singer from No Doubt Tracks writes her name in English: Noa. The male singer born in 2000 also writes his name in English, but in all capitals: NOA. The female singer born in 2000 writes her name in kanji: 乃紫. In English, this is a different story, as they're all written Noa. Even more confusing: both singers born in 2000 are singer-songwriters, so they should not be disambiguated that way. The male singer's full name is Noa Kazama, but this is only revealed in one English source, and he is mostly known and credited by a mononym. What other ways can we disambiguate them? In the previous discussion, disambiguating by gender or by record label was discussed but ultimately not agreed on. lullabying (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Kotia (village) → ? – The present title uses the generic disambiguator "(village)", but there is another village named Kotia, Mahendragarh. A more specific title may be appropriate to distinguish this article from other places with the same name. And this village is a disputed village between Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. Would something like Kotia (disputed village) be appropriate? I am requesting inputs on the most suitable title following wiki's naming conventions. Wikipicked (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Luddite → LudditesLuddites – This article specifically talks about Luddites, not specific workers described as 'a Luddite'. The bold text at the start of the article literally states "The Luddites..." not "A Luddite is a...". Most links to this page are also written as 'Luddites' or 'Luddite movement', not the singular 'Luddite'. 'Luddites' is also the more common name for the historical group, whereas 'Luddite' is more often used as a descriptor of a person (usually meant to insult, see modern AI drama) and should honestly have it's own article on the descriptor itself, but I digress; that is a matter for another time. For now, this should be moved. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 25, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – List of ships attacked by Somali pirates → List of ships attacked by Horner pirates – This page and/or subpages include incidents that didnt occur strictly within Somalia. For example incidents are described as having occurred in off Somaliland's waters (Source) wherein the demonym and adjective would be Somalilander rather than Somali. Also, pirate groups network closely with jihadist groups (Source). This source highlights how militant networks come from neighbouring East African countries, as well as from the Arab world. This source for example highlights how non-Somalis are plentiful and sometimes even predominate in some Somalia based Islamist - jihadist networks, which we've already established overlaps with pirate networks. "Horner" would be a more apt entry in the title since it encompasses people from neighbouring Greater Horn of Africa as well as states neighbouring Somalia such as Somaliland. The WP:COMMONNAME guideline wouldn't apply as a title due to concerns over accuracy. ~2026-41460-70 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 24, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Accountor Tower → Finago Tower – The official name of this building is now Finago Tower and the Finnish article is also titled after it. As we're not calling it under its original name "Neste Tower" or "Fortum Tower" (or, even, "Raade's Tooth") anyway, why not use the current name? Also, I even visited this building this summer to have lunch, and according to the signs, it calls itself Finago Tower now. JIP | Talk 12:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 23, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Merina Kingdom → Kingdom of MadagascarKingdom of Madagascar – The page should be moved to Kingdom of Madagascar. This was the official name of the state. From Radama I and onwards the monarchs of the state officially used the title King/Queen of Madagascar, not Imerina. The 1881 Code of 305 Articles [1] which was issued by Queen Ranavalona II and is often considered Madagascar’s first proto-constitution, officially referred to the state as the Kingdom of Madagascar. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Septilici family → Șeptilici familyȘeptilici family – Author Revengetaker11 reverted [57] an undiscussed move to the proposed title I carried out two years ago [58] on the basis that the family's name was more commonly used in English without diacritics. Simply this family does not receive coverage in English-language sources [59] [60]. Most of the coverage is, quite unsurprisingly, in Romanian. It is likely there is some in Russian and Serbian too. But this family had no links with English-speaking countries. Despite some titles having been translated, out of nine sources present in the article, only one is in English. Of course, the ones in Romanian use the diacritic, as it represents how the family's name is actually pronounced (ș=sh). The one in English does not [61], but then there's one Romanian-language source with an English summary which does use the diacritic [62]. The English source actually only makes one passing mention of a member of this family, it does not even discuss it (the Romanian-language one with an English summary does). I don't think this is proof of a deliberate choice to omit the diacritic in English but likely simply a detail that was forgotten on a 521-page book. I see no reason to exclude the diacritic. The vast coverage of this family seems to be in Romanian, with minimum English one. While the author's contributions are an obvious