Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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 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:..." 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

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@ I've added your proposed name/title as part of the lede section, where I feel it belongs rather than an actual article title. I may be wrong, but we use no promoted titles on WP unless independent sourcing unconnected to it/this, excluding the booking sources you just gave, says/shows so! Intrisit (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a WP:PCM. If you wish to continue with your request, click the discuss link in your request to begin a formal WP:RM discussion. Once you've done that, or if you do not wish to continue, please remove your request. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:32, 28 September 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|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 29 September 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.

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 29 September 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 16:13, 29 September 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 29 September 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 16:13, 29 September 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 29 September 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 16:13, 29 September 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 29 September 2023

– why Example (talk) 16:13, 29 September 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 29 September 2023

– why Example (talk) 16:13, 29 September 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: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. 67 discussions have been relisted.

September 29, 2023

  • (Discuss)British IndiansIndian British people – See the topic directly above. They are no longer Indian citizens; they are British citizens. "British Indian" could denote Indian citizens with some connection to Britain, such as ancestral ties to the UK or those who have lived in the UK for some time. However, if they obtain British nationality, they are referred to as "Indian British people". Kpratter (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Welsh Language SocietyCymdeithas yr Iaith – Change in common name used by independent, reliable, English-language secondary sources, per WP:COMMONNAMEWikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) over the last 12 months. Note, COMMONNAME does not mean the most popular name per Google Trends or Google Search, as stated in WP:WIAN, but the COMMONNAME in sources. As stated in the supporting evidence below, the lead of WLS in Ngrams has drastically reduced, with Welsh forms sometimes taking the lead, and Google News Articles from the last 12 months show more use of the Welsh name. Manually searching shows many publications in the UK and Wales use the Welsh name first or not in parenthesis, while possibly using WLS secondly, in parenthesis or as a potential descriptor. International recent sources are scarce, while many use WLS, they discuss past events which per WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:WIAN shouldn't be given too much weight in terms of context. Therefore decided there is a basis for a RM for consideration. DankJae 09:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Takehiko YamashinaPrince Yamashina Takehiko – Japan's imperial family had a lot of cadet branches whose members were stripped of their titles after World War II. They started using names and surnames but the pages for all the heads of these deposed cadet branches use the pre-abolition styles, the only exceptions are these two former princes. Most of them had obscure private lives after their loss of titles so most sources focus on the periods of their lives when they were princes, moving these two pages would also create consistency with how the pages for their cousins are titled. Killuminator (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Alpha-olefinTerminal alkene – The term "alpha-olefin" or its various spellings (like α-olefin) are not in common use; for instance the term does not appear in the 3 organic chemistry textbooks I have access to. Olefin in general is becoming more and more a deprecated, or at least secondary, synonym for alkene. The subject of this article isn't really a concept that is discussed prevalently on its own, as the concepts are usually discussed in terms of vinyl groups and vinylidene groups, but if we're looking for a term that encompasses both functional groups, then "terminal alkene" seems most appropriate. It appears in at least one organic chemistry textbook, and has the advantage of avoiding confusion with Greek letter prefixes and hyphens. Linear alpha olefin should be moved analogously, except "straight-chain" is more precise and in more prevalent use than "linear" though I would be fine with either. Really, pending the outcome here I propose to merge the two articles, as I don't see a need for a daughter article here, and if that were to happen than the title of the second article would be moot. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Georgia (country)Georgia – This is no doubt a perennial proposal, but I do believe that the above changes should be made. I argue that Georgia (country) is the primary topic for the title "Georgia" for the following reasons: *International significance: a sovereign country clearly has more global significance than a constituent polity (i.e., the state). Wikipedia should be subject to American-centric bias as little as possible. *Pageviews: I don't like to use this argument, but the results are pretty clear: the country has twice the pageviews of the state. *Overall significance: If Odisha changed its name today to Tajikistan, would we move to that article to Tajikistan (country)? I hope not! An independent country will always have more significance, and more claim to WP:PTOPIC, than a constituent polity of a larger country. *Long-term significance: while the British colony of Georgia was established under that name in the 18th century, the Georgians are an ethnic group, thus giving that name more, in my view, long-term claim to that region (if this makes any sense). See Georgians#History for more rationale of this explanation. Edward-Woodrowtalk 00:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 28, 2023

