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: 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 is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion 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 discussion (especially no recent 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 such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. 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 page 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: ..."

  • 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 page 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

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

I disagree that this is "uncontroversial", please actually read Talk:Tito. --Joy (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact there's been prior discussion means this is a WP:PCM and hence needs a full WP:RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2023 (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|NewName|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 NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 25 March 2023" 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.

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 25 March 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (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 25 March 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (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 25 March 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2023‎ (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 25 March 2023

– why Example (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (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 25 March 2023

– why Example (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (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:relisting}}, 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. 47 discussions have been relisted.

March 25, 2023

  • (Discuss)Late Night MashThe Mash Report – The show was named The Mash Report for series 1-4 on BBC Two, where it received the most reviews, media attention, ratings and social media attention. It was named Late Night Mash for series 5-6 on Dave, a more obscure channel with lower rating figures, where the show declined in attention until its cancellation and lost its original host in the process. The move(s) to Late Night Mash were never really properly established with consensus (see talk page sections above), but with the cancellation it is now pretty clear that the show will never be more recognisable under Late Night Mash than The Mash Report. I do not think a split/new article is worthwhile as the show (which continued in much the same vein) did not attract much attention under the new name. Pings for those who commented/moved the article and have edited in 2023: Belbury; CleverTitania; IJBall; Launchballer. — Bilorv (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 – Under the convention at the beginning of WP:THE, the definite article should be removed. The article does not fall under the ambit of (1), since ‘Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’ and ‘The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’ have the same meaning. The article does fall under the ambit of (2): in running text, one would write ‘the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’, not ‘The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’, just as one would write ‘the Constitution’, ‘the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2002’, &c; it follows that the name of the article should omit the definite article. Compare the examples at WP:NCGAL under ‘[l]egislation’, all of which omit the definite article. Docentation (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Imadaddin NasimiNasimi – The majority of English-language sources in this article use the shorter form of the poet's name as opposed to the full "Imadaddin Nasimi" (see Berengian 1988, Doerfer 1988, Javadi & Burrill 1988, Watenpaugh 2004). As "Nasimi" already redirects to this page, there is no need to disambiguate the poet's pen name. — Golden call me maybe? 18:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EpicPupper (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 24, 2023

  • (Discuss)Morad (Spanish rapper)Morad (rapper) – The "Spanish" disambiguator is unnecessary since there is only one notable rapper named Morad. I am unable to make the page move myself as there is an existing "Morad (rapper)" article, but it is nothing but an unnecessary redirect. Mooonswimmer 19:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Rochester New York FCRochester Rhinos – Now that the club is defunct, the article should be titled with the team's most recognizable name with respect to history. The club was officially known as the Rochester Rhinos from 2008–2021 and was often referred to as simply "the Rhinos" while named Rochester Raging Rhinos from 1996–2007.[1] BLAIXX 16:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Randy and Sharon MarshRandy Marsh (South Park) – A split has been discussed (see several sections on this page, including a still open split proposal) and apparently the consensus was to remove Sharon Marsh content to create a redirect (see Sharon Marsh) to a list of characters, and rename the remaining content in this article to Randy Marsh (South Park), with suitable edits. However, an editor keeps cutting and pasting the content, so here is a proper move request. I don't anticipate major objections, but just to be safe I haven't raised it as a technical request. Lithopsian (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Umayyad conquest of HispaniaMuslim conquest of Spain – This is easily the most WP:COMMONNAME in book sources for this event in history. According to Ngram viewer it is more than twice as common as "Arab conquest of Spain", "Muslim conquest of Iberia" or "Moorish conquest of Spain", whereas the current title does not register at all on Ngram Viewer - not once - and there's nothing on Google Books either. I've also scanned in other names such as "Moorish conquest of Iberia" or "Arab conquest of Iberia" - they are recorded as uncommon - while all the other options including those with "Hispania" also fail to register. As an encyclopaedia we should follow the majority of WP:RS, although there is nothing wrong with mentioning other names commonly used in the literature as well. But this one appears to be quite obscure. Bermicourt (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Here are the relative stats: :Muslim conquest of Spain - 1838 :Arab conquest of Spain - 767 :Moorish conquest of Spain - 745 :Muslim conquest of Iberia - 616 :Arab conquest of Iberia - 49 :Moorish conquest of Iberia - 39 :Arab conquest of Hispania - 0 :Moorish conquest of Hispania - 0 :Muslim conquest of Hispania - 0 :Umayyad conquest of Hispania - 0 :Umayyad conquest of Iberia - 0 :Umayyad conquest of Spain - 0 :Neither "Umayyad" nor "Hispania" occur in any combination with the other terms in any of the sources. It is not clearly not a concept accepted in scholarly circles. Bermicourt (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 13:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 23, 2023

