Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

The disambiguation page has been further revised. ~~ J. Dann 05:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While those edits help bring clarity, this does seem prudent that this goes through a full WP:RM discussion as there is competition for the primary topic. TiggerJay (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the rationale. Parentheses are the standard for disambiguation. If you say it doesn't need disambiguation then why do you still want Hanoi in the title? This should be discussed. Polyamorph (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're only the standard for disambiguation in North America. Comma disambiguation is the standard in Commonwealth countries (outside Canada). Elsewhere, there is no standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical disambiguation for natural features is standard in many other commonwealth countries besides Canada (and in many other countries as well). See WP:PLACEDAB: which suggests use of comma convention for human settlements and parenthetical for natural features (with caveat that national may override). older ≠ wiser 12:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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 29 July 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 29 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 10:12, 29 July 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 29 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 10:12, 29 July 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 29 July 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 10:12, 29 July 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 29 July 2025

– why Example (talk) 10:12, 29 July 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 29 July 2025

– why Example (talk) 10:12, 29 July 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. 112 discussions have been relisted.

July 29, 2025

July 28, 2025

* 6x Form 1: Fooians in Switzerland ** Albanians in Switzerland ** Arabs in Switzerland ** Filipinos in Switzerland ** Finns in Switzerland ** Indians in Switzerland ** Turks in Switzerland * 1x Form 1c: Fooian people in Switzerland ** Romani people in Switzerland * 2x Form 4: Fooians Swiss ** Haitian Swiss ** Tibetan Swiss * 1x Form 2: Fooians of Switzerland ** Croats of Switzerland (nominated)
* 27x Form 1: Fooians in Sweden ** Afghans in Sweden ** Albanians in the Nordic countries ** List of Albanians in Scandinavia ** Americans in Sweden ** Arabs in Sweden ** Armenians in Sweden ** Assyrians in Sweden ** Bosniaks in Sweden ** Croats in Sweden ** Eritreans in Sweden ** Ethiopians in Sweden ** Germans in Sweden ** Indians in Sweden ** Kurds in Sweden ** Latvians in Sweden ** Lithuanians in Sweden ** Macedonians in Sweden ** Mandaeans in Sweden ** Norwegians in Sweden ** Poles in Sweden ** Portuguese in Sweden ** Russians in Sweden ** Somalis in Sweden ** Spaniards in Sweden ** Turks in Sweden ** Ukrainians in Sweden ** Uruguayans in Sweden * 2x Form 1b: Fooian [something] in/to Sweden ** African immigrants to Sweden ** Asian immigrants to Sweden * 1x Form 1c: Fooian people in Sweden ** Chinese people in Sweden * 1x Form 3: Sweden Fooians ** Sweden Finns * 2x Form 4: Fooians Swedes ** Chilean Swedes ** Italian Swedes * 4x Form 4b: Swedish Fooians ** Swedish Baloch ** Swedish Greeks ** Swedish Iraqis ** Swedish Serbs (nominated)
* We're making this RM as easy and clear-cut as possible, to serve as a useful precedent for later RMs of this type. NLeeuw (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Agent 007 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Devin Moore (murderer) → ? – Fairly clear case of WP:BIO1E. The shooting was more impactful, with no notability for Moore after his conviction. I'd be in favor of rendering the page either a more detailed event article on the three murders (something like "Murders of Arnold Strickland, James Crump and Leslie Mealer" or "2003 murders of Fayette police employees" or just "2003 Fayette shooting", in line with other police killing articles) or simply merging it into the existing Strickland v. Sony, which currently lacks details on the killings themselves, not even containing the victims' names. Rubintyrann (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Steven Pladl triple murder and suicide → Pladl case – The current title feels awkward and doesn't capture the entirety of the case. Steven Pladl and Rose Fusco had already gained significant national and some international attention in February 2018, prior to the murders, after their arrest on adultery charges. The new title would be more in line with other criminal incest cases such as Fritzl case or Mongelli case. Although the more descriptive "Pladl incest and murder case" would be more accurate, it might be too lengthy while "Pladl incest case" would exclude the murders that led to the most and ultimately sustained coverage. Rubintyrann (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 02:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 27, 2025

