Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
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
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help 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 "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • 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 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. Please do not edit the article's talk page. 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

@KingArti I'm with the IP here – we're gonna need a more direct confirmation than this, preferably via a more reliable source. Toadspike [Talk] 08:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astronomical Editor STARNAMES seems to say that the Bayer designation only takes precedence if it begins with a Greek letter. In any case, the last one of these I performed clearly turned out controversial, so I'll ask you to take this one through a move request. Toadspike [Talk] 09:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though note that this limitation was boldly added a month ago and it is ambiguous that 3 uses "no such [Greek] Bayer designation" while 4 uses "no Bayer [...] designation" without qualification. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SSSB, you should explain the issue to the editor in question, so that they can learn the right way to do this. Toadspike [Talk] 08:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to the most recent Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/September 21 to 27, 2025? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: I intend to. I just didn't have time this morning. It is on the top of my todo list when I get home. @SafariScribe:, it gets transcluded onto Wikipedia:Top 25 Report. In the meantime, I still require technical assistance to undo the move, so that the process can be done correctly. SSSB (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SSSB I have tagged the redirect with G6. Hopefully an admin will deal with that soon. Sorry that it took me so long, this is a complex case and I wanted to be sure I hadn't screwed anything up before taking action. Toadspike [Talk] 21:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

  • Rajiv Ruparelia (Ruparelia Group) → Rajiv Ruparelia (move · discuss) – When I searched about him on Wikipedia, I realized there was no Wikipedia article about him yet he was notable so I wrote one and on moving it from my sandbox, I was told "This page is currently protected so that only administrators can create it." so I created it that way and it needs to be renamed MichealKal (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery pinging as you protected this title; no opinion on notability. Toadspike [Talk] 08:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appear to have protected this because it was targeted by repeated UPE and sockpuppetry attempts (see the deletion log for Draft:Rajiv Ruparelia). Assuming MichaelKal isn't one of those then I don't have anything more useful to say specific to this protection. As a general principle, though, I strongly oppose endorsing WP:GAMENAME attempts as done here; anyone reacting to encountering a salt by moving their article to such a strained, awkward title, is showing wilful contempt for Wikipedia's decision-making processes in a way in which Wikipedia admins should not endorse. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the issue that the article was not drafted and then moved to the salted title, but made in mainspace and then moved? Most inexperienced editors don't understand how salting works and why they can't make their article at the title they want. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:44, 4 October 2025 (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, 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.}}

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 4 October 2025" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

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

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 4 October 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2025 (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 4 October 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2025 (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 4 October 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2025‎ (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 4 October 2025

– why Example (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2025 (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 4 October 2025

– why Example (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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. 103 discussions have been relisted.