  • (Discuss)Britains (toy brand)Britains – This article was moved to its current title to create a disambiguation page. However, this dab page has been reverted and a redirect created to this article. The original page move should be reverted, as there is no other article with this exact name. Hatnotes can be created if there is confusion. Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Penal Laws against Irish CatholicsPenal laws (Ireland) – This page was bold moved to the current title on 3 March. I would revert the move, but there are some issues with the old name inasmuch as (1) there are other penal laws that should be disambiguated, and (2) there is a capitalisation issue. Nevertheless the new name chosen also has issues as follows: # The Irish penal laws were not just against Catholics; # The name is not as concise as it could be; # Per MOS:CAPS, it should be Penal laws (lower case l) On that last point, I have reviewed the sources. The majority speak of the penal laws (not a proper noun). For instance, Burke (1904) does so consistently, as does Cullen (1997). There are a few cases of "Penal Laws" in, e.g., the Maynooth essay, but this is inconsistent in the same document. The better sources are all lower case, so the name should be too. As for concision, "Penal laws (Ireland)" is more concise and avoids the issue that it does not include the dissenters. Adding dates would be acceptable to me so "Penal Laws (Ireland, 1697-1728)" would be fine too. Please state if you prefer that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Dae Jang GeumJewel in the Palace – While "Dae Jang Geum" was the most common name when this article was created in 2005, that is very much not the case anymore. This was something I noticed consistently while reading the scholarship on the Korean Wave, which is that recent literature discussing the television program generally favor "Jewel in the Palace" over "Dae Jang Geum" now. (This is also the name used by various streaming services like Apple TV, Viki, Prime Video, etc.) :3 F4U (they/it) 14:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 22, 2023

  • (Discuss)Cristina VeeCristina Valenzuela – Looks like it's time to discuss this again. It seems that the subject's now-preferred name has become their "new" WP:COMMONNAME. Seems that works featuring this person since 2021 now use the "Cristina Valenzuela" name to a point where their previous stage name could be considered less recognizable at present. I believe there to be enough recent acting credits and third-party sources using the "new" name to make it the "new" WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Color mappingImage color transfer – The existing title ‘Color mapping’ is ambiguous. It could for example relate to the process where an image is mapped from one color space to another color space. The article itself currently gives the warning ‘Not to be confused with Pseudo color.’ This warning can be removed if the name is changed as suggested. If a search is performed for ‘color mapping’ using Google in ‘incognito mode’ the majority of the search results are unrelated to the topic here. If having performed the search ‘images’ are selected then only a small minority of the images relate directly to this topic. The converse is true if a search is performed for ‘image color transfer’. The name colour mapping’ is somewhat outdated and this might explain why the content is not as up to date as it should be. (Declaration of interest: if you type 'image color transfer' into Google in incognito mode my web app is the top item) EcclesMan (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Revolution of DignityUkrainian Revolution of 2014 – Revolution of Dignity → Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. 'Revolution of Dignity' is a propaganda term and is not what most of the English-speaking world would refer to the revolution as. The current title is less descriptive and brings serious NPOV concerns. One of the previous reasons for support was "even though it's not the common name in English it's a good natural dab" - another NPOV comment. Furthermore, such a title follows the general naming convention for revolutions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Frilled lizardFrill-necked lizard – See the previous discussion. Frilled-neck lizard is the common term in Australia (the country of the species), not sure where Frilled lizard is from. As another user noted, ngrams was performed incorrectly previously. It actually shows both Frilled Neck and Frill Necked as far more common than Frilled Lizard or the scientific name. I would argue that the public in Australia would not notice the difference between 'Frilled Neck' and 'Frill Necked' and they are used interchangeably, but since Frilled-neck Frill-necked is the higher n-gram term I've suggested it. I don't think its worth getting into the weeds on that one. Of course, a simple check of google search results is not reliable for advocates of Frilled Lizard as that search would also include any pages on 'frilled-neck' as well. Poketama (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kardashian familyKardashian-Jenner family – I would say that including Jenner in the title is much more accurate since that name is become more prominent. More and more frequently does inclusion of the Kardashian name also include mention of the Jenners. Heck, sometimes the family is named the "KarJenner" family. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sugar MamaSugar mama – I was instructed to open a RM since this technical request is now considered "controversial". Problem: uppercase 'M' Sugar Mama is a miscapitalisation of a common noun, and per MOS:AT should be lowercase. The reason this was sent to technical requests first, is because lowercase 'm' Sugar mama already exists as a redirect, thus preventing me from moving Sugar MamaSugar mama. Currently, uppercase 'M' Sugar Mama is a disambiguation page that links to the main article Sugar dating, and lowercase 'm' Sugar mama is currently a redirect to the same Sugar dating article. This is effectively backwards. The two Sugar Mama/mama pages should swap places, with lowercase 'm' Sugar mama taking over the role of the disambiguation page. Uppercase 'M' Sugar Mama should either be a redirect from miscapitalisation, or deleted as entirely redundant since the disambiguation page exists. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 21, 2023