  • (Discuss) – A Guy Walks Into a Bar (song) → A Guy Walks Into a Bar – The last RM was all over the place, with two supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I'm surprised it wasn't closed as no consensus or at least relisted, and IMO it should be reassessed. This is the only work with the exact name "A Guy Walks Into a Bar" and should be the primary topic of that form of the exact phrase "A Guy Walks Into a Bar": * The NCIS episode is titled "A Man Walks Into a Bar..." with "man" instead of "guy", and an ellipsis at the end. * The Justified episode does not have the leading "A". * The Mini Mansions work does not have the leading "A", and also has an ellipsis at the end. Therefore, the Tyler Farr song is the only work with the exact title "A Guy Walks Into a Bar", and a hatnote to bar joke is sufficient. Anything else for the song is WP:OVERPRECISION, and I am not convinced of the arguments to the contrary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 15:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis → IUPUI – IUPUI had three long-form names over the course of its existence: Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis (with the word "at," 1969-1992), Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (official form, 1992-2024), and Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (most common form used on official publications, without the dash, 1992-2024). Regarding naming conventions, College and university article advice makes two relevant statements: (1) "This section is a complement to Wikipedia's naming conventions, not a replacement. Always consider the Wikipedia conventions first when naming a page." (It follows deeper below.) (2) "Never use abbreviations or acronyms in titles unless the institution you are naming is almost exclusively known only by including such terms and is widely used in that form. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) for more information." According to Acronyms in page titles, "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." Acronyms are usually avoided for disambiguation purposes, but I've never seen anything else called "IUPUI." I worked for IUPUI University Libraries in the late 1990s, and I created IUPUI's Library of Congress name heading within the Library of Congress's Program for Cooperative Cataloging, which is "IUPUI (Campus)." I did that after systematically surveying the presentation of IUPUI's name on its publications throughout its existence to that date, namely 1999. Given that IUPUI had one long-form name for about 13 years and two other long-form names for 32 years, the abbreviation "IUPUI" is by far and away the most common name used both by the organization itself and outsiders, and the long form virtually always appeared with the abbreviation. Therefore, both the general rule and the specific rule apply. IUPUI's article title should follow the example of NASA and be "IUPUI." Waering (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pacemaker → Artificial cardiac pacemaker – This article should clearly be moved per WP:PRECISION. In addition, calling this article "pacemaker" and the article for the natural pacemaker cells "cardiac pacemaker" does not make any sense whatsoever, especially because that doesn't even distinguish the two. If "pacemaker" usually refers to the artifical cardiac pacemaker rathar than the natural one, it redirecting to this page is fine. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 2025 Cambodia–Thailand border conflict → 2025 Cambodian–Thai border conflict – Short version: This request concerns "Cambodia–Thailand" versus "Cambodian–Thai". Reasons should be obvious to most.
    Long version: This is a requested move to undo an erroneous unilateral move and restore specifically the element of the stable version that is the "Cambodian–Thai" component. The mover provided the following incorrect rationale (diff):

    The title should have name of the country, not their demonyms such as 2025 Iran–Israel war, not the "2025 Iranian–Israeli war" etc.

    According to general English conventions, this part of a title functions as an adjective and should use adjectival forms, as in Kenyan–Ugandan border conflict (not "Kenya–Uganda border conflict"), Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict (not "Eritrea–Ethiopia border conflict"), Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict (not "Djibouti–Eritrea border conflict"), etc. This is a question of grammar, of language conventions in phrases in the "[x–y] [some kind of conflict]" mold, and of consistency as one of the five Wikipedia naming policy principles.
    The reason why it is "Iran–Israel war" and not "Iranian–Israeli war" is that we say (and have been saying for decades) "Iran–Iraq War" (has a nice syllabic symmetry to it) and not "Iranian–Iraqi War" ("Iranian" and "Iraqi" don't have this symmetry, and people in the 80s were not sure if they should say "Iraqi" or "wikt:Iraqian"; indeed, you will find "Iranian–Iraqian War" in contemporary sources). Unlike the descriptive title of the article being discussed, "Iran–Iraq War" is a proper name, influenced probably by traditional headlinese, which always favors shorter forms, often disregarding grammar. This has locked in "Iran–" in any such phrase. In this context, "Iran–[country]" has become a noun phrase template—with respect to Iran...
    But not with respect to Israel. You see, it isn't "Israel–Palestine conflict"; it is "Israeli–Palestinian conflict". That's because it doesn't have "Iran–". And when Iran a.k.a. Persia was Persia, it was involved in wars such as the Ottoman–Persian Wars, the Anglo-Persian War, the Russo-Persian Wars, etc. Equally for conflicts involving Cambodia and Thailand: It is not "2008–2013 Cambodia–Thailand border crisis"; it is "2008–2013 Cambodian–Thai border crisis".