net positive, they've extended their practice to even more obscure (not meant as disparaging or insulting) figures such as Vasile Septilici, of whom I can find quite literally zero English-language coverage (5 out of 6 sources there are in Romanian, all use the diacritic). Super Ψ Dro 01:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 02:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 22, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Pulhal Central Prison → Puzhal Central PrisonPuzhal Central Prison – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the Central Prison is referred to as Puzhal Central Prison in contemporary sources. "Pulhal" is an older transliteration barely used, whereas "Puzhal" is the predominant spelling used by media and government publications. All sources over time refer to the name as Puzhal: * "Undertrial prisoner dies in Puzhal jail". The Times of India. 16 July 2026. * "Murder plot unearthed at Puzhal jail, four inmates shifted". The New Indian Express. 6 July 2026. * "Life convict dies after slip in Puzhal Central Prison bathroom". DT Next. 20 February 2026. Moving the page to Puzhal Central Prison would better reflect the name most commonly used. TamizhanEditor (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Project 596 → 596 (nuclear test)596 (nuclear test) – Scholars do not use this wording, and any online mention along the lines of WP:COMMONNAME of "Project 596" is likely to stem from this page seemingly inventing it. Each article should also make it clearer that these are the codenames of the devices and designs, the test events themselves were codenamed (Operation) 21-41, 21-72, and 21-73 respectively. See Zhang: China conducted twenty-three atmospheric nuclear tests, including seventeen airburst tests—sixteen air-dropped (codenamed 21-7x) by aircrafts over an airburst center, and one by DF-2A missile (21-2) over twenty kilometers away from the airburst center. It also conducted six surface nuclear tests (codenames 21-4x), twenty-three underground nuclear tests including eight tunnel tests (codenamed 21-9 x), and fifteen vertical shaft tests (codenamed 21-8x). See Reed, 2008, The Chinese nuclear tests, 1964–1996 and Zhang, 2025, The Untold Story of China's Nuclear Weapon Development and Testing. Doeze (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 21, 2026

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – John Treadway Rich → John T. RichJohn T. Rich – Governor Rich is almost always referred to as "John T. Rich". His middle name isn't often mentioned by biographies. When his middle name is mentioned, his middle name is almost always listed as Tyler, including in his official congressional biography. The article claims this is a mistake, but there is no citation for this claim. One citation seems to imply the University of Michigan lists his middle name as "Treadway". There seems to be no reason to include such a contentious middle name in the article title. RoundSquare (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

-ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

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

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Operation Kikusui I → Operation Ten-Ichi-Go – I hate to open another move request so soon after the last one closed, but it looks like the previous move was done without reference to sources. Unfortunately, I believe the new name chosen was incorrect. The Japanese plan for resisting the American invasion of Okinawa was named Ten-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven). In the initial planning, Ten-Go did not include a naval component. It only included ground force elements and a series of aerial kamikaze attacks designated Kikusui Sakusen (Operation Floating Chrysanthemum). After the Emperor noted the lack of the Navy's participation, the attack by the Yamato and company was added at the last minute. This was designated Ten-Ichi-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven 1). The Japanese Wikipedia helpfully includes the actual text of the order, with source: 「航空攻撃有利なる場合、1YBは特令により出撃し敵攻略部隊を撃滅す。本作戦を天一号作戦と呼称す」 "Should conditions for an aerial offensive prove favorable, the 1st Surface Attack Unit shall sortie under special orders to annihilate the enemy invasion force. This operation shall be designated Operation Heaven 1." Source: Official Japanese war history (Senshi Sōsho), Vol 93, pg 258-259 Each of the ten Kikusui attacks was numbered one through ten, i.e. Kikusui I, Kikusui II. Note they do not include the word Sakusen (Operation). The aerial attacks are distinguished in reliable sources from the attack by the Yamato. For example, 'Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945 : the Naval History of World War II' mentions the two separately (pg. 407). Tagging original requestor: @Palm Dogg, relisters: @Bunnypranav, @Sophisticatedevening, @Jeffery34964, and closer: @FOARP Voteins (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 06:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sujatha Baliga → Sujatha baligaSujatha baliga – Documentation exists from multiple sources to show that the subject has a strong, consistent preference that her name be undercapitalized. Per MOS:LCITEMS, a Wikipedia article may use this style of capitalization for personal names when the subject has expressed their desire and the usage is "regular and established" in reliable third-party sources. In 2023 this page was moved from "Sujatha baliga" to "Sujatha Baliga" based on evidence drawn from a single 2019 news cycle (see [89]). The 2023 discussion counted 3 