  • (Discuss)Carmel, Mount HebronCarmel (Israeli settlement) – Mount Hebron is not an administrative district, and there isnt a natural disambiguation for Carmel besides possibly West Bank, but that would gloss over the differences between Israeli settlements and Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank. So the most obvious disambigiation, and most common way of referring to Carmel, is Israeli settlement. Nableezy 18:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Koichi ZenigataInspector Zenigata – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The article's lede states he is "usually called Inspector Zenigata" and the infobox simply calls him "Inspector Zenigata" as well. Dialogue, promotional material, and credits for anime and manga commonly call him simply "Inspector Zenigata", with "Koichi" only appearing occasionally (e.g. on an identification badge). Compare the names of articles like Inspector Clouseau or Doctor Doom, where the character's first name is given in the work but they are typically referred to by their title and surname. Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Muslim conquest of ArmeniaArab conquest of Armenia – Move to WP:COMMONNAME based on Ngrams, where the proposed title actually features and the current title doesn't, and Google Scholar results, where "Arab conquest of Armenia", with 23 hits, outnumbers "Muslim conquest of Armenia, with 6 hits, by more than 3:1, as well as this conquest essentially being an extension of/follow-through from the Arab–Byzantine wars (an A-class article that by community peer-reviewed consensus gets this terminology right). It is also worth noting that this page was created as the "Arab conquest of Armenia" in 2007 and only moved to the present title in a 2018 bold move without discussion - one to undo. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)All Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU)All Nepal National Free Students Union (Unified Socialist)Franked2004 moved the article from All Nepal National Free Students Union (Unified Socialist) to All Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU). Now this is not a correct disambiguation and is effectively a POV statement by associating the CPN(US)-linked group with the abbreviation 'ANNFSU'. For a brief history, ANNFSU (Nepali: अखिल नेपाल राष्ट्रिय स्वतन्त्र विद्यार्थी युनियन) emerged as the student movement of the pro-Chinese communist tendency. I don't know by heart exactly when ANNFSU first emerges, but at some point there are different 'ANNFSU', with the main ANNFSU linked to the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist–Leninist) and with the ANNFSU linked to Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention) came to be known as 'All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Sixth)'. So here there was the discrepancy in how to translate the word स्वतन्त्र into English, but in Nepali the names are identical. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) student wing continues to use 'Independent' for their All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Revolutionary). When the CPN(ML) gave way for CPN(UML) the name ANNFSU came to be primarily be associated with the CPN(UML)-linked group, as all other communist groups except the Maoists (who add '(Revolutionary)' to the name of their ANNFSU/ANNISU) became marginal compared to CPN(UML). ANNFSU is split when UML splits in 1998 but most of the splinters reunite some years later. But with the recent split as the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist), the UML-linked ANNFSU splits again into two organizations (one linked to UML, one linked to CPN(US)). From my searches there is no well-established distinction in Nepalese press between these two ANNFSUs. *"the All Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU), close to the CPN (UML)" ([14]) *"protest against the UML-affiliated All Nepal National Free Students Union’s move to padlock the election officer’s office", "Nearby, at the Ratna Rajya Laxmi Campus, the Nepal Student Union, the ANNFSU close to the Unified Socialist and the Maoist-aligned All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Revolutionary) have padlocked the campus administration.", "member of the union close to the Unified Socialist brandished a khukuri", "UML’s ANNFSU has been accusing student organisations of the ruling parties of padlocking the colleges where it has better prospects." ([15]) *"He said that All Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU) was elected in Dhankuta Multipurpose Campus" "ANNISU affiliated with CPN (Unified Socialist)'s" ([16]) *"Samik Badal has been elected the central president of the All Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU), a student wing of the CPN (UML)." ([17]) *"Counting of votes in the election held for the new leadership of All Nepal National Free Students Union is beginning tomorrow.According to Somnath Pyasi, chairperson of Central Election Commission, CPN-UML, vote counting will begin from 11:00 am tomorrow." (]) *"UML student wing, ANNFSU, the panel led by Tapendra Bahadur Shahi has emerged victorious at the Free Students Union (FSU) election held at the Ratna Rajya Laxmi Campus." ([18]) *"In terms of public results, ANNISU (Revolutionary) has won elections in 14 campuses, Nepal Student Union (NSU) in six campuses and All Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU) has won the presidency of FSU in four campuses." ([19]) *"Sunita Baral, the chairperson of All Nepal National Free Students Union (ANNFSU), the student wing of the CPN-UML, " " the National Free Students Union (ANNFSU), the student’s wing of CPN-Unified Socialist" ([20]) *[21] distinguishes between "अनेरास्ववियु (एमाले)" and "अनेरास्ववियू –नेकपा एस" *Annapurna Post uses "नेकपा (एस) निकट अनेरास्ववियू" and "अनेरास्ववियु (एमाले)" *[22] uses "अनेरास्ववियू (नेकपा एस)" and "अनेरास्ववियु (एमाले)" *[23] uses " अनेरास्ववियु (एमाले)" and simply "अनेरास्ववियु" for the CPN(US) group *Dainik Nepal uses "अनेरास्ववियु (एमाले)" and "अनेरास्ववियू (नेकपा एस)". *[24] uses "अनेरास्ववियू एस" All in all, it doesn't appear that Nepalese media neither in English nor Nepali would ascribe "ANNFSU" to the CPN(US) group primarily. There is the link which seems to point to Franked2004's argument, but this doesn't seem to match any broader use. I suggest this be moved back to All Nepal National Free Students Union (Unified Socialist). Soman (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)IK SiriusIK Sirius Bandy – Since the IK Sirius article and the IK Sirius Fotboll were created in 2006, the football department has become a stable top-tier team, and the bandy department, in history more decorated, has remained a top-tier team. The two topics gives about the same amount hits on Google depending on language, on Google Trends, sirius+football and sirius+fotboll are steady above sirius+bandy. In Retriever Mediearkivet (Nordic countries news database) for the last twelve months, sirius fotboll has 4500 hits and sirius bandy has 1600 hits. To both measures, consider the name of the sport bandy is the same in English and Scandinavian languages, while football differs (fotboll in Swedish), and the status of football and bandy worldwide. The list/article of the main club may be rewritten or transferred to a disambiguation page. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 20, 2023

