Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

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

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). 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. 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.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. 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 for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be 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

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

Undiscussed moves

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.

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:..."

  • 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=reason for 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Puyallup people  Puyallup Tribe of Indians (currently a redirect back to Puyallup people) (move · discuss) – Article is about the federally-recognized tribe/governmental body, not about the ethnic group. I am writing an article (in my sandbox, for now) about the ethnic group specifically, but it doesn't belong in the same belong in the same article as the one about the tribal government. One article covering both things would be overly massive, and this follows the current precedent of having an article for the tribal institution and the people. PersusjCP (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI: I was going to raise a concern about "Puyallup Tribe of Indians" because of WP:CONCISE while Indians is a contentious term, but it turns out that this is what they call themselves: [1]. At any rate, the "Tribe of Indians" article should only be about the federally recognized government operations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I went for that since it's the official name of the subject of the article. Plus, just "Puyallup Tribe" would be ambiguous between the Puyallup people and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, imo PersusjCP (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already a WP:RM discussion open for the same suggestion. I suggest to just let that continue rather than processing this as a 'technical' request. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Discord, this user seems to have accidentally hit discuss on their own RMTR. So I'll restore here and anyone is free to do whatever re the RM. Inclined to close as "speedy move" citing this but I'll leave it to someone else. Queen of Hearts (talkstalk • she/they) 06:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Citation needed. 162 etc. (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Piotrus: Please start an WP:RM per WP:TITLECHANGES it has been at this this title for almost three years. Lightoil (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current name is consisted with all other Guam election articles. Bensci54 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator needed

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

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, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. 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 22 February 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

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
| 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, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. 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, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

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 22 February 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 22 February 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 22 February 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.
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 22 February 2024

– why Example (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 22 February 2024

– why Example (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

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.


  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 is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ 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.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 71 discussions have been relisted.

February 22, 2024

  • (Discuss)A Little Bit of Irish (soundtrack)A Little Bit of Irish – Base page name is vacant. Arguably, there should be an article there on the TV special that yielded the soundtrack album that is the subject of this article, but it has not been written, and may not be as notable itself as the album that it spawned. I would move this title to the base page name, and refactor it slightly to make it an article more explicitly covering both the special and the soundtrack. BD2412 T 19:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Verizon CommunicationsVerizon – Time to revisit this after almost six years since the last discussion. Proposal is based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP. The long form is rarely used in any fashion, and the base title Verizon already redirects here, so we already acknowledge that the primary meaning of the name is this company, not any subsidiary. The reason the article bears the current title is no longer valid. A bit of history: the current title was chosen to disambiguate the parent company from Verizon Wireless (VZW), which was also known simply as "Verizon" and was at the time a joint venture between the former Bell Atlantic and the British wireless carrier Vodafone. In fact, the name was coined for the joint venture. However, in the years since things have changed. Firstly, in 2014, Verizon (Communications) bought out Vodafone's 45% share of VZW, making it a wholly owned subsidiary. That erased any meaningful distinction between the two name wise, as it made all dealings with Verizon Wireless inherently dealings with Verizon Communications, and all VZW property Verizon Communications property. In short, any reference to Verizon at that point was a reference to the parent company directly or indirectly, and treating the plain term "Verizon" as ambiguous was just being pedantic. Then, to top it off, Verizon has since undertaken a corporate reorganization and VZW ceased to exist as a distinct subsidiary, its functions transferred to the consumer and business segments, as pointed out on that articles talk page (see the talk archives). That's why the VZW article was moved to Verizon (mobile network). Since we already recognize that people using the short form mean this company, then using the longer form for natural disambiguation becomes a case of unnecessary disambiguation when the common name of this company is simply "Verizon" and we should live the article to simpler form. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Oil Lamp FragmentOldest depiction of a menorah – "Oil Lamp Fragment" is a very generic "name" which doesn't seem to be in use as the name of this fragment. Wikipedia shouldn't invent new names for things which lack a name, but instead use a descriptive title. I had moved an older version of this page to Oldest depiction of a menorah without a redirect (as I consider it a very unlikely search term for this specific object), but it was recreated. I would suggest to move this over to the new name, without a redirect from the current name. Fram (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)2024 Kansas City parade shootingKansas City parade shooting – The previous discussion returned no consensus on alternate proposed titles, so let's discuss the specific proposal to remove the year from the title. While I recognise that WP:NOYEAR is in spirit meant to be reserved for recognisably historic events, I still find it unnecessary to disambiguate "Kansas City parade shooting" or "Kansas City Super Bowl parade shooting", as I'm at a loss to think of anything that they could be confused with. In the specific context of parades held in Kansas City, this event was unprecedented. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)High TensionHigh Tension (2003 film) – There are a considerable number of other targets at High Tension (disambiguation). Per WP:NOPRIMARY the dab page should be located at High Tension and not the 2003 film. I further note that this film has been released in English on DVD/Blu-Ray under two different titles, High Tension and Switchblade Romance so the naming convention in English isn't consistent. This further demonstrates that this is not the primary target for High Tension, and for this reason I would also support a move alternative to Switchblade Romance which has no competing titles, or simply using the original French language title, Haute tension. A further point to consider, High Tension could become a redirect to high voltage as the primary target as "Extra-High Tension" or EHT is a common measurement in electricity. There are several options here. Either way, the 2003 film should be moved. 4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 21, 2024