October 4, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Guillaume V → Guillaume V (disambiguation)Guillaume V (disambiguation) – The previous RM was speedy closed, and while I agree that the regnal number was needed, the title is not. WP:SOVEREIGN point 6 tells us that the "Name and regnal number, Grand Duke of territory" form applies to European monarchs whose rank is below that of emperor or king (e.g., grand dukes, [...]), and whose plain common name is ambiguous [...] (my emphasis) and there is no ambiguity here. The current Grand Duke is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Guillaume V (the only other person listed on the dab page actually known as Guillaume V in English (as opposed to William V) is an obscure 14th century bishop), and hence does not need disambiguation. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 3, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Sean Combs → DiddyDiddy – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should reflect the name by which the subject is most commonly referred to in reliable, independent sources. Sean Combs has been professionally known as "Diddy" since 2005, and this moniker has become his predominant identifier in media, books, and public discourse, especially in light of recent high-profile legal proceedings and cultural discussions from 2024-2025. Itlair (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Red Army invasion of Georgia → ? – Red Army invasion of Georgia is such a weird name for this article. It gives an impression that the army acted independently or even in defiance of political authorities, like in case of Japanese invasion of Manchuria - but as you case see, even in this case it is not referred to as Kwantung Army invasion of Manchuria. Therefore, the current name is very weird, gives false impressions for viewers and should be changed. The article should therefore be moved to Soviet invasion of Georgia. One might claim and Soviet Union did not exist at this point, but there is article Polish–Soviet War and Soviet Russia is pretty much the same as Soviet Union (at least it is a preceddesor). There is also alternative option of Soviet Russian invasion of Georgia, it is just that current name should not be kept because it is weird and does not illustrates reality well. It is hard to even tell what is the logic behind current name. 191.95.166.83 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Age of Enlightenment in Switzerland → Swiss Enlightenment – * Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. This movement and the corresponding period are commonly known in English as “the Swiss Enlightenment”. See this Ngram, and a few examples below: ** O'Hagan, Timothy (1991). Revolution and Enlightenment in Europe. p. 69. ** Delon, Michel (2013). Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment. ** Israel, Jonathan (2013). Democratic Enlightenment. p. 864. ** Murray, Christopher John, ed. (2013). Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era: 1760–1850. p. 1109. ** Vincent, Patrick (2022). Romanticism, Republicanism, and the Swiss Myth. p. 45. * Also WP:CONSISTENT with the other national enlightenments: Italian, French, Austrian, German, Polish, Russian etc. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Octave twelve → Vox Mando-Guitar – I couldn't find any reliable sources calling this sort of guitar an "octave twelve". The lone source in the article seems to be an unreliable aggregation and might even be a case of citogenesis. Extensive searching for variants of "octave twelve" in relation to guitars turned up only false positives that used the words "octave" and "twelve" next to each other in unrelated contexts, and no hits on GBooks in relation to the Vox Mando-Guitar call it an "octave twelve". I did, however, find books such as this and this which discuss the Vox Mando-Guitar, which suggests that should be the name of the article instead. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 18:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands → List of tallest buildings and structures in BirminghamList of tallest buildings and structures in Birmingham – This is by far the longest title for a tallest buildings page, and runs afoul of WP:CONCISE and WP:TITLECON, given that the closest comparable city, Manchester, is titled tallest in "Greater Manchetser", and other lists have the form of "List of tallest buildings (and structures) in [city]". For example, the Leeds page is "tallest buildings and structures in Leeds", and not "in the Leeds metropolitan area, West Yorkshire", and does not include Bradford. This double naming is analagous to a tautology and fails to be precise and natural, as it is unlikely anyone looking up this list will type in such a long title. This page was unilaterally moved by an editor in 2021 without prior discussion, and since then he has expanded the scope of the article without seeking any consensus to cover tall buildings across the entire metropolitan county of West Midlands. This was how the article looked like before. The height cutoff has also been lowered to 50 metres to 35 without discussion, necessitating the inclusion of more buildings. As a result this list is now one of the longest "tallest buildings" lists on Wikipedia, lengthier than the article for New York City. The article is also visually messy with two columns showing separate ranks. The current height cutoff of 35 metres would include every single high-rise and church in the whole county, which is unreasonably for a major city like Birmingham, and does not fulfill WP:DIRECTORY or WP:SIZE. I have politely pointed out that this article might be too long and suggested to change the height cutoff to 50 m as before. In addition, it is unusual for "tall building" articles cover the entire metropolitan area; we have separate pages for New York City and Jersey City; for Miami and Sunny Isles Beach, and for Toronto and Mississauga. As stated previously, Leeds' page does not cover Bradford's, and Glasgow's only covers the city of Glasgow. There are exceptions for only when most of an area's tallest buildings are located outside of its main city, as for Washington D.C. and Paris. In addition, this page covers Coventry, which is not part of the same urban area and is geographically and culturally distinct from Birmingham. I propose a move back to the original name and a possible WP:SPLIT into List of tallest buildings and structures in Coventry and List of tallest buildings and structures in the Black Country, so as to not remove a lot of content on this page. The issue of the article's length has been previously brought up by User:Pigsonthewing and others in the talk