  • (Discuss)LimpaVörtbröd – As per discussion. Limpa means loaf. This bread is called vörtbröd. The top image is however not depicting a vörtbröd but some other kind of bread. Ariam (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrowtalk 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Zionism, race and geneticsZionism, race, and genetics – There have been a lot of discussions here about renames, but this proposal is simply to put a comma after "race", and before "and genetics". This is something that was raised earlier, during the previous requested move, and it appeared to be non-controversial then. Although just a comma, it has the effect of breaking up the phrase "race and genetics". My hope is that it will be acceptable to editors who approve of the existing pagename, while also being at least a small and incremental step for editors who dislike the current title. -- Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Theranda City StadiumSuva Reka City Stadium – First, Theranda is the unofficial name of Suva Reka and second, "Suva Reka City Stadium" is the original name of the stadium, and we should revert to that.
    → An editor named RoyalHeritageAlb has changed without discussion (at least on the talk page there is no evidence that this change was discussed) the name of the article from Suva Reka City Stadium to Theranda City Stadium. BalkanianActuality (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 27, 2023

  • (Discuss)Coronation of Bokassa ICoronation of Bokassa I and Catherine
    The coronation of Emperor Bokassa I also included his wife Catherine as Empress. Not to mention, it was an entire copy of the coronation of Napoleon. The article for that also includes his wife's name, and so do other articles (excluding Elizabeth) who had consorts of the same rank.
    It's quite simple.
    Please voice your opinions.
    BillClinternet (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Maurice Young (baseball)Maurice YoungMaurice Young is currently a redirect to the page of rapper Trick Daddy, whose real name is Maurice Young. Despite this, I don't see any reason why he should be the target of a primary redirect of this name. The page views and sourcing alone may prove that Trick Daddy is a lot more culturally significant than the baseball player, but given that the latter went professionally by the name Maurice Young, I believe that it would make sense to have his page bear the name with a hatnote for those who may be looking for Trick Daddy's page. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Milan Obrenović II, Prince of SerbiaMilan Obrenović, Prince of Serbia – To make it more consistent with his father and brother, both moved earlier this year. This would be similar to how the Serbian language version of Wikipedia names the page.They simply use prince in brackets but we'd use the proper, formal title. The problem with the current name, which was also an issue for his father and brother, is the lack of sources for the bizarre ordinals. This is not how they're remembered in Serbian and regional historiography and that is reflected in sources and the Serbian version of the Article. He had a cousin who was also called Milan and was also Prince of Serbia but the cousin became king so ambiguity is generally not an issue. Killuminator (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. HouseBlastertalk 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Afro-textured hairKinky hair – The prefix afro- implies that kinky hair is only found in the Indigenous peoples of Africa, when in reality it is also found in the Indigenous populations of many places outside of Africa, including but not limited to Australia and Melanesia. Using the term kinky instead of the term afro-textured would prevent this implication. – Treetoes023 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Muslim period in the Indian subcontinentMuslim rule in India – This article has a long history of undiscussed moves, so it gets about time to start an RM. "Period" is ambiguous because a Muslim period in one part of India was completely different from a Muslim period in another part of India. The point is Muslim rule, not Muslim period. Second, "the Indian subcontinent" is unnecessary verbose because India before 1947 was equal to the subcontinent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Apple CampusApple Campus (Infinite Loop) – Let's try this again, and I hope we don't come to a No Good Solutions situation again. Given that multiple Apple Campuses exist, Apple Campus is not a good choice and we need some sort of disambiguation or qualifier. Though the campus is presently named "Apple Campus", "Infinite Loop" in reference to Apple almost always means this campus. "Apple Infinite Loop" is even the name of the Apple Retail Store here. (see [2]) Therefore, to combine both the official name as well as how it is referred to commonly, and to solve the disambiguation, I would propose that this article be retitled to Apple Campus (Infinite Loop). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Eruca vesicariaArugula – Articles for plant articles with a one to one correlation with a culinary product should always be at a common name, see WP:FLORATITLES. This article is currently in violation of wikipedia policy. I want to stress there is NO policy or precedent supporting the use of scientific name in this article, similar articles with ambiguos common names are at one of those names not at the scientific. The reason this article is not properly named is from people seeing the British/American fights in articles like Maize or Zucchini, the relevant policy WP:ENGVAR also support the title being at one of the names in question. I do not think people will get into a big fight about this move, people do not seem up in arms for the name Rocket. If in this move request people are actually upset and think the name should be Rocket(plant) or something, Please pick a fight in the comments below. I would rather this article be at rocket then in latin, I won't argue for why Arugula is better than rocket because I don't feel like it matters. I have not seen evidence that people will get into a fight about this, so it feels like a nonissue. There is a cabal of people on wikipedia who want every article to be at Latin name who I feel like take advantage of situations like this to push Latin name which is against policy, weirdly elitist and makes article naming inconstant because almost all common plants and animals are at a common name. If you really want the name rocket then you can put in a move request whether or not this move succeeds or fails Always beleive in hope (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)BBN MusicFortissimo Records – I'm requesting a reversion of the change of this page's title to "BBN Music". The UK record label Fortissimo Records has absolutely not been acquired by BBN Music. The record label is still under the control of Don Mclean and continues to release independent music. (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)CITVCITV (TV channel) – I think that it would more appropriate to spin off content spin-off content about the programming block into its own page, as it continues on ITV2. The block has existed for a lot longer than the channel and has been revived on ITV2, after the channel being simulcast on ITV1 since 2006. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 01:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 26, 2023