    Undoing a unilateral move normally does not require a move request, but technical help was declined at the corresponding process page because the mover or movers did not recognize that the "Cambodian-Thai" -> "Cambodia-Thailand" aspect of contested unilateral move is a distinct issue that can be addressed separately; that is to say, separately from any other issue related to yesterday's and the day's before multiple endeavors to improve the title as the situation developed. And so, as it was suggested to editors to deal with this banal problem using the RM process, an RM has been started. —Alalch E. 17:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Menelik II's conquests → Agar Maqnat – "Agar Maqnat" is a used local term to describe this period in reliable academic sources[2][3] including Encyclopaedia Aethiopica while "Menelik II's conquests" or "invasions" or "expansions" comes up with no mentions in any scholarly literature. I was the creator of this article, and I gave it the name "Menelik's Expansions" some 3 years ago because I did not know that there was a specific term for this period in Ethiopian history. There is no official English equivalent for these name of these conquests, the name should be changed to its indigenous name similar to other African articles such the Mfecane, Gukurahundi, Ikiza, etc. Socialwave597 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – MrAussieGuy (Talk) 03:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 25, 2025

  • (Discuss) – The World (WWE) → WWF New York – This establishment was known as "The World" for less than a year, whereas it was established as "WWF New York", and lasted for over three years. I believe the introduction should be "WWF New York (later known as The World)". I also believe based on this that WWF New York meets WP:COMMONNAME. Icaldonta (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 21:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hyunjin → Hyunjin (rapper) – Both individuals are consistently referred to in reliable secondary sources by the mononym "Hyunjin" (Korean: 현진), not their full names.[4][5][6][7][8][9]. While both could be described as singers in general and perform vocals (as is typical for K-pop idols), the former (Stray Kids member) is primarily notable as a rapper, as reflected by the order of roles in the article lead and consistent with coverage in reliable sources, while the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) is primarily notable as a singer, providing clear grounds for disambiguation per WP:SINGERDAB and MOS:ROLEBIO. While ROLEBIO does not strictly dictate article titles, it helps identify the role for which each subject is best known. Other disambiguation options are unsuitable: "(singer, born 2000)" isn't applicable since both were born in 2000, and "(entertainer)" is discouraged per SINGERDAB, which recommends that disambiguator only "if the person is also well-known in other non-musical entertainment fields", both individuals are primarily known for musical performance and idol activities, not broader entertainment roles. Likewise, a hyphenated or full-name version for the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) is also not appropriate. A WP:BEFORE search for "Kim Hyun-jin" in Google, Bing, Naver, and Daum returns Kim Hyun-jin (the actor), rather than the Loona/Loossemble member. A search for "Kim Hyunjin" returns results referring to the Loona/Loossemble member as simply "Hyunjin", rather than under her full name. If the former (Stray Kids member) is determined to be the primary topic, that's acceptable and reasonable. However, the latter (Loona/Loossemble member) should not remain at Kim Hyunjin, which is an unnatural, obscure, and unused form, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDAB. Her article should be moved to Hyunjin (singer), the most accurate and policy-compliant title. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 13:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kirisuto no Haka → Tomb of Christ (Japan) – This article's current title uses the monument's Japanese name (romanised) instead of an English translation. I can't easily find an English source which refers to it as Kirisuto no Haka, rather, most tend to use translations such as "Christ's Grave," "the Grave of Jesus Christ," or "the Tomb of Christ." Similar translations are also reflected on the area's local signage. To best honour the spirit of WP:UE, I believe that the article should be renamed and moved to a space such as "Tomb of Christ (Japan)" — with the inclusion of "(Japan)" to remove ambiguity from other, similar monuments. ItsSwimm (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 14:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – MrAussieGuy (Talk) 09:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sermon on the 'Mount (South Park) → Sermon on the 'Mount – Unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator. There is nothing else named "Sermon on the 'Mount" currently. It's unlikely that somebody would search "Sermon on the 'Mount" (with the ') to search for anything other than this episode. Per WP:CONCISE the title should be shortened as it does not conflict with any other articles. The title follows Wikipedia's policy of using the most recognizable and unambiguous name. It's common for stylized titles most commonly associated