Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

Note: "Kim Jin-kyu" and "Kim Jin-gyu" are different English spellings for the same Korean name (김진규). Annh07 (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests


@VictiniFan360 I don't understand your justification, none of the articles that you cite use this format, if you want a wider discussion open a multi page move request (hit discuss) Polyamorph (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi @Amakuru: Here are examples:
 — Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This should not be an uncontroversial technical request; the requester previously moved this and it was reverted. On mobile now so I can’t convert the request to an RM immediately, but it should not be granted as an uncontroversial technical request. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you @1isall. Will reply with sources showing current title as common name within the next day. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
It's what I do. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose move. "Philippine Independent Catholic Church", the anglicization of the name "Iglesia Catolica Filipina Independiente", is the WP:COMMONNAME for the church that is officially known as the "International Conference of Philippine Independent Catholic Churches of Jesus Christ". It is described as the "Philippine Independent Catholic Church" in standard reference works on religion (Melton and Baumann's Religions of the World; Barrett, Kurian and Johnson's World Christian Encyclopedia; and Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions). The Philippine government statistical agency refers to this organization as the "Philippine Independent Catholic Church" in its 2023 statistical table (Excel file download at this link, look at column CR). Recent reliable source news coverage more often refers to this organization as the "Iglesia Catolica Filipina Independiente" or the "Philippine Independent Catholic Church" (Inquirer, Inquirer, Politiko.com.ph). On the contrary, Google News turns up zero independent secondary news coverage using the formal name, and the requester's sources are primary sources (a city government website, a bishop's letter and a paid placement obituary, not independent secondary reliable sources. One example of the use of the COMMONNAME instead of the official name is the PICC/ICFI's concordat of communion with the Anglican Church in North America. The text of the concordat uses the official name, while the press release and reliable source news coverage in The Living Church announcing it uses "Philippine Independent Catholic Church", which is a sign that the latter is more recognizable in common use. Whatever official rulings the Philippine SEC has made, it hasn't yet been reflected in common use by reliable sources, and thus we should stick with the COMMONNAME until sufficient evidence emerges that the COMMONNAME has changed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Okay. I see your point. Thank you for that. This is very helpful indeed. If that's the case, then I'll have to move Philippine Independent Church to "Iglesia Filipina Independiente" then as per WP:COMMONNAME. If you look it up, Iglesia Filipina Independiente has much more results and is more common than Philippine Independent Church. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd consider any move of the Philippine Independent Church article as a WP:PCM. Is "Iglesia Filipina Independiente" the name most commonly used by English-language reliable sources? 162 etc. (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@~2026-43866-45 No evidence (such as sources) for the common name. This should likely be discussed anyway. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 16:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) Click "discuss" to open a formal move discussion, as it cannot be actioned as an uncontroversial technical request. Polyamorph (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I'll leave this to another editor if they want to start the RM. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@KingArti I would submit this to AfC, as its last publication attempt was contested in May. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

I expect this move will be controversial, but since it hasn't been contested yet, it's going here. Someone else with an objection can do it instead. guninvalid (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Robot clerk note: One or both pages in this request are either create-protected or move-protected. It has been moved from the Uncontroversial technical requests section. TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Guninvalid: Given the extensive submission-and-decline history at AfC, this is clearly not uncontroversial and I would highly recommend making sure the draft has been improved since the April and June declines and then resubmitting for AfC review when ready. Take care. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    I'll also note that the AfD discussion concluded in favor of SALTing the mainspace article to force editors to go through the AfC submission process, which should not be bypassed by requesting such moves here instead. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Red Shogun412, I agree with all of that. That's why I originally filed the request as a MfD, even if incorrectly. At the MfD, I was asked to move this to WP:RMTR, so here I am. Yes, the sourcing has changed considerably since the previous declines, two of which were performed by myself. I haven't really closely checked the article quality, nor do I have the knowledge to properly do so (I've never watched BFDI, so most of it is just noise to me). But for each of the previous declines, the draft has had exactly three sources, one of which was a tweet by a voice actress saying she plays a particular character, so WP:NLIST was not met. WP:NLIST is now met, in my opinion. I'm still hesitant to submit for AfC because an admin would need to do it anyway, not any particular editor. More importantly, if someone were to submit this version, I would accept it as a AfC reviewer. So this is my way of "accepting" the draft myself. The only other venue I can think of would be WP:AN or an admin's personal talk page. @User talk:aesurias, perhaps? guninvalid (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    I see now that I'm in the Admin Needed section, so I think this should be good. guninvalid (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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 15 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 15 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 03:29, 15 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 15 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 03:29, 15 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 15 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 03:29, 15 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 15 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 03:29, 15 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 15 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 03:29, 15 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. 76 discussions have been relisted.