conventional sources (with 1 of those three consistently using lowercase in the body of the article) vs. 2 lowercase sources. Wire/desk outlets (NYT/UPI) tend to normalize all personal names to their own house style regardless of subject preference, so that capitalization is evidence of their own style guides, not of her name. While the sources who are engaging with her directly (MacArthur Foundation, the profile pieces, her own decade-plus usage) consistently use lowercase. Also, in the previous move discussion the Imprint was categorized as "may be less reliable than the others". I would push back against that a bit as the Imprint is a nonprofit newsroom covering child welfare/juvenile justice with an professional editorial staff [90] (John Kelly is its senior editor). The evidence against standard capitalization has grown substantially since that discussion and the move. See below for at least five independent third-party sources, plus the subject's own documented usage since 2011: 1. The MacArthur Foundation ([91] and [92]): an institutional, third-party source (not a wire-service) has used lowercase consistently since the 2019 fellowship announcement. That consistency is corroborated by viewing the archived captures on the Wayback Machine ([93]). 2. The Imprint (formerly The Chronicle of Social Change) ([94]), FWIW published the same week as the NYT/UPI pieces, states explicitly: "She prefers that her name be uncapitalized." 3. Independent third-party profile pieces in Lion's Roar ([95] and [96]), Bioneers ([97]), Just Beginnings Collaborative ([98]), and TransformHarm.org ([99]) all use the undercapitalized form. 4. The subject has used the undercapitalized form as her own display name since May 2011 on her X/Twitter account ([100]). This predates the 2019 press cycle announcments by eight years. 5. Her personal/professional website ([101] and [102]) uses undercapitalized styling throughout, with a copyright notice spanning 2018–2024, also predating the 2019 coverage. Other sources can be found via a Google News search [103] or [104] (as was done by user Cinderella157 during the move discussion) The previous move was nominated by user Tol who argued that it is "confusing to present a proper noun in lowercase." However the undercapitalized naming convention is consistent with existing precedent for subjects with a documented lowercase-name preference, e.g. bell hooks [105] and k.d. lang [106], both of which apply {{lowercase title}} to display the name in lowercase despite some capitalized coverage existing for both. By contrast, E. E. Cummings' [107] name retains standard capitalization because his own actual personal practice was to sign his name with capitals, contrary to common myth. This case is the opposite, where the subject's own sustained, dateable practice is the undercapitalized form. If this move succeeds, I would also propose adding {{lowercase title}} so the displayed title reads 'sujatha baliga' in full, per the bell hooks and k.d. lang precedents cited above. Da.mappr (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:Guide to deletion → Wikipedia:Guide to AfDWikipedia:Guide to AfD – The current title doesn't really match what the page covers. Right after the intro, the guide says outright that it deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Verifiability and No original research, which are [...] nominated on Articles for deletion. Everything past that point, nomination, discussion, closure, behaviour, contesting the closure, and so on, is about how AfD specifically works. The other XfD venues for deleting non-article pages are only covered in one sentence which just links out to their own pages, not actually explained here. So, per WP:MOVE, the title is misleading or inaccurate, and the scope is effectively much narrower than the title suggests. "Guide to deletion" implies coverage of deletion as a whole, but the content has always been a guide to AfD specifically, not to the other XfD processes. One of the page's own shortcuts, WP:GAFD, already reads as "guide to AfD", so editors have been treating it that way informally for a while. Renaming it would just bring the title in line with the shortcut and the actual content. Also, note that we already have a guide to all the deletion processes as a whole at Wikipedia:Deletion process: speedy deletion, PROD, and the full set of XfD venues, along with the general closing procedures, consensus determination, relisting, and so on. That page covers the general "how deletion works across Wikipedia", and it already links out to venue-specific pages while trying to explain their common features. Renaming this page to Wikipedia:Guide to AfD would just stop this page from implying, by its title, that it's the general deletion guide, when we already have that at WP:Deletion process. FaviFake (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Capital Gazette shooting → 2018 Capital Gazette shooting2018 Capital Gazette shooting – A lack of other notable shootings at the Capital Gazette office does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable shootings at the Capital Gazette office because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, it must either have a special common name that does not follow the typical where and what format or it must be so incredibly well known that it can manage without a year. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. Unlike the Charlie Hebdo shooting, this is not the actual name of the newspaper. Raskuly 🐰 02:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Novopavlivka offensive → Dnipropetrovsk Oblast offensive (2025–present) – I had already expressed concerns over this article's scope at Talk:Novopavlivka offensive#Scope (I'll be pinging some users from that discussion). Essentially I expressed some doubt over the decision to focus this article on the settlement of Novopavlivka. To me it seemed back then, and still does, that this article focused more simply on Russian advances into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast than on this little settlement. The article itself currently states the following: The locality itself [Novopavlivka] is not particularly strategic, though its location just over the border of the Dnipropetrovsk region makes it significant as Russia has not entered this oblast in the first three years of their full-scale invasion. Therefore, it would mainly mark a moral blow for Ukraine, should Russia cross into the Dnipropetrovsk region and seize Novopavlivka. It puts more weight on the simple fact that Russia has reentered this oblast than on the advances towards this particular settlement, and I would argue WP:RS coverage has focused more on this too. Novopavlivka is a small settlement of 3,439 people (2001). Typically we've had articles on offensives on specific settlements for small towns, larger than this one. I Know I'm Not Alone, the author of much of this article, did make some fair defense on the use of Novopavlivka as the article's focus at the aforementioned discussion. Nonetheless, as you can see on the map (outdated by the way), most of the territory taken during the offensive covered in this article is located in a different part of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, near Velykomykhailivka. IiSmxyzXX also made some argumentation on this point and on the notion that this offensive being focused on Novopavlivka specifically might be WP:OR. I believe sources have focused more on the simple fact that Russia has achieved advances in a different oblast beyond Donetsk Oblast. This article is notable in my opinion largely due to this psychological and PR effect. Sources cited in this article seem to struggle giving this offensive a particular strategic sense, and I don't think there's many capable of doing this among the sources not already cited. Thus, I would like to propose renaming this article to better reflect its focus on, simply, Russian advances into this oblast beyond the Donbas region. It is necessary to differentiate these advances from the ones that took place in 2022 (see more at Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast#2022) and also to note the fact that this offensive is apparently still ongoing (though this article should be updated after the events of the 2026 Southern Ukraine counteroffensive). Such a format title is already employed in this topic area (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), Dnieper campaign (2022–present)) and it suggests treating the topic in a similar fashion to other in my opinion comparable cases, such as the 2025 Sumy offensive. We could still mention Novopavlivka in some section header, it would be completely fair in my view to divide this article into two axes, one for Novopavlivka and another for Velykomykhailivka (we've already done stuff like this, see the sections at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive). "Dnipropetrovsk offensive (2025–present)" could also be an alternative WP:CONSISTENT with the aforementioned Sumy offensive that has taken place in the oblast and not the city, and in this particular case it would be unambiguous as the capital is not called Dnipropetrovsk but Dnipro. But then we also have Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign for example. And given the apparent lack of a strategic single focus, with this article focusing more on military engagements taking place on a specific defined area, "campaign" might be a better choice over "offensive". I invite editors to discuss all possible options. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 00:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2021 Qatari general election → 2021 Qatari Shura Council election –
    1. Sources used in the article and sources overall overwhelmingly do not use the term "general election". 2. The official Qatar News Agency always calls it "Shura Council Elections", never "General", and Qatar has a "Media Support Committee for the Shura Council Elections" and a "Shura Council Elections Supervisory Committee".[1][2] 3. The term "general election" is ambiguous, and is often understood in English to mean elections that affect a government,[3] which is not the case here, nor in elections for similar bodies in other non-democratic countries, going against Precision from WP:CRITERIA. 4. WP:NCELECT does not have a specific guideline on "general election", and due to the particular nature of the Shura Council as a pseudo-legislature with limited powers, I believe that the appropriate guideline here is the following: "For elections to particular bodies or offices, default to the form "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [body/office] election"." Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC) غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ "Shura Council Elections...National Entitlement". Qatar News Agency. 2021-09-30. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  2. ^ "Arab, Global Recognition of Shura Council Elections in Qatar". Qatar News Agency. 2021-10-03. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
  3. ^ "general election". dictionary.cambridge.org. 2026-06-17. Retrieved 2026-06-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1366488794"