  • (Discuss)Puyallup peoplePuyallup Tribe of Indians – Article is about the federally-recognized tribe/governmental body, not about the ethnic group. I am writing an article about the ethnic group specifically, but it doesn't belong in the same belong in the same article as the one about the tribal government. One article covering both things would be overly massive, and this follows the current precedent of having an article for the tribal institution and the people. PersusjCP (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). PersusjCP (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)1998 Thurston High School shootingThurston High School shooting – The year is not needed as the name of the school distinguishes it from other shootings and makes the event unnecessarily harder to find when searching for it. The article was only moved to its current name back in October without a move request by an account called “Corgi Stays”, which has been confirmed to be another sockpuppet account for DisuseKid/Love of Corey, an editor who had done the same thing on other school shootings articles multiple times and is now banned for using, as I previously mentioned, sockpuppet accounts. MountainDew20 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 20, 2024

  • (Discuss)Majorna (district)Majorna – When referring to Majorna people are generally referring to the geographical district/stadsdel of the city, not the now defunct political borough/stadsdelsnämndsområde, making the district the primary topic named Majorna. Coverage of the district/stadsdel refers to the area as just 'Majorna' without a qualifier. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Attribution of recent climate changeCauses of climate change – A lengthy discussion on this proposal has become stuck for some time now with some editors supporting this move and others opposing it. The people who support it feel that the new title would be clearer and would be what users are looking for (NB, the current article "causes of climate change" is a redirect to this article). Content about "attribution" (i.e. to know WHY something is the cause) could be reasonably included in an article called "causes of climate change". Those opposing the move feel that the article should for now remain under this title (or be moved to "Detection and attribution of climate change" (or similar) and that it should not be mainly about the causes but rather about "scientific attribution of climate change and its effects". I hope I have summarised the discussion from the talk page correctly. Looking for uninvolved editors to help get this discussion unstuck and to move forward. I think all the editors involved so far feel that the current status quo is not good, i.e. the current version of the article is not good / there is a mismatch with the title versus its content. EMsmile (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 19, 2024