  • (Discuss)Miscarriage and mental illnessMiscarriage and mental disorders – There are two main reasons for this change. First, the title of the main article regarding this topic is "Mental disorder." Therefore, it would be consistent and clearer to use the same terminology in the title of this particular article. Secondly, The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, a widely accepted classification system used in the field of psychiatry, states that "the term 'disorder' is used throughout the classification, so as to avoid even greater problems inherent in the use of terms such as 'disease' and 'illness'." The ICD-10 further clarifies that "disorder is not an exact term, but it is used to imply the existence of a clinically recognizable set of symptoms or behaviour associated in most cases with distress and with interference with personal functions." – Mariâ Magdalina (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Early Muslim conquestsArab conquests – The current title for this page is a far cry from WP:COMMONNAME, as Ngrams makes more than plain, and is unfit for purpose on several levels. First, as shown quite clearly by the Ngrams, the current title is actually the least common title ... even "early Islamic conquests" is considerably more prevalent than "early Muslim conquest". Secondly, "Early Muslim" is a distinct misnomer here, since the "Early Muslim period" is routinely used to describe everything from the Rashidun through to Abbasid periods and the Siege of Baghdad (1258), or some other regionally specific stopping point, such as the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders in 1099 in the context of Palestine (see History of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period) ... but regardless, well into the Abbasid era. And so, the Fatimid conquest of Egypt and all of the other Fatimid conquests are also examples of "Early Muslim conquests". So the current title lacks precision (in addition to concision relative to the proposed title). "Early Islamic conquests", while evidently more prevalent, suffers from the same failings. "Arab conquests" meanwhile not only crushes the opposition on Ngrams, but yields 9,000+ Google Scholar hits to 450-ish for "Early Muslim conquests". "Early Islamic conquests" is the closest rival, at 2,530 Scholar hits, so the most obvious alternative for those that find "Arab conquests" unpalatable, despite its prevalence. The real proof of the current title's uselessness comes, however, when you exclude it from the Scholar search, with "Arab conquests" still yielding 8,600 hits with its rival terms excluded - making these descriptions not only not prevalent, but excluded entirely from and therefore irrelevant to the bulk of the scholarship on the subject. By contrast, "Early Muslim conquests" without its rival terms falls to 325 hits, while "Early Islamic conquests" falls to 1,860 hits.Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)March 2023 United States bank failures2023 United States banking crisis – It appears that a considerable number of reliable, respected sources have begun to refer to the situation as a "banking crisis" as a whole: * Bloomberg: Title "Warren Buffett in Contact With Biden Team on Banking Crisis" * Financial Times: Title "Central banks announce dollar liquidity measures to ease banking crisis" * Reuters: Titled "Australia, NZ dlrs give up rally as concerns over banking crisis linger" (granted, this implies that the crisis is potential, not ongoing) * CNN: "Global banking crisis" * Australian Financial Review: Titled "US recession risks climb sharply on banking crisis" * Wall Street Journal: Titled "The Banking Crisis: A Timeline of Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse and Other Key Events" With the Credit Suisse happenings, might also have to remove the "United States" at some point. Even if the entire thing dies down today, the past week or so have certainly been a "crisis" by itself. Juxlos (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Möbius syndromeMoebius syndrome – For the sake of consistency with all other spellings in the English language, the spelling of Moebius with an 'e' and 'o' instead of 'ö' should be used. Example: It should be "Moebius syndrome" - not "Möbius" (this is a legitimate spelling but it is not common in the English language) - not "Möebius" - not "Mobius" Here are a few citations from respected sources Cleveland Clinic [2] National Institute of Health (US) [3] Medline [4]