  • (Discuss)Prehistory of QuebecPre-Columbian history of Quebec – I'm requesting a move/change of name because this is a full article that talks about Quebec's pre-Columbian or precolonial period. It covers 9000BC to European contact. Since most of the article covers time ranges that are more recent than 3000BC, the word prehistory is not accurate. But pre-columbian is because it ends at European contact. I cannot change the name myself as a redirect with that name already exists (the redirect leads to a subsection of the History of Quebec's page). Safyrr 03:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mdewman6 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Entertainment StudiosAllen Media Group – Entertainment Studios is now a subsidiary of Allen Media Group, and this article has come to describe the entirety of AMG beyond, but also including, ES. Allen Media Group's Investor Relations page describes the relationship between the two as such:

    In 1993, Byron Allen started Entertainment Studios (ES). Since then he has built a media empire that includes everything from Broadcast Television Stations to Mobile APPS and OTT platforms that are transforming our business.

    In 2018, Mr. Allen established ALLEN MEDIA GROUP, (AMG) which encompasses all of the original business units from his (ES) banner, upon which he has built and expanded.

    On the website, the Entertainment Studios section of the company is listed in the Business Units dropdown as "The Network Group". Its website,, appears to reference both "Allen Media Group Networks" and "Entertainment Studios Networks" brands, but the primary logo and the copyright in the footer both mention are both now AMG. In addition, the copyright notice of reads "Copyright 2023, Allen Media Group".
    In short, Entertainment Studios is no longer legally or publicly the name by which the whole subject matter of this article is known; it is Allen Media Group. Gus Polly (Talk | Contribs) 04:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Hollywood Casino Amphitheatre (Maryland Heights, Missouri)Riverport Amphitheatre – common name of a venue frequently name-changed due to naming rights sales. Venue has had 4 names in its existence, already required 1 move since the page was created due to naming rights sale (another would have been required if the page had been created a year earlier). There's every sign that it's going to change again in the next few years. Significant coverage, including the venue's own page, references it as "the former Riverport Amphitheatre" - suggesting that's a more useful identifier than the current name which will eventually need moved anyway to keep current. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Darker Dreams (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 03:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 25, 2023

  • (Discuss)Italian EmpireItalian colonial empire – This is a fundamentally colonial topic, as the infobox and categories show. "Italian Empire" was never an officially used title, the "home country" was the Kingdom of Italy. The name "Italian Empire" capital E suggests a much larger formal state control over colonial possessions than was factually the case. I also see in English-language literature that "Italian empire" is often written with a lowercase e. It's worth emphasizing that a colonial empire represents a distinct category of empire, and for the sake of precision, the title should reflect that. While it's true that the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy did not govern any empire apart from colonial empires, this should not preclude the inclusion of the term 'colonial' in the title. It is a fact that 'British Empire' is a well-established exception. Kpratter (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrowtalk 23:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Variety (linguistics)Lect – The term "variety" is very ambiguous, and is often used interchangeably in linguistic circles for a dialect. The article should mention that a lect may also be termed as a "variety", but the more precise term should be used as the article title to prevent any confusion that the term "variety" might cause. – Treetoes023 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Chrysanthus JanssenChrysanthus (arachnologist) – Chrysanthus, although born Wilhelmus Egbertus Antonius Janssen, is hardly ever referred to by the "Chrysanthus Janssen" with a combination of his monastic name and birth surname. None of the sources used as references for this Wikipedia article use this name (see #Title above), and there are only four Google hits, all in Dutch and three of which are trivial mentions, for "Chrysanthus Janssen" unrelated to the Wikipedia article's new name after it was changed without discussion from Father Chrysanthus (courtesy ping Medusahead). English sources routinely refer to him as "F[athe]r Chrysanthus" or just "Chrysanthus", but as he is notable for his arachnological research and Chrysanthus already exists as a disambiguation page, Chrysanthus (arachnologist) would work as a new name for this article; it already exists as a redirect here. Discussion at WT:D#Can a (religious) title be used to disambiguate? (courtesy ping: Cullen328, SMcCandlish) confirmed that the parenthetical (arachnologist) would be preferable to use of the title in the article name. Umimmak (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [Edit: just to clarify my own position, I just don't want it to be at Chrysanthus Janssen, but I don't have strong opinions between the article's original title Father Chrysanthus and Chrysanthus (arachnologist) — it just initially seemed there'd be more support for the latter so that's how I formulated the move request discussion. Umimmak (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Mia MagmaMia Julia Brückner – Hasn't gone by "Magma" in over a decade. Well known now (hundreds of thousands of social media followers) as Mia Julia or Mia Julia Brückner or Mia Julia Brueckner. Home language German Wikipedia has Mia Julia Brückner as title. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 24, 2023