  • (Discuss)Michael SchäfferMichael Schaefer – I propose to move this to Michael Schaefer, which already redirects here, because a clear majority of ambiguous terms on the page do not contain an umlaut in their spelling, and I am inclined to thing that titles limited to the standard keyboard alphabet, where applicable, are more user-friendly. BD2412 T 23:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Michael and Sharen GravelleGravelle foster child abuse cases – As I noted in the AfD, there is a notable thing to be covered here: the child abuse cases relating to the abused by Michael and Sharen Gravelle. The two individuals themselves played a large part in the cases, and court proceedings from the pre-2003 abuses appears to have spanned both the criminal trial as well as a civil case. This foster child abuse case led to legislative change, and I think it's easily got WP:LASTING notability as such. The current article is a pseudo-BLP; its title purports to be about two criminals, but the article itself is really about the crimes. Changing the title to reflect that this is about the abuse would be an improvement over the current state. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)BVS EntertainmentSaban Entertainment – Essentually, this whole page move thing has been a complete mess. Firstly, it was moved without any voting from other users, and secondly, it uses a logo that was stolen from a DeviantArt user who stated that the logo was custom-made, as seen in this link. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Empire of Great FuloDenianke Kingdom – 'Empire of Great Fulo' is a name that was given by external observers (Europeans) to an African political unit, and not one that the Fula used themselves. In fact, contemporary Europeans seem to refer to the state more commonly as the land or empire of the Great Fulo (or some such variant) rather than an empire that is called 'Great Fulo'. Calling this state the 'Empire of Great Fulo' would be equivalent to calling the British Empire the 'Empire of Big British' or 'Empire of Queen.' While many articles and books talk about the 'Great Fulo' when quoting Portuguese sources, they generally do not refer to it as such in their own prose. Terms such as the "Denianke Kingdom' or the 'Denyankoobe' are more common. This is particularly true for Senegalese authors. Different spellings are possible, but I think any name that reflects local nomenclature is better than 'Empire of Great Fulo'. Catjacket (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Alpha CepheiAlderamin – Searching Google Scholar, i saw that the proper name Alderamin is much more used than the Bayer Designation Alpha Cephei. In the first five search pages, i got 19 sources citing the name Alderamin, while i got just 7 sources citing the name Alpha Cephei, which means that Alderamin is the common name for this star, and thus should be the name of this article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Pacific AerospaceNZSkydive Ltd – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. 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. (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jewish ChristianJewish ChristianityJewish Christian is awkward, and is definitely not standard; I'm assuming that won't be controversial. I think Jewish Christianity is preferable as a title to Jewish Christians (note plural) because the scope of this article is the religious movement/phenomenon of Jewish Christianity, not the persons who fall into the category of Jewish Christians. Zanahary (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Snake (video game)Snake (mobile game) – This article is exclusively about the Nokia mobile phone version of Snake as invented by Taneli Armanto. Having this article at Snake (video game) gives the impression that Armanto invented the entire Snake game concept, while in reality he only invented this particular version, and the Snake game itself precedes it by decades. Checking the list of incoming links reveals dozens of incoming links referring to the concept of the Snake game itself, not to Armanto's version. JIP | Talk 09:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 18, 2024

  • (Discuss)Santa Cueva de MontserratSanta Cova de Montserrat – The text of the article already uses the Catalan form "Santa Cova", so the only place "Santa Cueva" appears is in the title. This is a location in Catalonia, where the native language is Catalan, and though Spanish is co-official, the standard policy on Wikipedia has been to use the Catalan form by default for place-names. This is particularly relevant on the mountain of Montserrat itself, which is a Catalan symbol and whose monastery, which administers the Santa Cova, is a center of Catalan identity. The main access to this place is via a funicular whose title is Santa Cova Funicular in English, Spanish, and Catalan on Wikipedia. In the articles for the mountain and monastery, only the funicular—and not the shrine itself—is mentioned, with both using the form "Santa Cova". Tourism guides produced for an English-speaking audience by the local governments and the Monastery itself also use the "Santa Cova" form. acomas (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Juha TurunenKidnapping of Minna Nurminen – The article is almost exclusively about the kidnapping, which seems to be only thing Juha Turunen (now known as Juha Louhi) is known for. What information the article tells about Turunen himself amounts to pretty much one line. The Finnish article fi:Juha Louhi is actually a redirect to fi:Turun sieppaus which is about the kidnapping. Having the article at Juha Turunen is preventing linking the two articles via Wikidata as there is a Wikidata item about Juha Turunen (or Juha Louhi) despite there not being an actual article about him in any Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 13:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 17, 2024