    September 15, 2026

    September 14, 2026

    • (Discuss) – NHL on Prime → NHL on Prime Video – Not really sure why this is controversial. The recently-closed discussion at NFL on Prime Video affirmed the preference to include "Video" in the title, so changing this NHL page to reflect the other sports is a pretty clear-cut move to comply with WP:CONSISTENT: To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:33, 14 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) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 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) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 00:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 13, 2026

    • (Discuss) – 105-Man Incident → ? – The title "105-Man Incident" doesn't translate very well into English. I think this could be a WP:NDESC situation as the English language source by Nagata doesn't label a specific name for the incident. I suggest we move this to a different title. "Sŏnch'ŏn Incident" or "105-men Incident" might work. 00101984hjw (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – 2026 Moscow bombing → 2026 Moscow restaurant bombing – There was general consensus in the previous RM that the current title is too vague, the issue was that the destination could not be agreed on. I propose this title because the restaurant itself is not shown to be a notable location and the name of it is not typically used in English-language headlines. Many English-language sources say that the bombing took place at a restaurant. This proposal follows the guidance of when, where, and what at WP:NCWWW and hopes to make the current title less vague. I explored the possibility of implementing Kudrinskaya Square Building into the title, but most sources don't emphasize that, and therefore it would seem less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to include it. Raskuly 🐰 21:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Old World babbler → Timaliidae – The family Timaliidae was once broad enough to be aptly called the "Old World babblers." Still, it has since been significantly reduced in size as numerous families split off, and it can no longer be considered truly representative of all Old World babblers. For example, AviList refers to this family as "Tree Babblers, Scimitar Babblers, and Allies," and Birds of the World uses the same designation, except for the hyphen. Please also refer to the discussion at WP:BIRD. コロネン (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – 2026 Iran war → Iran War – I’m making an extremely bold move request here, but I do believe that an appropriate amount of time has passed since the last move discussion (nearly six months ago) and I believe that it is time to have this discussion again, now that there is a plethora of new sources and articles regarding the war. Numerous reliable sources have dropped explicitly using the year in reference to this conflict, with almost all sources opting to refer to this conflict with something along the lines of “Iran War” or the “War in Iran”. On Wikipedia itself, when searching up “Iran War”, users are redirected to the List of wars involving Iran (after 1979) page, however the first thing that users are met with is a line directing users to this page, presumably for those whom ended up at that page whilst trying to search for this page. When viewing the number of page views for the Iran War redirect, it shows that a vast majority of users had searched the term when this current conflict began and continue to do so, therefore I believe that it is fair to assume that said users were likely trying to search for this page instead of the entire list of wars with Iran. As previously mentioned, numerous reliable sources have all since dropped using the year when referring to this conflict, with a majority of sources using “Iran War” or “War in Iran”. Listed below are just a few examples of articles posted by reliable sources: Al Jazeera consistently refers to the conflict as the “Iran war”. Reuters uses “Iran War” and “Iran war” interchangeably. The CSIS refers to the conflict as the “War in Iran”. AP News consistently refer to the conflict as the “Iran war”. NBC News uses “Iran war”. The Council on Foreign Relations uses “Iran War”. The BBC uses “Iran war” and “War in Iran” interchangeably. CBS News uses “the War with Iran”. CNN uses “Iran war”. It is abundantly clear now that this war is the most prominent conflict that people are referring to as the Iran War, and is again why I am proposing to, at a very minimum, drop “2026” from this page’s title. I am open to hearing other title suggestions if any come up. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 05:52, 13 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) — Relisting. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 03:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 12, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Temple Mount → ? – I propose moving this page from Temple Mount to Haram al-Sharif (or alternatively, adopting the dual designation Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount), retaining all appropriate redirects. While "Temple Mount" has long served as the title, evaluating the article against Wikipedia's official title criteria (WP:CRITERIA)—specifically WP:NPOVNAME, precision, and its preponderance in contemporary academic literature—strongly supports a move. 1. Physical Scope and Historical Reality As the article's contents demonstrate, the vast majority of the text details the architectural, religious, administrative, and political history of the 35-acre walled esplanade from the 7th century CE to the present day. The physical monuments standing on the site, the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Ottoman fountains, Mamluk madrasas, and gates, constitute the living Islamic sanctuary known historically and administratively as al-Haram al-Sharif (or the *al-Aqsa compound*). The ancient Jewish sanctuaries destroyed in antiquity already have dedicated, comprehensive articles (Solomon's Temple and Second Temple). Titling the overarching article for the physical plateau "Temple Mount" defines an active, 1,300-year-old architectural complex exclusively by an ancient structure that has not physically existed there for nearly two millennia. 2. Academic Sourcing and Neutrality (WP:NPOVNAME and WP:RS) In contemporary peer-reviewed scholarship across geography, art history, and Middle Eastern studies (e.g., works by Michael Dumper, Vincent Lemire, Nazmi al-Jubeh, and Oleg Grabar), the site is consistently treated under the designation al-Haram al-Sharif or through the neutral dual designation Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount. Per WP:NPOVNAME, Wikipedia seeks titles that convey a neutral point of view rather than adopting a designation that implies exclusive historical or religious continuity for one group. The title "Temple Mount" directly translates the Hebrew Har HaBayit, privileging the Jewish historical narrative over an active site that has served as a central Islamic holy place under Waqf custody for centuries. 3. Administrative and International Precedent The esplanade is administratively governed by the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf under Hashemite Custodianship, recognized in the 1994 Israel–Jordan peace treaty. In international diplomatic and cultural heritage contexts, including the UNESCO World Heritage Committee documentation for the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, the precinct is formally registered and referenced as Al-Haram ash-Sharif or Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif. 4. Addressing Common Name (WP:COMMONNAME) While "Temple Mount" is prevalent in Western media coverage, WP:COMMONNAME does not mandate selecting a term that undermines WP:NPOVNAME, geographical precision, or descriptive accuracy for contested global heritage sites. In academic literature on Islamic architecture, Ottoman Jerusalem, and Levant history, "Haram al-Sharif" is already the dominant, recognized terminology. Renaming the lemma to Haram al-Sharif (or the balanced composite Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount) aligns the title with the actual physical subject of the article and adheres more closely to Wikipedia's core neutrality policies. Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 11, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Justin Smith (soccer) → Justin Smith (footballer) – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) § Association football (soccer), MOS:TIES, and WP:COMMONSENSE. Justin Smith is a dual France/Canada national born and raised in France, who played for at least ten European clubs from childhood through adulthood, and twice represented Canada at the under-20 and national level. Smith has played for Nice (France), Quevilly-Rouen (France), Avranches (France), Espanyol B (Spain), RCD Espanyol (Spain), Sporting Gijón (Spain), and Eldense (Spain). As a youth in France he played for Voisins FC, PSG Youth Academy, and OGC Youth. He played for Canada U-20s in 2022, and was on the roster for the Canada national soccer team in 2024 but did not play, afaict.