  • (Discuss)OSIRIS-RExOSIRIS (spacecraft) – As shown by the article's current sources, the Sample Return Capsule has returned to Earth, ending the OSIRIS-REx mission. The main spacecraft is continuing to asteroid Apophis on its extended mission, referred to as OSIRIS-APEX. As a result, this article should be renamed to OSIRIS (spacecraft) to allow it to cover both missions without confusing the reader. The lead has already been updated to refer to APEX, which is confusing due to the rest of the page focusing on REx. Rainclaw7 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Auto-antonymContronym – Contronym seems to be by far the WP:COMMONNAME here, four times the Google results (and auto-antonym doesn't even come up on ngrams). The Oxford English Dictionary only has contronym. Auto-antonym seems to have originated from the initial ref and a cursory Google Books search shows no mentions before 1965, whereas contronym originated around the 50s-60s. – Isochrone (T) 14:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Lana (wrestler)C. J. Perry – This is her real name (abbreviated), the name she uses as an actress, and the name she is currently using in All Elite Wrestling. She hasn't gone by Lana in a while. McPhail (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)DeerCervidae – The term "deer" can be very inconsistent as popular as it is. First of all, there's a technicality by Americans who use the term "deer" to refer to cervids of the genus Odocoileus and exclude other cervids of the genera Cervus and Alces. Second, the moose is not normally referred to as a "deer" informally, so there's some viverrid-civet level of technicality behind what it's called. Third, the term "deer" isn't just used for members of the Cervidae, it can also be used for members of the Tragulidae ("mouse deer") and Moschidae ("musk deer"), both of which have "deer" in their common names (Antelope of the family Bovidae can also be called "deer" popularly, although that's more of a misconception). This 1990 source suggests that "deer" can be used for the Cervidae, Tragulidae, and Moschidae. Another from 2019 says that the Cervidae is called "true deer" instead of just "deer," but they still prioritize using "cervids." By moving the page to Cervidae, the page is more inclusive of all true members and excludes other ruminants that can also be called "deer." Although "true deer" is an option, it's not particularly common based on Google Scholar results. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)SummonedSummoned (film) – I doubt that the film is the primary topic over either the magical or legal meanings in the hatnote. I would move this and disambiguate the title between the three. BD2412 T 05:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Child groomingSexual grooming – Grooming means to prepare someone/something for a purpose, which is why it covers things like "getting ready in the morning" and "cleaning and saddling horses" all the way to "mentoring someone for a leadership position. However, it's also used to describe a type of child sexual abuse. Most sources use grooming on it's own, sexual grooming is second most likely, then child sexual grooming is the third - but child grooming is rarer. The other problem with using the word "child" when there isn't an established meaning of "child grooming" is that there are arguments about what child means - the original meaning from the 80's of prepubescent children? Are Adolescents included or not? If it's a minor; what does that mean when some places allow 16 year olds to consent to sexual relationships and others use 18? As a representative discussion, this is a NY Times article from 2021 [33] you'll find it describes sexual grooming for children, adolescents, and even adults - and that's how it's described just about everywhere today. If we make a separate "Sexual Grooming" it would duplicate "Child Grooming" in 90% of it's content, so it makes more sense to use "Sexual Grooming" as the article scope. Denaar (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 23, 2023