with a certain thing, even if the unstylized phrase is more ambigious, to redirect to/be the main name of said thing; see Boyz n the Hood , Boyz n da Hood, and Boyz-n-the-Hood, all of which are very similar but due to minor variations keep their original titles, with hatnotes in the rare chance that the viewer intended to see another article. jolielover♥talk 06:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hauser, ID Refueling Facility → Hauser fueling depot – or BNSF Hauser fueling depot or maybe Hauser Main Line Refueling Depot or BNSF Hauser Main Line Refueling Depot. Motivated to get rid of the lopsided punctuation and postal-style abbreviation in this article title, I found three sources cited in the article that were accessible without a paywall. One of them is from the company that owns this facility and two are not (Daily Bee and Associated Press). The Daily Bee article refers to "[the] Hauser Fueling Depot" and "the Hauser fueling depot" (primarily the former), and for short also "Hauser Depot" and just "Hauser". Associated Press refers to "a Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Co. refueling station near Hauser, Idaho". BNSF itself refers to "BNSF's refueling facility at Hauser" (lowercase). With an off-Wikipedia search, I find a Railway Age article that refers to "BNSF's Main Line Refueling Depot at Hauser" and "the Hauser fueling facility" and "the Hauser refueling facility" and "BNSF's Hauser, Idaho, refueling facility" and for short just "Hauser". It also refers to "Hauser Yard", but I think that might not be synonymous with the fueling depot. The Spokesman Review refers to "The Hauser Mainline Fueling Facility" and "the Hauser depot" and "the Hauser facility" and for short just "Hauser". (Note that one capitalized variant is "Main Line" and the other is "Mainline" and one is "Refueling" and the other is "Fueling" and one is "Depot" and the other is "Facility".) Since the sources provide no consistent name or consistent capitalization, I suggest a simple and concise descriptive (lowercase) title. "Fueling" is shorter than "refueling", and "depot" is shorter than "facility". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 24, 2025

  • (Discuss) – The Backrooms → Backrooms – There isn't any other article named "Backrooms", and WP:DEFINITE is quite clear. It is definitely the primary topic over the web series and film of the same name. The only reason to have the redirect is if the song or album is equally important, although for the album "Back Room" and "Backroom" could still be a redirect. Aspets (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Preah Vihear → Preah Vihear (disambiguation) – Preah Vihear is the WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngram shows that "Preah Vihear" is tens of times more frequent than "Preah Vihear Temple" (or "Prasat Preah Vihear"). "Temple of Preah Vihear" is relatively frequent but just "Preah Vihear" without a qualifier is clearly the single most common version. The Khmer word "vihear" already denotes a sanctuary/spiritual abode which is arguably a more particular meaning than the broad "temple", so appending that generic qualifier is pleonastic and diluting. A look at articles in Category:Angkorian sites (and its subcats) shows a predominant practice of omitting generic architectural qualifiers such as "temple" or "Prasat" (a minority include "Prasat" however, which is caused by the influence of official naming, but they are still in the minority and should probably be moved as well). Therefore, "Preah Vihear" is WP:CONSISTENT among Angkorian temples such as Bayon (not Bayon Temple/Prasat Bayon), Banteay Srei (not Banteay Srei Temple/Prasat Banteay Srei), Pre Rup (not Pre Rup Temple/Prasat Pre Rup), or Chau Say Tevoda (not Chau Say Tevoda Temple/Prasat Chau Say Tevoda). Preah Vihear the temple is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in relation to the settlement and the provice and a natural disambiguator is not needed. It should occupy the title of the current disambiguation page, and the disambiguation page should become "Preah Vihear (disambiguation)". —Alalch E. 16:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Checkers (video game) → ? – Not wanting to risk butchering a newly-promoted GA, I am launching an RM here amid discussion above. "Checkers (video game)" is too ambiguous, being unable to distinguish Christopher Strachey's Checkers from the general topic of computer checkers. My first choice would be Checkers (1952 video game), as this was the article's original title before it was moved. However, the video game referred to here as "Checkers" did not have a proper title. Strachey only referred to it as a "computer program" that just so happened to simulate checkers (the term "video game" was not in common use in 1952). But since "Checkers" was developed in the United Kingdom, would it be "Draughts" instead of "Checkers"? Not really sure what to think of this one. What do you think? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 15:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Trina Solar → Trinasolar – Hello. Firstly I would like to disclose that I work for Trinasolar, and I’m submitting this request in line with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. I will not directly edit the article. I would like to propose updating the article’s title and the way the company is referred to throughout the article — from “Trina Solar” (two words) to “Trinasolar” (one word), to reflect the company’s brand and trademark. Rationale: The company brands itself globally as “Trinasolar” — as one word — and has a trademark consistent with this. Updating the article title and usage would reflect how the company is commonly known and branded in the real world, consistent with Wikipedia’s naming conventions for companies and the guideline to use commonly recognizable names. Suggested wording for lead sentence: Trinasolar (legally Trina Solar Co., Ltd.; Chinese: 天合光能有限公司) is a Chinese photovoltaics company founded in 1997. Sources: https://trademarks.justia.com/872/53/trinasolar-87253078.html https://www.pv-tech.org/industry-updates/trinasolar-develops-worlds-first-800w-tandem-module/ https://www.trinasolar.com/ I recognize that article title changes involve broader discussion and consensus. I welcome feedback and am happy to revise this request based on community input. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mike at Trina Solar Europe (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tales of the Jedi (TV series) → Star Wars Tales (TV anthology) – This article is about three related Star Wars television series, referred to as the "Tales franchise" in reliable sources. The alternate title Star Wars Tales is used to collect the series on Disney+. Tales of the Jedi is just the first of these series. Previous attempts to move the article failed because no one could agree on the new title. There are already articles called Tales so non-standard dismabigutation is required. There was also some support for splitting the article instead of having the three series together. An RFC was held to confirm next steps, and consensus was to keep this article together and move it to Star Wars Tales (TV anthology), or Star Wars Tales if it is determined that this is the primary topic over that comic book series. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Axis of Upheaval → CRINK – I am opening the move discussion as was suggested by the result of the merge proposal. In accordance with WP:TITLE, the title should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. CRINK is the more commonly used term in media and can now also be found in scholarly articles. Here’s some more recent reliable secondary sources which use the term: The Wall Street Journal, The Times, USA Today, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Times of India. A quick google scholar search also brings up results. As I have mentioned before, the term is used across different languages. The term "Axis of Upheaval" is mostly being used in foreign policy/academic sources, often in direct reference to the Kendall-Taylor and Fontaine paper that coined the term, for example Oxford University, The National Interest or the CNAS. Additionally to the previously made arguments on this page, the article currently has a "not to be confused with axis of evil" notice on top, which doesn’t even take the Axis of Resistance into account. Arguably, "Axis of Upheaval" is consistent with the other axis terms but it seems likely to create confusion. Acronyms like BRICS, MIKTA or CRINK are also consistent as well as precise (and concise) and help distinguish which nations are being referred to. They are also more neutral. In the name of transparency, I did create the CRINK page so I might be biased – looking forward to any input on this! The E Street Shuffle (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series → NASCAR Truck Series – As others have pointed out in the talk section of this page, a common name and an acceptably WP:CONCISE name for this page could probably suffice with the page name "NASCAR Truck Series". While it can be argued to have the sponsor name for an individual season (albeit I can very much see a reason of why not to put it), I do not see why it should be the case for the main page. As Choppers put it in the talk section of this page, we shouldn't have to change it every single time the title sponsor changes (which has happened four times since 2019 by my count) because "I feel like we are doing the work of the advertisers here." The Truck Series isn't a case of the Xfinity Series, in my opinion, where the title sponsor has become so tied to the series that the sponsor is the common name. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – War on Crypto → Regulation of cryptocurrency – Continuation of a discussion that began at the AfD: This name is not a WP:COMMONNAME, and more importantly it is not a neutral name—meaning it's subject to WP:NPOVNAME's requirements, which state that An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use...Wikipedia ... avoids common names for lacking neutrality [when they are] trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later [or] colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious.
    Generally, the sources containing the phrase "war on crypto" do not use title case (which this article's title is in), and use it as a turn of phrase—similar to the phrase "war on food dyes", which does not suggest that there is such a thing as the properly-named War on Food Dyes. In order for this title to stand, it would need to be demonstrated that a significant majority of English-language sources use it as the proper name of the article's subject.