page. As there is one primary editor for the page for the preceding four years, I understand that this editor is motivated to prevent a change to the height limit, or a reversion of his changes, including such a move. I would like to seek consensus for more editors on if this move is appropriate. I should add I no longer wish to separate buildings and structures on this list from a prior talk page discussion I started. LivinAWestLife (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kannushi → Shinto priesthood – The Shinto priesthood is commonly called just that (with individuals called Shinto priests) in English with the proper term shinshoku included in parantheses by most reliable sources such as by Helen Hardacre as seen here and John Breen as seen here among many others. Britannica's entry is titled shinshoku but they do use the term priest and priesthood throughout the article. Kannushi is the common term for Shinto priests used by the average Japanese person not overly familiar with the priesthood and is not commonly used in English unless referring specifically to the position of kannushi. As this article focuses on the whole priesthood and not the specific position of kannushi, I believe we should have the title of the article be the most common and easily understandable English term then explain shinshoku, kannushi, and the various ranks in the body of the article. Erynamrod (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 1, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Quirino Avenue station → Quirino station (MRT)Quirino station (MRT) – There is no such thing as a “Quirino Avenue” in Quezon City. Quirino Avenue is in the City of Manila, while the road in Quezon City is Quirino Highway. The official designation by the Government of the Philippines, through the Public-Private Partnership Center, is simply “Quirino Station.” This is confirmed in the MRT-7 Project Briefer and this presentation of the DOTR to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Do note that the user who insisted this name only used a youtube video where the train is still on its test run and is likely there is a clerical error on the train unit contractor, especially if they are not familiar on the names in the location. The basis of station names should be coming from the government. Therefore the page should be Quirino station (MRT). --Exec8 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Apam balik → Martabak Manis – The term "Martabak Manis" is far more popular on google search worldwide since 2004 until now, while other names like Apam Balik or Terang Bulan are less popular according to google search trend database: Martabak Manis vs other names comparison since 2004 So to comply with Wikipedia regulation —mentioning Wikipedia:COMMONTERM policy—on article naming, I have suggested to rename this article to Martabak Manis and move the article, making Apam Balik a redirect article. Unless Martabak Manis, Terang Bulan, Apam Balik, and Hoklo Pan are different variations of the same dish that somehow regionally diversified and culturally evolving (I'm still doing a research on this), Apam Balik, Martabak Manis, Terang Bulan, and Hoklo Pan should be devided into different articles. Mhatopzz (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 30, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Battle of Tsorona → 2016 Eritrean-Ethiopian border skirmish2016 Eritrean-Ethiopian border skirmish – "2016 Eritrean-Ethiopian border skirmish" was the original title of this page before it was moved to "Battle of Tsorona" on 24 June 2016. I argue that "Battle of Tsorona" is commonly understood to refer to the large-scale clashes of 13–16/18 March 1999 during the Eritrean-Ethiopian War. This is supported by: The Wikipedia page for the Eritrean–Ethiopian War contains a section titled "Battle for Tsorona and Standoff (March–December 1999)." The battle, which is also referred to as "the Tsorona front" or "Egri Mekel," is where the Eritrean goverment claims to have killed 10.000 ethiopian soldiers.[2] [3] [4] Journalists Martin Plaut and Norbert Schiller specifically describe the major March 1999 offensive at Tserona.[5][6] Therefore, to avoid confusion with the historically significant 1999 battle, I believe the title "2016 Eritrean-Ethiopian border skirmish" is a more accurate and less ambiguous fit for this page. SarahSmithLay (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC) SarahSmithLay (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Today (1982 TV program) → Today (Australian TV program)Today (Australian TV program) – The previous RM did not appear to consider the current article/TV program as the primary topic, and in my opinion, created more ambiguity compared to the previous title. Adding disambiguation based off the year that the TV program began is counter-intuitive to me, and for a reader to find this article about the current program, they need to already know which year the show began and that the article is disambiguated from the 1960s show based on such. Not to mention that the current Today (Australian TV program) page title just redirects to another disambiguation page listing all TV shows globally that include "Today" in the title. Tim (Talk) 07:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 12:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 29, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Rakia → RakijaRakija – Rakija is far more commonly used in the Balkans than rakia (which is really just the American English name. Or Albanian). In British English, rakija is more commonly used than all other names for this spirit.[7] In most other non-English Wikipedias, rakija is also used for the page title instead of rakia.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 07:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Anh Sung-jae → Sung AnhSung Anh – Per WP:KOREANNAME step 2, this appears to be his preferred English name. [22] I think it's also his legal name in the US (American citizen). If we were to include his full name, I suspect it's likely "Sung Jae Ahn" ("Jae" being the middle name), with no hyphen. Note: if looking for WP:COMMONNAME evidence you should exclude results from news articles that have been machine translated without human review. This includes ChosunBiz, Maeil Economic Daily (mk.co.kr), and The Chosun Ilbo (The Chosun Daily). Imo, when we so clearly know his preferred English spelling for his name and he's an American citizen, it makes more sense to use his preferred name. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ophyrius (he/him[reply]
    T • C • G    ) 04:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)    [reply]