  • (Discuss)Khawlan (tribe)Khawlan – Moving this article from Khawlan (tribe) to Khawlan is needed since all pages that have links in them to Khawlan always intend to mention the tribe, not the sub-district with the same name. Mkfreal (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)2003 Congo air disaster2003 Ukrainian Cargo Airways Il-76 incident – Fails WP:COMMONNAME. While the title might seem commonly used, removing the year and just typing Congo air disaster brings us various accidents/incidents in Congo with wikipedia being the sole website mentioning the name "Congo air disaster". Even though typing 2003 Congo air disaster shows us the correct results, it also shows us other Congo plane crashes. Additionally, as already stated, wikipedia is the only website that uses the name Congo air disaster. Per WP:AVTITLE, articles on air accidents without a flight number should follow the following format: <year> <airline> <aircraft> <event>. <2003> <Ukrainian Cargo Airways> <Il-76> <Incident>. Just look at the Munich air disaster, type it in and one of the first websites you get talking about the event all have the title Munich air disaster. Type Congo air disaster and while you might get related searches, you still do get other events. For event, I'm not sure if "incident" fits the bill though it does seem like the acceptable name. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ecclesia and SynagogaEcclesia et Synagoga – (Edit for clarity) This is an article about the antisemitic medieval church pairing of Ecclesia et Synagoga. The name in sources that is used to discuss this topic is normally "Ecclesia et Synagoga" - that is the "common name". From what I can tell, the page was moved from this title without discussion in 2012. While I can understand the reasoning cited ("no need for Latin"), the "no Latin" version of this would be "Church and Synagogue", not the one third English, two thirds Latin phrase "Ecclesia and Synagoga" which is used, but relatively infrequently, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, "Church and Synagogue" is also, as far as I know, not a (commonly?) used term in relation to the medieval Latin anti-Semitic images referred to in this topic, and is also somewhat ambiguous as a result. See Google Books search for "Ecclesia et Synagoga" vs "Ecclesia and Synagoga". Post script: See list of citations for use of this form below. Jim Killock (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Archimedes' screwArchimedes screw – 1) "Archimedes' screw" is incorrect per MOS:POSS. 2) Most of the cited sources use "Archimedes screw", some use "Archimedean screw", very few use "Archimedes' screw." 3) Even if we ignore the incorrect possessive, it's awkward; we don't talk about "Diesel's engine". GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 16, 2024

  • (Discuss)BT Centre81 Newgate Street – Having been vacated by the BT Group in December 2021, the building is now only referred to as the BT Centre when mentioned in context of BT. Most publications after BT’s departure refer to the building by its address (81 Newgate Street) whilst some make reference to the new name given to it by the company redeveloping it - Panorama St Paul’s. As the building is best known as the BT Centre, and has been best known by that name for nearly 40 years, I know this may be contentious so have decided to create a discussion request beforehand to judge the consensus. Josh (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Snowy Mountains AirportCooma–Snowy Mountains Airport – Page was moved to this namespace by an autoconfirmed user in good faith per WP:BOLD under the rationale of WP:COMMONNAME. I disagree with this move and would like to seek WP:EDITCON for reasons stated below: *Under private ownership, this airport has been branded as "Snowy Mountains Airport", However, most sources actually cited as references in the article, both current and historic, refer to either Cooma Airport, or Cooma - Snowy Mountains Airport. Of the 14 sources currently referenced, only 2 refer to the airport exclusively as "Snowy Mountains Airport" and these are self-published by the airport operator, suggesting a rebranding for promotional reasons which may raise issues with WP:PROMO. *Although Google does return more hits for the specific search term "Snowy Mountains Airport" than either of the above, I note many of these results still preface this with "Cooma" when viewing where the term actually appears in the text, including 3 of the top 10 matches. *The Qantas booking system was using "Cooma" as the destination as of last season (although marketed as flights to the Snowy Mountains). *As a pilot who has operated to this airport, all radio calls, flight planning documents and associated navigation are referred to as "Cooma". *Disambiguation - Originally, the public airport was referred to as Cooma Airport, the Snowy Mountains was added to differentiate it from the private Cooma–Polo Flat Airport, which was historically the base for the Snowy Mountains Authority's aviation ops to a network of airstrips throughout the Snowy Mountains. Although historic, there was a period of time where Polo Flat was colloquially known as the Snowy Mountains Scheme Airport (or just "Snowy Airport" or other iterations) while the public airfield was just "Cooma" airport. Discarding booking engine type search results and considering those with actual content that is of encyclopedic interest, it is possible that many search results for "Snowy Mountains Airport" may be referring to Polo Flat or other SMA airstrips. - This is certainly the case when using search engines such as Trove. Although the change to the name was only minor, I believe that it is detrimental to the article, however it would be appropriate to add a "nativename" field or such in the infobox, or provide this clarification in the lede. Dfadden (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023December 2023 Tennessee tornado outbreak – Let’s look at WP:CRITERIA, which is the five criteria for an article title. #Recognizability — Who actually would recognize this tornado outbreak by “December 9-10, 2023”? Editors can use Google to assist, but here is one example where the event is known as “Tennessee tornado outbreak”, not the date. #Naturalness — Readers are likely going to search for one of the two main tornadoes (Clarksville or Nashville), which both are Tennessee towns, not “December 9-10, 2023 tornado outbreak”, ect… #Precision — Both titles (current and proposed) are precise. #Concision — Both titles (current and proposed) are concise, with the new proposed title being 1 character longer. #Consistency — Other outbreaks are named based on location rather than date (2020 Nashville tornado outbreak and 1953 Waco tornado outbreak are two examples. Also, other editors have previously mentioned (see [1] below) that date-based articles may not serve readers the best anyway. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 15, 2024

