Edge Rewrite
restyle 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.

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested Move)

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page; however, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Appears to be a justified primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody reverted your edit, that means it's not uncontroversial.... 162 etc. (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this move to go through, please open an RM by touching "discuss". 1isall (talk | contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
you changed the article content to support the new title, so this is not an uncontroversial technical request. Please seek consensus via Requested Move by Clicking the discuss button above. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 03:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

"WP:RSPM" redirects here. For entries on the perennial sources list that start with "M", see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/5.
Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. 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 27 July 2026" and sign the post for you.

The reasons for the move can be summarized 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.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 27 July 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 27 July 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 27 July 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2026‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 27 July 2026

– why Example (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 27 July 2026

– why Example (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as per WP:RMEC.

Alternatively, the opener of a discussion can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the requested move has not had any comments yet, or the request was initiated via block evasion. As per WP:WITHDRAW, an opener of a discussion should use strikethrough on the nomination statement when it is prematurely closed through withdrawal.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

Shortcut
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 75 discussions have been relisted.

July 27, 2026

  • (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. 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): [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Sources that say "Santika Club fire" or similar:[22][23][24][25] 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

  • (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

  • (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

  • (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

  • (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 [56] an undiscussed move to the proposed title I carried out two years ago [57] 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 [58] [59]. 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 [60], but then there's one Romanian-language source with an English summary which does use the diacritic [61]. 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

  • (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

  • (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]

July 20, 2026

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Polish Order of the White Eagle controversy → 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis – This article is about a diplomatic crisis consisting of several parts: Zelenskyy's naming of the military unit; Nawrocki's revocation of his award; and reactions to both of those actions by Polish and Ukrainian politicians and others. The current title focuses only on the second part, while the title proposed in the previous RM focused only on the first. I suggest removing "controversy" from the title and naming it as an event according to WP:NCEVENTS. Including "controversy" forces us to choose one thing that defines the controversy (which was an issue in the previous RM), and this article is about one specific incident, not about controversy surrounding UPA commemoration or the Order of the White Eagle in general. I think 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis is the best title that fulfils WP:NCWWW and describes this event as a whole. Sources calling this a diplomatic crisis: Notes from Poland, Reuters, Euronews, TVP World, Euromaidan Press, Deutsche Welle, RFI, France24 - Polish, Ukrainian, and international sources all use this term. An argument in the previous RM was that the UPA unit name was the primary source of the controversy and should be in the title. However, there is no requirement in WP:NCEVENTS that incident articles must be named after the first thing in the chain of events. While Zelenskyy's decision was the starting point of this incident, not all sources agree that it started the diplomatic crisis, e.g. Reuters (President Karol Nawrocki's decision to strip Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Poland's top honour due to a dispute over the naming of an army unit after insurgents who ‌massacred Poles in World War Two unleashed the biggest diplomatic crisis between the neighbours since Russia's 2022 invasion.), France24 (The decision by President Karol Nawrocki threatens to unleash a serious diplomatic crisis between the two neighbours). Regardless, the "diplomatic crisis" title does not require us to decide what started the crisis, while a "controversy" title does require us to choose one part of the controversy, so the "diplomatic crisis" title is also more NPOV-friendly. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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 [88]). 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 [89] (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 ([90] and [91]): 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 ([92]). 2. The Imprint (formerly The Chronicle of Social Change) ([93]), 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 ([94] and [95]), Bioneers ([96]), Just Beginnings Collaborative ([97]), and TransformHarm.org ([98]) 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 ([99]). This predates the 2019 press cycle announcments by eight years. 5. Her personal/professional website ([100] and [101]) 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 [102] or [103] (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 [104] and k.d. lang [105], both of which apply {{lowercase title}} to display the name in lowercase despite some capitalized coverage existing for both. By contrast, E. E. Cummings' [106] 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

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
21:11, Monday, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1366385138"