    Regulation of cryptocurrency satisfies WP:NDESC and doesn't 1) reify such an artificial concept as "the War on Crypto", nor 2) limit this article's scope to only regulations perceived as attacks on the technology or financial structures of cryptocurrencies. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 23, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Howard Johnson → Howard Johnson (disambiguation) – The "S" was officially dropped from the name in the 1970s, and most sources still using the S do so solely in reference to the now-defunct restaurants. Extensive searching shows that most references to the company in its current form, or at least sources covering both the hotel and restaurant, omit the S. I would compare this to Meijer, which officially dropped its own possessive S quite some time ago but is still called "Meijer's" colloquially or historically, but not in formal discussion of the company in its current form. Page views and inbound links also suggest that the hotel chain is by far the most common topic by the name "Howard Johnson", S or otherwise, and should therefore be the primary topic over the company founder or anyone else by that name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Morgan Murphy (food critic) → Morgan Murphy (Navy captain) – Proposing to change the disambiguator from "(food critic)" to "(Navy captain)" as it better reflects the subject's current and primary notability per WP:AT and WP:DAB. The current disambiguator is based on the subject's earlier career as a food critic and author, which ended around 2015 (last book in the series published that year, per article sources). Since then, the subject has focused on a military and political career, including 26 years in the U.S. Navy Reserve (promoted to Captain in 2020), service as press secretary to the U.S. Secretary of Defense (2020–2021), national security advisor to Senator Tommy Tuberville, and now an advisor in the second Trump administration. This shift is supported by recent reliable sources emphasizing the subject's military and political roles over food criticism: * AL.com (May 28, 2025): Describes the subject as an "ex-Trump adviser and ex-Tuberville aide" among possible candidates for the Senate seat.[1] * Washington Times (May 28, 2025): Refers to the subject as "Navy Capt. Morgan Murphy" considering a Senate bid.[2] * Daily Caller (May 28, 2025): Notes the subject as a "longtime Trump ally" planning to run for the open Senate seat.[3] * 1819 News (May 29, 2025): Describes the subject as a "former national security advisor to Tuberville" considering a run for the open Senate seat.[4] The military title "Navy captain" is a precise, natural disambiguator (similar to examples in WP:DAB like "(naval officer)"), aligning with how the subject is increasingly identified in sources. It avoids outdated descriptors while maintaining conciseness. No change to the base name "Morgan Murphy" is proposed, as the disambiguation page lists other individuals (e.g., comedian, baseball player). Full disclosure per WP:COI: I am the subject of this article (Morgan Murphy) and am requesting this move due to the evolution of my career. I have not edited the article directly and am seeking community consensus. This builds on the informal suggestion already on this talk page. MorganMurphy14 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 20:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria (2024–2025) → ? – So to end the discussion once and for all: #My position: "the Turkish ground forces [we]re not involved" as the offensive was executed by the SNA with some Turkish air support so i agreed to "SNA–Turkish campaign in Northern Syria (2024–2025)" #@Ecrusized and Lyra Stone: "SNA is a de-facto Turkish proxy force, it is dubious whether they can take any military action without direct Turkish supervision." so it should be called "Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria (2024–2025)" #@Gluonz: "feels too similar to ones that were rejected" so "Rojava conflict (2024–2025)" changed the years a bit; @Bobfrombrockley Braganza (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Andy Hines → Andy Hines (futurist) – Now that we have an article about Andy Hines (director), a Grammy-nominated music video director whose debut narrative feature film is premiering at TIFF this fall, it's no longer clear that the futurist — whose notability claims are referenced almost entirely to his own writing metaverifying its own existence, rather than to WP:GNG-building coverage about him in reliable sources — would be highly meganotable enough to retain primary topic status.
    To be clear, I'm proposing a dab page at the plain title rather than moving the filmmaker; it remains possible that the filmmaker may come to clearly outprimary the academic at some point in the future, but I'm not prepared to argue that he's already done so as of today. Note that since Andy is short for Andrew and I did have to search for instances of the filmmaker being referred to as Andrew instead of Andy when adding inbound wikilinks to his article, the dab page should probably also rope in motorcycle racer Andrew Hines, though I'm of two minds as to whether we should move him as well and place the dab page at Andrew, or just leave him alone, place the dab page at Andy and just include Andrew as a see-also — I don't, however, think that he's so highly meganotable either as to justify leaving him at his plain title but placing the dab page at "Andrew Hines (disambiguation)": the dab page should be either "Andy" or "Andrew" as a plain title. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Beet Sugar Factory (Glendale, AZ) → Glendale beet sugar factory – It would be nice to use WP:NATURAL disambiguation rather than a parenthesized location for this recently created article (and especially to drop the postal-style abbreviation "AZ" from this title). This 2016 article in AZCentral (a.k.a. The Arizona Republic) refers to it descriptively as the "Glendale beet sugar factory" and as "the iconic red-brick building opened as a beet-sugar factory in 1906". This 1903 article in The Arizona Republic calls it "The factory of the Eastern Sugar company" (so perhaps it could be called the "Eastern Sugar factory", although I don't notice more modern sources using "Eastern Sugar" when describing it). This 1987 article in The Arizona Republic calls it "a historic beet-sugar factory" and "the beet-sugar factory site". Some other sources do call it the "Beet Sugar Factory" with capital letters, but I suggest this is just an overcapitalized descriptive name rather than a proper name as such. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Marble Arch (Libya) → Arch of the Philaeni – The previous move discussion was closed three weeks ago without consensus. As part of the article's good article review, I thought it would be prudent to open another discussion to hopefully form a clearer consensus on the name of the article. Having now read through the article and the source material, I've come to the conclusion that the arch's original name, the Arch of the Philaeni, is considered to be the common name in modern scholarly literature about the subject. As was brought up by the nominator in the previous discussion, the English translation "Arch of the Philaeni" is used by Agbamu 2024 (one of the main sources in the article), Hom 2012 and Welge 2005; the Italian original name "Arco dei Fileni" was used by Anderson 2010, Parfitt 2018, and Kenrick 2009; and its Latin name is less commonly used by Segrè 1999 and Hom 2012. Its usage in Agbamu 2024 should be given due weight here, as it is the source that covers the history of the Arch in its entirety. In contrast, the term "Marble Arch" has a very specific and limited use case, as it was the nickname that British soldiers used to refer to it during World War II. I'm unconvinced by the argument in the previous discussion that this is grounds for considering it the common name. As an exonym, it captures an outside perspective, as it refers directly to a similar arch in the UK. On the other hand, "Arch of the Philaeni" is more descriptive, implicitly referring to the reason of its construction at the boundary between Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, and has been used throughout its history from its construction to its demolition. I think it's clear from the modern scholarly sourcing that "Arch of the Philaeni" is the common name. It is also the more precise name with a natural disambiguation, as there was only ever one arch by this name, while there have been many "marble arches". The Anglicisation is also acceptable, as it has been used by multiple scholarly English-language sources (including the preeminent source on the matter). For all these reasons, I'm proposing that this article be moved to the title of "Arch of the Philaeni". Grnrchst (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 22, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Kino Barrandov → Barrandov Kino – The broadcaster officially renamed this television channel from "Kino Barrandov" to "Barrandov Kino" in February 2025. This change is documented in the official broadcasting license issued by the Czech broadcasting authority (RRTV). * Official Source (License): The updated license reflecting the new name "Barrandov Kino" can be found in this official PDF document from the regulatory body: rrtv.gov.cz, license l875306. The new name is stated on the fourth page. This move aligns the article with the current, official name of the subject, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Official names. Thank you. Cookieman25 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2016 Jiangsu tornado → 2016 Funing tornado – Like the previous one said, "Jiangsu tornado" doesn't make sense because that's name of the province. More sources also call in the "Funing tornado," including this research paper that focuses on the event. The reason for including the year is because another significant EF3 tornado struck Funing in 2023, killing 5 people. As for the "Fucheng" suggestion, I think they're referring to a town in Funing, although no sources mention it or use the name Fucheng, so this suggestion should be discarded.
    Overall, the name Jiangsu tornado is too broad and not the WP:COMMONNAME; Funing tornado is much more appropriate and what most sources call it, and the year is probably necessary because of another significant tornado in the same area in 2023. Therefore, 2016 Funing tornado is the best option Yobatna (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – History of Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom → History of Chinese Britons – Request made on 3 accounts: Firstly, the brevity of the proposed title. Secondly, the proposed title better matches other existing Wiki articles on similar topics, such as the History of Chinese Americans and History of Chinese Australians pages, both of which are currently linked in the article's text. Chinese Britons is also a term used to refer to such individuals and groups on the article for British Chinese Mysdias (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC) and would not be a new invention. Lastly, in my view "History of chinese immigration to the united kingdom" restricts the potential scope or view of the article. Of course, there are many Chinese Britons who are not 1st or even 2nd generation immigrants, and have spent their whole lives living in the United Kingdom. Owing to this, I think that the proposed title better represents the article's role and purpose - to detail teh history of chinese communities in the United Kingdom - better than the current title without drastically altering the aim of the article. Mysdias (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Burping → Belching – Page was moved previously to Burping with no discussion. nGrams has shown belching to be more in use since before page name was moved. Almost all reviews and papers use the term 'belching'. Burping is the colloquial term, and as 'heart attack' is the common term for myocardial infarction it is not the page name. Iztwoz (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision → Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge crash – Follow-up to resolve lingering question from the last RM as to whether crash, collision, or some other noun is the best descriptor for this incident. Crash is my top choice and I will present the others in rough order of preference from the prior RM; note that I was involved in this lengthy discussion and may miss details and nuanced arguments. I think collision is reasonable but I appreciate the objections raised. I would not use the other terms. # crash‍: This appeared to be the most common noun used at the time of the last RM and in the initial wave of coverage. This term is widely used in reliable sources and is accessible to a general audience. It satisfies the naming WP:CRITERIA well: it is certainly recognizable, natural, precise, and concise. # collision‍: A few editors pointed out that in maritime terminology collision specifically refers to an incident involving two moving vessels (hence the prefix co-). Thus a "crash" between a moving ship and a stationary object such as a bridge is not properly described as a collision. This may explain why high quality sources used crash more often. Common usage does not make this distinction and many reliable sources do use collision and collide to describe this incident. On the other hand, where a suitable alternative exists (crash‍) it may be good editorial practice to avoid collision even if most readers won't notice. # strike‍: This had limited support but is reasonably descriptive and is found in sources, especially as a verb (The ship struck the bridge). # accident‍: Some sources including the NTSB do use this terminology. Though often used imprecisely in every day language, accident can imply that an event was unavoidable or that a finding of no fault has been made. Style guides for motor vehicle collisions often recommend against this word (e.g., Washington State Department of Transportation and this from Rutgers). # allision‍: This was raised several times and met with vigorous opposition. In maritime terminology, allision is the term for a moving vessel striking a stationary object. This word is found in dictionaries but will be inaccessible to most readers. Allision is not used in any article titles on WP. WP:DISASTER is silent on this usage question for maritime incidents but does have guidance for trains. (EDIT 18:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC): WP:DISASTER guidance on "accident" is discussed in the thread.) I could not find many articles to review for consistency. 1938 Muncy Raft crash does involve a moving vessel striking a bridge. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 18:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 06:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Penticton Vees (junior A) → Penticton Vees (BCHL) – The "Junior A" classification is no longer applicable to BCHL teams. In 2023, the BCHL became independent from Hockey Canada and subsequently dropped the "Junior A" designation, now classifying its teams simply as "Junior."[15] This change in the BCHL's self-classification makes the "Junior A" disambiguator outdated and inaccurate. Furthermore, BC Hockey (the provincial governing body) now uses the term "Junior A" to refer to a level of hockey that would be considered "Junior B" in most other jurisdictions, adding to the ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding if the old title were retained. Therefore, "Penticton Vees (BCHL)" is the most accurate and clear title, directly linking the team to its current league affiliation. Buffalkill (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Buffalkill (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Achilles' heel → Achilles heel – While both of these variants are quite close in frequency per Google Ngrams, the current title should be avoided because it contradicts MOS:'s:

    For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, the US's partners, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus).

    ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Giovanni Matteo Mario → ? – The article lead starts with Giovanni Matteo De Candia,[1] also known as Mario, fairly consistently uses just Mario in the text, and notes: the budding singer adopted the mononym Mario as his stage name when he made his debut on 30 November 1838.[6] Sometimes, however, he is referred to in print by the fuller appellation of "Giovanni Mario", and he is also called "Mario de Candia". (That text seems to have been in the article for over fifteen years.) So this title "Giovanni Matteo Mario" isn't actually common, then? Here's a relevant Google Books Ngrams, a graph of book references to these names. The name we have in the lead isn't even detected. At the same time, the 19th century spike in the number of references to "Mario" can probably be attributed to this person. That element of the graph alone is large enough that we have to remove it in order to see the rest. If we look at more variants, like this or like this, it looks like at the time there's a lot of references to Signor Mario, too, as well as further mononymous references to Mario and other contemporary artists. The second name Matteo doesn't seem to be commonly used in comparison. So, maybe Mario (opera singer)? Mario (tenor) already redirects here, but was moved in 2011. I came across this incongruity while researching at Talk:Mario. Mario (singer) is already taken - maybe that needs to be disambiguated, too. Joy (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ "Morgan Murphy, ex-Trump adviser and ex-Tuberville aide, among ..." AL.com. May 28, 2025. Retrieved July 23, 2025.
  2. ^ "Morgan Murphy ponders Alabama Senate bid". Washington Times. May 28, 2025. Retrieved July 23, 2025.
  3. ^ "EXCLUSIVE: Longtime Trump Ally Morgan Murphy Strongly ..." Daily Caller. May 28, 2025. Retrieved July 23, 2025.
  4. ^ "Report: Former national security advisor to Tuberville considering…". 1819 News. May 29, 2025. Retrieved July 23, 2025.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
10:13, Tuesday, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1302968261"