    Having spent his whole life growing up in France, playing in France as a child, a youth, and an adult, and then in Spain, Smith presumably would have used the word 'football' himself like every French person does (ditto in Spanish). It seems strange to use the word soccer as a disambiguator to refer to Smith simply because his parents are Canadian and he holds two passports. Smith speaks English, but his own usage of soccer vs. football in English is not clear. In a 2022 CONCACAF interview, Smith uses British English–style terms like on the pitch (@1:08), but the words soccer or football didn't come up. Canadian profiles (e.g., Canada soccer) not suprisingly use the term soccer. Given the preponderance of his background in Europe, MOS:TIES would seem to point to the parenthetical disabiguator footballer. Guidance is unclear or conflicting. WP:NCSP#Association football (soccer) point 1 is clear on this point with respect to mono-nationals, but blurry otherwise. One way to read it, is that possession of a US/CA passport trumps all other nationalities (even triple-nationals, e.g. CA-FR-UK, say) and requires (soccer) as the disambiguator if even one US/CA passport is held, although dual-citizenship wasn't specifically mentioned there, so who knows what the intent is (maybe that should be clarified going forward). That reading flies in the face of common sense: Smith grew up saying football (the French word) his whole life, played throughout his career for clubs that use the word football (in two languages: es= fútbol), and only twice played (or was on the roster) for a Canadian national team that uses soccer. I prefer the interpretation that the current version of WP:NCSP says nothing about footballers that are dual nationals with one foot in each camp, and until it does, we should rely on MOS:TIES and WP:COMMONSENSE to decide, both of which argue in favor of using the disambiguator (footballer) for Smith as the most logical choice. Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 11 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) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 11 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) — Relisting. msk 16:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Muḥammad ibn 'Abdallāh Hassan → Mohammed Abdullah (Sayyid) – I proposed a similar requested move a few weeks ago, and I have noted the concern with the initial proposal. As such, this is a slighty altered version of my previouls proposal. 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 disambiguator "Sayyid" sufficiently separates the proposed name from similar articles with overlapping names. 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. ~2026-49326-33 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Pampas cat → Colocolo – Under the five-species treatment of Nascimento, Cheng and Feijó (2021),[n 1] Leopardus colocola and Leopardus pajeros are separate species. Following the 2017 merge (which, in my view, was too hurried), I think we should restore the separate treatment of L. pajeros to the English Wikipedia. So, I propose the following steps... * Choose the main scientific name, either, ** The name listed by the IUCN Red List:[n 2] Leopardus colocolo; or, ** The name listed by Nascimento, Cheng and Feijó (2021):[n 1] Leopardus colocola. * Restore L. pajeros. So, I propose, either...  :* Establishing Pampas cat for L. colocolo/colocola species by...  :** Keeping Pampas cat as its current state (article about L. colocolo/colocola), reflecting its use for the broader taxonomic concept assessed in 2014 by the IUCN in the IUCN Red List,[n 2] and  :** Restoring the article about L. pajeros from this exact point under Southern pampas cat.
      This proposal does not provide for creating a new article about the species complex, i.e. the broader taxonomic concept of the Pampas cat including the former subspecies of L. colocolo.  :* Establishing either Colocolo or Central Chilean pampas cat for the L. colocolo/colocola by...  ::* Moving Pampas cat to either Colocolo or Central Chilean pampas cat, then,  ::* Restoring the article about L. pajeros from this exact point as Southern pampas cat, and,  ::* Establishing Pampas cat either as...  :::* A disambiguation page; or  :::* An article about the species complex covering the broader taxonomic concept of the Pampas cat and the former subspecies of L. colocolo.  :* Establishing Colocolo for the L. colocolo/colocola by...  ::* Moving Pampas cat to either Colocolo or Central Chilean pampas cat, and,  ::* Restoring the article about L. pajeros from this exact point as Pampas cat, following the history of the articles. * Fix the links and redirections as necessary. * Update the sitelinks at Wikidata. * Update L. pajeros,[n 3] and, ideally, all articles about the species of the Leopardus genus.
      In all cases, retaining the current IUCN assessment, while making clear at L. pajeros that the assessment applies to the broader taxonomic concept of Leopardus colocolo used by the IUCN, which included the populations now treated as L. pajeros, and that there is no separate IUCN assessment for L. pajeros under the newer species-level treatment. I have already explained the IUCN assessment for L. pajeros in detail at the Spanish Wikipedia. Regards. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Dom Juan → Don Juan (Molière play) – Use the common English translation of the play, which is simply "Don Juan", no subtitle. Yes, Molière spelled it "Dom" with an 'm' in 1665, but lots of spellings have changed since the 17th century. We don't have the Shakespeare plays at "The Merry Wiues of Windsor" or "Twelfe Night" or "Much adoe about Nothing", despite having old documents that spell them that way. From Google, the strongest source and most recent major published translation is Richard Wilbur (2001), which uses "Don Juan". Kenneth McLeish did a 1997 translation using "Don Juan". Henri Van Laun's old public domain translation () uses "Don Juan, or, The Feast with the Statue" and also updates the French title to "Don". (But Laun is the exception in including the subtitle, and a dated source anyway). SnowFire (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 10, 2026