  • (Discuss)Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia → ? – Both individuals were heirs apparent to the throne of Russia. Tsarevich and tsesarevich aren't the same title and they easily confuse people. Different titles were used in the two articles despite both individuals being in an identical position. This creates consistency issues. I'm not putting forward a particular choice for uniformity because this would invite reflexive supportive and oppositional votes. This format is better suited for a dialogue on how to best title both pages. The page for Alexei has had discussions before that went nowhere and same questions pop up from year to year. Killuminator (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sentimental balladBallad (music) – Its more often called power ballad or just ballad so a more common name for the article fits better. also, just glancing over the sources, none of them actually uses the term "sentimental ballad" --- FMSky (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrowtalk 20:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)List of Christian holy places in the Holy LandList of Christian holy places in the Levant – This page currently defines itself in terms of a religiously conceptualized space rather than a clear geography and is moreover not very WP:PRECISE. It is very much stretching the limits of the definition of "Holy Land" – a space that is variously defined, but in its typical sense is considered the Israel/Palestine area between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. The contents of the page range far further than this, reaching deep in Syria to the North, Jordan to the East and the Sinai to the South. All of the places align quite well however with the area ascribed to the Levant in the sense used in the 21st century (as a term bracketing the Westernmost portion of West Asia), so this term feels like both more appropriate and precise term for delineating the geography here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrowtalk 14:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Krasnyi LuchKhrustalnyi – It is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources now, I would say. Compare these two searches on Google News for Khrustalnyi and for Krasnyi Luch that filter out results from before the name change. The ones that use Krasnyi Luch would seem to be about the same as the ones that use Khrustalnyi, but this is actually not the case. Many of them are informal blog sites like Daily Kos, or are talking about the city in a pre-decommunization context anyway, so I don't think they should be counted. When it comes to modern sources post-2016, they mostly refer to the city by its official name when talking about it in a modern context - so we should as well. HappyWith (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrowtalk 14:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Dongyue Emperor → ? – The current name "Dongyue Emperor" is a subject of controversy. I've initiated a discussion and am uncertain whether the article should be titled "Emperor Dongyue" or "Dongyue Dadi." I'm unsure which is more appropriate, and this decision may impact Xiyue Dadi. I warmly welcome opinions and comments from experienced editors and native Chinese editors. Thank you. (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Martinez RefineryMarathon Martinez Renewable Fuels – There are two refineries in Martinez. This article contained information about both of them and was very confusing. It has been cleaned up, but I recommend renaming this article "Marathon Martinez Renewable Fuels" and creating a new article named "Martinez Refining Company" for the other refinery. Both articles should have "not to be confused with" tags referencing the other article. This will help prevent any confusion moving forward. (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 22, 2023