September 28, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Mark Kendall (filmmaker) → Mark Kendall (artist)Mark Kendall (artist) – I’d like to suggest changing the article title from Mark Kendall (filmmaker) to Mark Kendall (artist). I think “artist” better reflects the range of his work. He’s often described as a multidisciplinary artist. For example, his Guggenheim Fellowship profile notes he “works between film/video, sculpture, performance, and installation”. His Guggenheim also mentions that his work has been shown at art institutions like the National Gallery of Art and the MFA Houston — not just in film settings.[8] The title Mark Kendall (artist) would better capture the full scope of his work and would allow room to include other aspects of his career in the future if they become more notable. Encoded  Talk 💬 16:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Asian Spring → Gen-Z protests in Asia – Per WP:COMMONNAME, titles should follow the terminology actually used in high-quality secondary sources. Across 2025 coverage, reliable outlets describe the phenomenon as a youth-led or "Gen Z" protest wave, not "Asian Spring." The Arab Spring was coined due to mass adoption in the media stemming from projection. By contrast, "Asian Spring" seems to be novel, used in the context of an analogy coinage with far weaker support in mainstream RS; major internationals (Reuters, Guardian, Al Jazeera, FT, ABC) overwhelmingly avoid it when framing the cross-country wave. Rather, using Gen-Z protests or Gen-Z revolution given the context. As pointed out by User:202.67.45.8 and stated within in the article itself, the name is not common. Per WP:NEO and WP:NCEVENT, we should avoid titles that are neologisms or analogies not widely adopted by sources. WP:PRECISION / WP:CONCISENESS are also better served by Gen Z protests; it is short, descriptive, and matches how RS group the events rather than the "Asian Spring", wherein it detaches the context of the movement itself. Where country-specific pages exist or emerge (e.g., Nepal, Indonesia), they already or can use precise local titles; the umbrella article should mirror the predominant RS phrasing for the wider wave, rather than base an entire movement based on a snippet for analogous framing. Below are some examples in the media: * Al Jazeera - “Is South Asia fertile for Gen-Z revolutions?” (feature) (Al Jazeera) * Al Jazeera - “ ‘Bloodiest day’: How Gen-Z protest wave hit India’s Ladakh, killing four” (Al Jazeera) * The Guardian - “How the One Piece manga flag became the symbol of Asia’s Gen-Z protest movement” (The Guardian) * ABC News (Australia) - “Asia’s protests grew from social media…” (region-wide Gen-Z framing) (ABC) * The Diplomat - “Gen-Z’s Challenge to Elite Dominance in South Asia” (The Diplomat) * The Straits Times - “What does the Gen-Z protester want?” (regional) (Straits Times) * The Straits Times - “The Gen-Z revolution is spreading in Asia” (op-ed) (Straits Times) * Channel NewsAsia - “Deadly Nepal protests reflect wider pattern of Gen-Z political activism across Asia” (CNA) * Bloomberg - Asia’s Gen-Z is angry and on the march (newsletter; “known as the ‘Gen-Z protests’”). Bloomberg * Bloomberg - Asia’s Latest Gen-Z uprising (video explainer). Bloomberg * Bloomberg - Asia’s Gen-Z Protests: What’s Driving Youth Movements in Nepal, Indonesia (Bloomberg) * France 24 - Asia’s Gen-Z uprising: Youth reject ‘corrupt, out-of-touch’ ruling class (France 24) * Foreign Policy - India’s Biggest Problem Is Its Own Backyard (frames Nepal/Bangladesh as Gen-Z uprisings) (Foreign Policy) * Straits Times (SE Asia brief/tag page) - multiple items summarizing “Gen-Z revolution” coverage (Straits Times) * Reuters (Americas) - parallel usage: “Peru’s Gen-Z rallies…” (shows the Gen-Z protest label is wider than Asia) (Reuters) * CNA - Deadly Nepal protests reflect wider pattern of Gen Z political activism across Asia. (CNA) * The Financial Times - The Gen Z revolution spreading in Asia (The Financial Times) Just to add, below are Indonesian and Timorese sources when referring to the context of the local-global protests. * CNN Indonesia – After Indonesia, Nepal, and France, Gen Z demonstrations spread to Peru (CNN Indonesia) * The Jakarta Post – Deadly Nepal protests reflect Gen Z activism across Asia (The Jakarta Post) * Tempo – Gen Z protests in Asia: Can they spark real change? (Tempo) * Detik – Dosen UGM: Banyak Gen Z turun ke jalan bukan karena FOMO, tapi ini? (Detik) * Tatoli – Weekend reflection: a world stirred by protest and possibility (Tatoli) * Neon Metin – The Digital Generation Rising: Gen Z and Activism in Timor-Leste (Neon Metin) Should future content expand beyond Asia, if any wants, given the expanded presence in Peru and Madagascar, the title still fits to trim; if consensus prefers to constrain scope explicitly, alternate precise variants (e.g., 'Gen Z protests in Asia' or a lesser used 'Gen Z revolutions in Asia') can be considered in a follow-up RM. Kaliper¹｜t. 13:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 27, 2025