    • (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) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 17:56, 31 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – University of the Assumption in Congo → Université de l'Assomption au Congo – I propose moving this article to "Université de l'Assomption au Congo". This is the institution's official proper name and is used by authoritative sources including the Democratic Republic of the Congo's higher-education authorities and the International Association of Universities' World Higher Education Database (WHED). International academic and institutional partners also use the French proper name. The current English title, "University of the Assumption in Congo", can remain as a redirect, so readers searching for the English translation will continue to reach the article. The proposed title would provide a consistent institutional identity while preserving discoverability through the existing English name. HeritierNsenge (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Use of impepho → Impepho – I just moved this article from its original title The use of Impepho to the present title per WP:TITLE, but I think simply moving this article to impepho would be even better. Currently, impepho and imphepho both redirect to Helichrysum petiolare. As these terms refer not only to H. petiolare but to a group of Southern African Helichrysum species with medical and cultural significance (as noted in this article: Helichrysum cymosum, Helichrysum nudifolium Helichrysum odoratissimum and Helichrysum petiolare are all known as imphepho which indicates that they can be used interchangeably, as Van Wyk et al. (2000), noted that “use often depends on local availability rather than preference for a particular species”), I think it would be appropriate to instead move the content of this page (covering the cultural and medicinal uses of all of the species known by this name) to the title impepho (with imphepho as a redirect), in line with our articles on coffee or myrrh - that is, articles on the notable human uses of a group of plants being separate from articles on the plant taxa themselves. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Smooth (Santana song) → Smooth (song) – Looking at pageview data, wikinav data, and long-term significance, there is a very clear case for WP:PT1 and WP:PT2 significance under WP:INCDAB. The Santana song took 98% of total pageviews in July, and somewhere between 82% and 100% of clicks out of Smooth (159 compared to somewhere less than 10 for each of the others). Most of the songs charted for some amount of time in some countries, with the exception of the Chainsmokers song and the Neil Cicirega song, but only the Santana song hit number one on the US Billboard chart, and spent twelve consecutive weeks at the top, plus countless certifications. I honestly considered whether this song is the primary topic for the term "Smooth" overall, but ultimately decided against that. Regardless, the Santana song dominates as a primary topic on both criteria, and it should be moved to reflect WP:INCDAB's guidance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 9, 2026