  1. ^ "Raging into MLS?". November 8, 2003. Archived from the original on October 24, 2012. Retrieved February 21, 2017.
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
Moebiusdad (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 19, 2023

  • (Discuss)Malherbe's parakeet → ? – This bird is almost never referred to by this name in New Zealand, with usage tending to be split between Orange-fronted parakeet or Kākāriki karaka. I think that either of these would be a more suitable title, though orange-fronted parakeet has the issue of currently being a South American bird of the same name. That bird does have other naming options and so could be moved if this was deemed the primary topic for orange-fronted parakeet, but the Māori name (which also has a wide degree of usage) would alleviate this need for flow-on moves. Turnagra (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kouadio KonéManu Koné – I made a requested move for this article two years ago, but I think that a move is even more in need now. Manu Koné is the WP:COMMONNAME of the footballer, if you look at sources online. For example, if you search both names up on Google, there are hundreds of thousands more results for "Manu Koné" than for "Kouadio Koné". Next, he refers to himself as Manu, as seen on his own Instagram page, Twitter page, and TikTok page. Lastly, he is known in his club as Manu Koné, as Borussia Mönchengladbach call him Manu Koné on their own squad profiles (here). The overarching consensus is that Emmanuel Kouadio Koné is better known as Manu Koné, among football fans, commentators, and media. (Note that Kouadio isn't even his first name!). Anyways, please leave your comments below. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Luis Suárez (footballer, born 1997)Luis Suárez (Colombian footballer) – There are five footballers called Luis Suárez. The first one, there is consensus that he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (apparently), because his article is Luis Suárez. However, there are three footballers called Luis Suárez that are all different nationalities from each other (and different from the first Suárez, who is Uruguayan). They are Spanish, Colombian, and Argentine. The first go-to disambiguator when we have players of the same name is nationality, because people are more likely to differentiate players based on where they're from rather than when they are born. So, with all the four Luis Súarez(s) having different nationalities, there is absolutely no confusion as to which one is which. Finally, there is the case of the fifth Luis Suárez, Luis Fernando Suárez. However, as the article suggests, his WP:COMMONNAME is Luis Fernando Suárez and not Luis Suárez, so there should be no confusion there. On top of that, Fernando is better known for being a manager than he was known for being a player, so that should help the case as well, as he wouldn't be mistaken for the Colombian Luis Suárez that currently plays for Almería. One could therefore argue that with PRIMARYTOPIC, Luis Suárez is the more famous (Colombian footballer) than Luis Fernando Suárez, nevermind the fact that Fernando's COMMONNAME is Luis Fernando Suárez. All in all, there is absolutely no reason to keep the disambiguation as is with the birth years, as it just makes it harder for people to find the articles. The Spanish and Colombian Suárez(s) are pretty famous and people often look at those articles, so this would aid the disambiguation process. Thank you and I hope you second this motion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Saffron terrorHindu terrorism – The current page title fails at the basics of naturalness and recognizability. While since the late 1990s, "Saffron terror" has been a common phrase in South Asia for terror committed by Hindu extremist groups, for the global English-speaking audience that this encyclopedia addresses a straightforward descriptive title makes sense, per WP:NDESC, consistent with Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism. Literature-wise, as Ngrams makes plain, taking the full breadth of the literature, "Saffron terror" commands but a fraction of the mentions of the broader mentions of "Hindu terror" or "Hindu terrorism" - the latter