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) – 2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal → Trump–Ukraine scandalTrump–Ukraine scandal – This was moved from the shorter title without the year to the current title following a brief discussion tinged with recentism shortly after the chaotic meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy. Multiple votes specifically refer to "recent" or "current" events, which should generally be a minor concern on Wikipedia. Now that some time has passed, it seems obvious which event is more significant in the long run. The term "Trump–Ukraine scandal", based on a quick skim of Google results, seems to only ever describe the 2019 incident (indeed, EB simply calls it the "Ukraine scandal"), and one source uses the term "Trump-Zelensky scandal" for the more recent incident. We should generally follow common naming conventions on Wikipedia. In the event of any confusion, there is a hatnote on this page (which doesn't even currently make sense when the article has the year in the title). — Anonymous 18:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:Bare notability → User:Sebwite/Bare notability – This essay establishes a concept known as "Semi-notability" that is not in policy and is likely to mislead editors. In truth, an article is notable or it's not. Articles with unclear notability should be made clear, that is a fact, but this essay frames that in a very odd way by saying that an article in limbo is in itself a special class of article, appearing to add confusion and complication that is unnecessary. Due to the mismatch with actual policy, it should likely be moved out of the Wikipedia namespace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 16:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocidePalestinian genocide – Following the extensive RFC on the Gaza genocide, Wikipedia now recognizes the Gaza genocide as genocide WP:VOICE. If Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, then by extension it has committed genocide against Palestinians. Retaining the word "accusations" in the title is misleading, as it casts doubt where a broad consensus already exists among scholars, human rights organizations, and international bodies recognizing these actions as genocide. More cautious or qualified wording such as "accusations" can still be included within the body of the article when discussing genocide accusations in past conflicts, but the title itself should reflect the current state of reliable sources and scholarly consensus. Further,WP:NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to denialist or minority views. Article title should also be WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT Cinaroot (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hangul orthography → Hangul orthography (South Korea) – I'm not sure what's the best title; proposing this target for now, I may update it later. Reason this title should be changed is because it's misleading; "Hangul orthography" implies it'll be the orthography of the script as a whole, but this article is specifically about South Korea's official orthography, when there's also North Korea's and past orthographies to think of. Does this system have an official English name? I couldn't find one on quick search. I'll research more soon. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Borrowers → The Borrowers (novel)The Borrowers (novel) – I recently split The Borrowers (book series) from The Borrowers (first novel in the series). It is however not universally clear to me which should be the primary article. The book series seems like the more encompassing topic and a more expected reader’s experience to start with, so it feels like having "The Borrowers" be about the series would be more natural. But the novel is also historically the first with this title, and the more famous book in the series, notably as the main source for the screen adaptations. Internal links are about the same: 45 for the book, 40 for the series, but many places that mention the book could also be written to mention the series. There’s also the possibility of moving The Borrowers (disambiguation) to the main title, as it’s the title of not only the book and its series, but also several of their adaptations, so someone linking to "The Borrowers" might be thinking of any of those. Opening the request to get second opinions and decide of the primary topic collectively. ~ nicolas (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 20:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – House of Mathrafal → LleisionLleision – The name of the dynasty is properly 'Lleision', i.e. the descendants of Lles Llawddeog, a legendary ancestor of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, and was the name of the dynasty in the Middle Ages. See David Stephenson, Medieval Powys: Kingdom, Principality, and Lordships 1132-1293, p. 24, and note 8 on that page. While the chief court of the kingdom of Powys was Mathrafal, the dynasty was not named after it. Naming dynasties after courts is an Anglo-Norman tradition, and furthermore the "House of Mathrafal" is not used in any scholarly source. Tipcake (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Brehony 2013, p. 19.
  2. ^ https://archive.org/details/30-ethiopian-eritrean-wars-volume-2/page/62/mode/1up?q=tsorona
  3. ^ https://www.economist.com/international/1999/04/15/carnage-on-the-plain
  4. ^ https://shabait.com/2021/03/24/march-in-eritreas-history/
  5. ^ https://negativecolors.com/exhibitions/remembering-the-eritrean-ethiopian-war-1998-2000/article/
  6. ^ https://martinplaut.com/2024/04/14/the-eritrea-ethiopia-border-war-of-1998-2000-revisited/
  7. ^ "Google Ngram Viewer: Rakia,Rakiya,Rakija,Tsikoudia". Retrieved 29 September 2025.. Source doesn't account for raki since it could also refer to the Turkish Rakı, while the Albanian term raki gets far less hits on Google than the term rakija.
  8. ^ "Mark Kendall". Guggenheim Fellowships. Retrieved 2025-08-01.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
10:21, Saturday, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1313599643"