    • (Discuss) – 1999 Honolulu shooting → Xerox murders – It is it’s proper name. It is hardly called the Honolulu shooting. It is properly called the Xerox murders due to the location and nature. It is also called the Xerox shooting as well, but the reason why it was called “Murders” was due to the fact it was a targeted killing instead of an indiscriminate attack like other workplace shootings like for example the Aberdeen shooting where it was indiscriminate. ButteyFelicity (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (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" (PDF). 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) – 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[3]. # Several sources refer to the area as Aarey Forest[4][5] # The area is legally defined as a forest[6]. 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. ↑ Ray, V. E., Randolph, A., Underhill, M., & Luke, D. (2017). Critical Race Theory, Afro-Pessimism, and Racial Progress Narratives. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3(2), 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217692557
    2. ↑ Zamansele Nsele. “Part I: ‘Afropessimism’ and the Rituals of Anti-Black Violence.” Mail & Guardian, 24 June 2020, https://mg.co.za/friday/2020-06-24-part-i-afropessimism-and-the-rituals-of-anti-black-violence/. Accessed 11 Sept. 2026.
    3. ↑ "Aarey forest: The fight to save Mumbai's last 'green lung'". BBC News. 2019-06-10. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
    4. ↑ 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.
    5. ↑ "Aarey forest: The fight to save Mumbai's last 'green lung'". BBC News. 2019-06-10. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
    6. ↑ "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

    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.

    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
    • (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

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.

    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

    1. 1 2 Nascimento, Fabio Oliveira Do; Cheng, Jilong; Feijó, Anderson (2021-02-01). "Taxonomic revision of the pampas cat Leopardus colocola complex (Carnivora: Felidae): an integrative approach". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 191 (2): 575–611. doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlaa043. ISSN 0024-4082.
    2. 1 2 Eduardo Eizirik (Faculdade de Biociencias, PUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brazil); Mauro Lucherini (Argentine National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research); Javier Pereira (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales); Tadeu de Oliveira (Instituto Pró-Carnívoros); Rob Williams (Sociedad Zoológica de Francfort) (2014-04-22). "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Leopardus colocolo". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Archived from the original on 2025-11-14.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    3. ↑ In this case, I suggest to translate the contents from the Spanish Wikipedia.
    Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1373459583#Requesting_multiple_page_moves"