being a term for which this page is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, meaning this page is already the only page on Wikipedia about Hindu terrorism, and not simple a page about the neologism that is "Saffron terror". Google Scholar also produces 182 results for "Hindu terrorism" to 147 hits for "Saffron terror", without even getting into the various other iterations, such as "Hindu terror" 99 hits, "Hindutva terror" 92 results, etc. that make plain that there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Iraqi conflict (2003–present)Iraqi conflict (2003–2017) – Starting with article-content, this article does not reference any conflict events happening after 2017 so the title is simply inaccurate. The most recent US combat-deployment in Iraq ended in 2021 with major combat operations having ended in 2017. Whilst there are occasional terrorist attacks in Iraq, these are not nation-wide and are instead limited to certain areas, meaning they cannot be part of a whole-country "Iraqi conflict". Since the article lacks any coverage of events after 2017, it also lacks any substantiation that reliable sources treat the present very-low-level insurgency as part of the same conflict that began in 2003. Many reliable sources instead state that the war that began in 2003 essentially ended either in 2017 or before that, these include: *Oxford Research Encyclopaedia - states that the war that the period of conflict that began in 2003 ended in 2017. *Wall Street Journal - describes the war against ISIS as having been won in 2017. *France 24 - Describes the war against ISIS as having ended in 2017. *Britannica - states that the war that began in 2003 ended in 2011. *Council on Foreign Relations - states that the war that began in 2003 ended in 2011.
    In contrast there is no coverage in reliable sources that I could find stating the opposite - that the period of conflict that began in 2003 is still ongoing. There's also consistency needed with our War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) page, where we took the US exit from Afghanistan as the end of the war, despite there still being more than one ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan (including an insurgency by ISIS!). Treating the present low-level insurgency as part of the same period of conflict that began in 2003 is therefore original research, which is not allowed. Even from a point of view of usefulness, there is no need for a page that continues the coverage beyond 2017 since we already have a list-page for conflicts in Iraq, a general history page for Iraq post-2011 (which treats the war with ISIS as having ended in 2017).
    Realistically speaking, there is likely to be violence in Iraq for some time, but that does not mean that we should treat every minor act of whatever grouping as an extension of the same conflict that began with a US-led coalition's war against Saddam Hussein without any sources that say so. We do not treat the attacks of the Real IRA as an extension of The Troubles. We do not treat the current ISIS insurgency in Afghanistan as part of the same conflict that began in 2001. We do not treat the Second World War in Europe as not having ended until the last of the insurgents in Eastern Europe were hunted down. We do not treat the Pacific War as not having ended until the surrender of Teruo Nakamura or Hiroo Onoda, despite their guerrilla attacks. FOARP (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Amritpal Singh (activist)Amritpal Singh – Over the past one month, Amritpal Singh has gained more popularity and media coverage than any other of the Amritpals out there.
    Along side a less known NBL basketball player, a domestic football player, a dead national level long jumper and a famous musician who is actually overwhelmingly known as AP Dhillon and not Amritpal, This page's subject is by far the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, which can also be demonstrated by [consolidated pageviews].
    Even if this page is not deemed PRIMARY by consensus, he must not go by the name activist because hardly any sources call him that. Something like (separatist) could be used. >>> 15:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 18, 2023