  • (Discuss)Fall River (disambiguation)Fall River – It's been 15 years since this was last discussed and there are now many more "Fall River" articles. Unlike pages like Pittsfield which point to the most populated place with that proper name, "Fall River" is a fairly generic river name. There are many articles on rivers with that name which have nothing to do with the Massachusetts city—it's this component which I think makes it important not to assume that people around the world will automatically think of one city when reading "Fall River". I've already disambiguated all the links to Fall River so the move will not cause issues. Some of the links incorrectly pointed to the Massachusetts city when they should have pointed to other articles, so the move should also avoid these such issues in the future. QuincyMorgan (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Bluesky SocialBluesky – Almost all news articles about Bluesky, as well as Bluesky itself, don't seem to use the "Social", and simply use the WP:COMMONNAME "Bluesky". The existing Bluesky page is a redirect that hasn't been edited since 2007 so I don't think there would be any harm in moving this article to there; it would be possible to add a hatnote to this article pointing to the Blue Sky disambiguation page. Additionally, this article is clearly the primary topic for "Bluesky", as the only other two articles with that spelling- Bluesky, Alberta and Bluesky Formation- don't even come close in terms of pageviews. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)The Royal FoundationThe Royal Foundation of the Prince and Princess of Wales – The new title, I believe, would be most accurate as the present title was retired in 2020 itself upon the exit of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the Foundation. In that case, the title "The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" would have been the most accurate page title as that was the charity's name from 2020 until September 9, 2022. I thought it best to put up the matter on the talk page for discussion before the move is put into force. I mean good faith and am aiming at accuracy and relevancy. MSincccc (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • (Discuss)Polar forests of the CretaceousPolar forest – This has always seemed like a somewhat nebulous topic and article title. There is no doubt in my mind that the topic of "polar forest" is probably notable, but it seems strange to confine coverage of the topic solely to the Cretaceous period, when polars forests have existed for large streches of earth's history both before and after the Cretaceous. I intend to heavily rewrite the article if the move request goes through. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Solomon B TaiwoAdam Treasure – Why I'd like to request a page renaming to "Adam Treasure" based on my findings online that this individual has undergone a professional change. I've gathered information from sources such as IMDb and other reputable sources. Could you please consider moving this page? I'll be adding additional references that adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines, as the page does require further improvement.... Editmas2023 (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Maasai religionMaasai spirituality – The recent move to Maasai religion from Maasai spirituality was explained as being done to "correspond with the other Bantu religion pages". This is pretty simple: Maasai are not Bantu, they are Nilotes.123 Additionally, Maasai spiritual beliefs are better described as "spirituality" than "religion". This source refers to their beliefs as "spiritual": 2. This one distinguishes between Christianity as religion and Maasai indigenous spiritual beliefs 4. "Maasai spirituality" much better fits quality reliable sources on this subject. At the very least, the recent move should be reverted while it is under discussion for consensus. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)One Piece (TV series)One Piece (1999 TV series) – or One Piece (animated TV series). Per WP:INCOMPLETEDAB. Wikipedia has a few topics that require disambiguation but are so dominant within a category that their titles use only partial disambiguation. This is the only one I'm aware of where a partially disambiguated topic name is considered primary even though a different topic has a higher number of recent pageviews. Four-and-a-half times as many, in fact. When this question was last discussed eight months ago, the 1999 series was still more popular to read about than the 2023 topic. That isn't the case anymore. The vast majority of people looking on Wikipedia for information about a TV series called "One Piece" are not looking for this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1890–1958) → ? – A decade ago there were discussions on how to title and disambiguate the page better but nobody followed up on it. Some have pointed out that using dates in the title is not an improvement and there were several women called Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia. There is no clear primary topic. One uses her maiden name for the article title, I've proposed a move for the second and this is the last one remaining. She was married twice but divorced. The titles of her husbands could be used as a more natural disambiguation. Alternatively, she seems to have been called the younger during her lifetime to differentiate her from an older Maria Pavlovna. Killuminator (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Cirith Ungol (band)Cirith Ungol – Much more evidence of notability displayed in this band's article than for the random bit of fictional geography they're named after. The undabbed link currently redirects to a small section of Mordor, an article which only mentions Cirith Ungol briefly. The only reason that would be PTOPIC is because the band is clearly named after it, but I don't think that should override anything else. And the loss of the redirect could be solved with a hatnote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Libyan civil war (2011)2011 Libyan uprising – This page should move to 2011 Libyan uprising, as a both naturally disambiguated (per WP:NCDAB) and descriptive title (per WP:NCE) that also finds prevalence in scholarship. While "civil war" is one descriptor for this event, the majoritarian language for this event is as a "revolution" or "uprising". As Ngrams shows, there are more results for "revolution" and "uprising" overall than for "civil war". Of these two near synonyms, the terminology of "uprising" specifically is the most effective for disambiguating the event from the earlier revolution in the 1960s, since the terminology of "Libyan uprising" is fairly unique to this event as a specific move against a perceived dictator/Arab Spring uprising. "2011 Libyan uprising" also appears to find slightly more prevalence in scholarship, at 314 hits in google scholar to 262 hits for "2011 Libyan revolution". If all of the different names for the event are plugged in together, you will also see that uprising or revolution generally emerges on top. But ultimately it is a choice, as this source notes, different sources and authors use all of the terms “revolution,” “civil war ‚” and “uprisings” to capture different dimensions of the events unfolding in Libya from February to October 2011. But per the points put forward above, I would suggest that 2011 Libyan uprising is the best choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)United Monarchy – The subject of this page is a postulated political entity most prevalently referred to in scholarship as the "United Monarchy". This term's prevalence in scholarship is demonstrated in a search of "Kingdom of Israel" and "United Monarchy" together in Google Scholar - which sees "United Monarchy" almost invariably come out on top in the title. Even imagining that "United Monarchy" is not the most prevalent term for the subject, it would still be a naturally disambiguated title, which, per WP:NCDAB, is preferred over a parenthetically disambiguated one (which is unconcise by its nature, as rather effectively exemplified here). "United Kingdom of Israel" is also a frequent term in scholarship, but if we compare the general usage of the two terms, "United Monarchy" comes out clearly on top in Ngrams. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malformed requests


See also