  • (Discuss)James II of EnglandJames VII and II – He was not only the king of England. He was also the king of Scotland and Ireland. James VII and II is both more accurate than the current title and also completely unambiguous, so you can get rid of the territorial designation that only refers to one of his realms, since there was only one James VII and II. The Scottish number should go first for consistency with James VI and I. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Anne, Queen of Great BritainQueen Anne – "Queen Anne" is by far the most common way to refer to her. Yes, there were other Queen Annes, but they were either only consorts (i.e. Anne Boleyn) or they were obscure leaders of non-Anglophone countries. In English, the British monarchy is by far the most commonly discussed monarchy, so on English Wikipedia, it's entirely appropriate for the only Queen regnant named Anne to be "Queen Anne". "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" gets me 67,400 google results. "Queen Anne" gets me 28,000,000. She was also not just the Queen of Great Britain, she was also Queen of Ireland (and Queen of England and Scotland up until 1707), so let's ditch this inaccurate, awkward, uncommon title in favor of the more common and accurate way of referring to her. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)William III of EnglandWilliam II and III – He was not only the king of England. He was also the king of Scotland and Ireland. William II and III is both more accurate than the current title and also completely unambiguous, so you can get rid of the territorial designation. There was only one William II and III. The Scottish number should go first for consistency with James VI and I. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Man-eaterList of human-eating animals – As the last move request failed because it was too different, I am instead proposing a move to a more similar yet correct name for the article. Per WP:GENDER, I am still suggesting the article be moved away from "man-eater" (we don't have spaceman or waiter either). While I still believe this is less accurate than it should be, I think the fact that the page needs to be moved overshadows whether I think animals should be described as such. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Frederik IX of DenmarkFrederik IX – He's the only monarch with this exact name, so we should move per WP:PRECISE, and the move will make the article title consistent with his daughter and now his grandson, whose name is spelled without the C. Векочел (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: A mistake on my part in saying Frederik IX was the only monarch with this name. He is the only king with this exact name. Векочел (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • (Discuss)ShrovetidePre-Lent – This article was originally named 'Pre-Lenten Season' and this is what it describes. It was renamed 'Shrovetide' in 2016, based on a single reference that gives an incorrect definition (Gardner 2008). Shrovetide is however only the final three days of this period: the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'The period comprising Quinquagesima Sunday and the two following days, ‘Shrove’ Monday and Tuesday'. Shrovetide is identical to Carnival, which already has its own article. The pre-Lenten period is variously called 'pre-Lent', 'pre-Lenten period', 'pre-Lenten season', 'Septuagesima—Sexagesima—Quinquagesima', 'Septuagesima', 'Gesimatide', 'weeks before Lent' and probably other things – since it isn't a proper season, it doesn't have a formal name. (Cf. 'Vorpassionszeit' in German, 'Domenica di Settuagesima' in Italian.) 'Pre-Lent' is the most descriptive and neutral name that I can find in current scholarship, but I can see arguments for some of the other labels. AndrewNJ (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). AndrewNJ (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)  :Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Professional organizingDecluttering – The line between what a professional organizer does and what an individual can do with the same methods are blurred. Decluttering redirects here, and we do not have an article on decluttering, which is a highly popular subject in media. It therefore makes sense to expand this article with methods for decluttering, which arguably are the same for professionals and individuals alike. Professional organizers has been kept as a section Sauer202 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Night Swim (film)Night Swim – Seems to be the clear primary topic, grossing $44 million and all-in-all being a pretty big phenomena. 600k+ monthly views after release (down from its peak), the two-entry dab is at 2k monthly views, and the album is at 200 monthly. (Not sure why the film is listed secondly on the dab page, but ah well.) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ehlers–Danlos syndromesEhlers–Danlos Syndrome – This may be the wrong place for this, but I was unable to move this page to a page with the correct title. An editor misunderstood the action of a consortium that met in 2017 and mistakenly thought the consortium undertook to rename the disorder. That particular consortium did not undertake to rename it, its mission was completely different. Consortiums have no authority to name or rename medical disorders. This disorder is and has always been called Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, as it is referred to by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the New England Journal of Medicine, and the European Health Union. What a consortium - any consortium - chooses to call it is irrelevant. Also, the redirect of "Ehlers-Danlos syndrome" is inaccurate. Please see the Talk page for a full, in-depth explanation. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – Hilst [talk] 23:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kurdish languages → ? – The title of this article could be either "Kurdish Language," aligning with the naming convention of other Wikipedia articles discussing "macro" languages or languages forming a dialect continuum, such as "Norwegian Language" or "Chinese Language," which are in a similar situation to Kurdish. Alternatively, we may consider simplifying it to just "Kurdish," similar to the "Arabic" Wikipedia article, thereby sidestepping any contentious debates and maintaining a neutral stance. It seems unjustified for Kurdish to be the only article labeled with "Languages" when there is no consensus on whether it comprises multiple related languages or a single language with various dialects. Kurdian (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 17:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Weaponization of antisemitism → ? – There are (at least) two distinct meanings of the phrase "Weaponization of antisemitism"/"instrumentalization of antisemitism" as used in sources. One is the subject of this article, the potentially bad faith use of charges of antisemitism. Notably, none of the scholarly sources in this article use the word "weaponization" except in the context of advocacy. It is mostly WP:BIASED sources here that prefer the charged term "weaponization" in the meaing we write about here, so this title as it stands is arguably a POVNAME. The second meaning is the use of antisemitism by regimes such as the Soviet Union to undermine political opponents. Indeed, it is in this latter context that the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism" has a longer and more mainstream basis in scholarly literature ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], among others). Thus when saying "weaponization of antisemitism", the current article fails WP:COMMONNAME. For NPOV, we must present a reader, scholar, or observer looking for "weaponization of antisemitism" with both options and not default to this much weaker case. Thus it is important, and more accurate, that this title is more focused to reflect the specific context the article refers to, with a second page on the other context. Simply put, it defies RS and is flat incorrect to say "weaponization of antisemitism" only refers to the use of the charge of antisemitism. Open to other ideas such as Bad faith charges of antisemitism, but the current title cannot stand for NPOV and accuracy reasons. Longhornsg (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 17:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Breuil-CerviniaLe Breuil, Aosta Valley – The autonomous region of Aosta Valley has changed the official name of this frazione (hamlet) to Le Breuil through a regional decree (Decreto 21 settembre 2023, n. 479, p.3433) in September 2023, bringing it back to its pre-fascist spelling. Since the name Le Breuil is shared between other francophone municipalities (in France), Aosta Valley at the end of the article title seems to be compliant with WP:PLACE and WP:CONSISTENT with similar locations (i.e. Châtillon, Aosta Valley). This doesn't affect the commercial name of the ski station, which will remain Cervinia, and which could theoretically be split from the article, given that Cervinia (the ski station) is not a CFORK of the article about the village of Le Breuil. Pilaz (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)MosasaurMosasauridae – Per existing discussion, there seems to be an agreement that "Mosasaur" is too ambiguous of a term to refer to any specific taxon, and so is better off being redirected to a disambiguation page. Since this article's content focuses entirely on mosasaurids, it should be renamed to that family, following the precedent of Ichthyosauria. Macrophyseter | talk 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)NBA Conference FinalsNBA conference finals – Per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, etc.; the only part of this that's consistently capped in sources, in sentence context, is the acronym NBA. "NBA Conference Finals", "NBA Conference Final", "NBA Conference", "Conference Finals", and plain "Conference" are not proper names, and are not close to consistently capped in sources. See discussion in section above. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests


See also