Elapsed listings


  • (Discuss)Neuilly-sur-SeineNeuillyNeuilly-sur-Seine is the common name of this city, and by far the most common meaning of "Neuilly". Here is some evidence: * The lead of Neuilly-sur-Seine says that it is "also known simply as Neuilly" * As far as I can tell, every link to Neuilly in fact intends to link to Neuilly-sur-Seine * Neuilly-sur-Seine gets about 100x as many page views as the current dab page (14,999 vs. 155) * The next most popular pages called Neuilly are Neuilly-sur-Marne (197) and Neuilly-Plaisance(196) * The remaining places called Neuilly are small (population < 5000) or very small (population < 1000) * There are 1815 wikilinks to Neuilly-sur-Seine, 317 links to Neuilly-sur-Marne, and 85 to Neuilly-Plaisance * On Google, the search [Neuilly] returns an infobox on Neuilly-sur-Seine and all the organic results are about it * On Bing, the search [Neuilly] returns an infobox on Neuilly-sur-Seine and most of the organic results are about it * On, the search [Neuilly] returns Neuilly-sur-Seine in position 1 * In fact, doesn't even have articles on Neuilly-sur-Marne and Neuilly-Plaisance * Most other pages with "Neuilly" in their names are referring to Neuilly-sur-Seine: the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine (commonly called the Treaty of Neuilly [30]); the Château de Neuilly; the Pont de Neuilly; the Synagogue de Neuilly; only Fulk of Neuilly refers to Neuilly-sur-Marne I brought this up for discussion on the Talk pages of Neuilly-sur-Seine and Neuilly two weeks ago and have had no reactions. Macrakis (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Noe Valley public toilet → ? – "Noe Valley public toilet" has almost no use in sources. Don't know what it should be moved to as most sources seem to refer to it with some variation of "1.7 million dollar toilet" but I'm not sure how suitable that is. BhamBoi (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) BhamBoi (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)CarveboardingSurfskating – The page was WP:PROD'd by Beehiel with the rationale "Carveboarding refers to a specific product—a Carveboard—which is no longer in production. This article should be replaced by surfskating, as the two are being confused by Wikipedia." I removed the PROD as if this is true, this page should be moved to Surfskating and have the references to carveboarding largely replaced by surfskating. TartarTorte 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 21:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Horse-flyTabanidae – # # # # I was working on trying to fix some naming errors related to taxonomy with article titles, but this got messy with multiple articles involved in the mix-ups, so doing this as an RM instead of manually because of all the existing redirects. This move deals with article names related to horse and deer flies.[32][33] In short, the top level article that's currently Horse-fly isn't about horseflies, but instead about the entire family Tabanidae. The family includes horse flies among other groups and is incorrect and ambiguous under WP:COMMONNAME policy and WP:FAUNA as currently titled. We'd just be following the guidance and defaulting the the official scientific name for a title like we do when there's no clear common name like lady beetle/Coccinellidae. This group is typically referred to as horseflies and deerflies among other names in sources because there are multiple distinct groups within the family like Tabaninae/horse flies or Chrysopsinae/deer flies. No one name really satisfies a singular common name at that level of the taxonomy at least, and trying to pin down a common name at that level of the hierarchy messes up names for the distinct groups that do actually claim those names further down the line. The second move is from additional confusion because the current article on deer fly does not go to Chrysopsinae as intended, but instead a much smaller group within that, Chrysops. The third move then puts the actual deer flies (Chrysopsinae) under the correct common name and the fourth basically does the same for horse fly/Tabaninae, though that one already has horse fly redirecting to Tabaninae, so it'd just be a swap. The first two moves are higher priority to fix inaccurate titles though, but the last two just help make things a bit more standardized. KoA (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See also