This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – Pacification of Manchukuo → Insurgency in ManchuriaInsurgency in Manchuria – Common English name; Google Scholar for "Pacification of Manchukuo" yields four results while "Insurgency in Manchuria" yields 21. This seems to be the most reasonable title available, with all results relating to the 1931-1945 period. There would not seem to be a risk of confusion with any other period in Chinese history. I don't think it is necessary to specify what kind of insurgency it was, sources variously say "Nationalist-led" or "communist" or just "anti-Japanese", and "Chinese insurgency" is redundant. The article substance is not exclusively concerned with the Japanese response, but has significant content on the insurgency itself. Doeze (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Buck Johnson → Buck Johnson (basketball) – The musician's page views outnumber the basketball player's by about 5 to 1 and, ruling out navboxes, has more inbound links. Given his membership in Aerosmith and Ringo Starr's bands, I think the musician is by far the primary topic of "Buck Johnson". Also, the basketball player is retired, while the musician is still active. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)15:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – George Clarke (architect) → George Clarke (architectural presenter) – We currently have three articles for George Clarkes who operate/operated as architects - George Clarke, the TV presenter / George Clarke, an Australian town planner / George Clarke, a 17th/18th century politician and architect. I think it would be helpful to the reader to retitle the articles. I certainly found it impossible to identify Dr George Clarke of All Souls, Oxford when I was looking to bluelink him, eventually finding the article by chance. I've sought input at the Architecture project page, and the above are the suggested renames. These reflect the fact that the living George Clarke is best known as a TV presenter, the deceased Australian seems to have been more of a town planner, and Dr George Clarke is probably now best remembered as an architect, rather than as a politician. Very happy to consider other suggestions, of course. KJP1 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk15:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Irene Ng (politician) → Irene Ng Phek Hoong (author) – Hello editors, I would like to request that this article be renamed from Irene Ng (politician) to Irene Ng Phek Hoong (author). **Rationale:** * Reliable sources (Straits Times Press, National Library Board, Parliament records) consistently use her full name, Irene Ng Phek Hoong. * Since retiring from politics in 2015, she has become best known as the **author** of the two-volume biography of S. Rajaratnam (The Singapore Lion, 2010; The Lion’s Roar, 2024). * The parenthetical “(author)” disambiguates her from the Malaysian actress Irene Ng while accurately reflecting her current public role. * The requested title follows WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NATURALDIS by using the subject’s full, verifiable name as found in reliable publications. If consensus supports, the article can remain under the same edit history but be renamed accordingly. I have prepared a fully cited, updated draft of the biography at User:IreneNgAuthor/sandbox for reference. Thank you for considering this move request. IreneNgAuthor (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk14:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Disc cutter → Diamond disc cutterDiamond disc cutter – I have proposed renaming article so that the community can decide whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with redundant content—or prefer the updated version, which I have restructured and referenced. The main reason for the change is that disc cutters differ from abrasive saws essentially in the type of blade they use. Although both tools may seem similar, the disc cutter uses segmented diamond blades, designed for cooling and precise cutting, while the abrasive saw uses non-metallic abrasive-type blades, which are more prone to thermal wear. Previously, there were two articles that dealt with virtually the same topic, without a clear distinction between the two technologies. I have modified the disc cutter article because most current manufacturers produce motorized machines with diamond blades, which better reflects contemporary industrial reality. Furthermore, this distinction has practical and documentary relevance. For example, in the Louvre robbery (October 2025), a portable gasoline-powered saw with a segmented diamond blade was used, not an abrasive saw. To avoid duplication and confusion, I have excluded all information on abrasive blades from the updated article, which already has its own specific article. Therefore, this renaming proposal seeks a vote on whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with ambiguities—or consolidate the updated version, with clear technical differentiation and multiple inline references.--Mcapdevila (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Titan → Titan (disambiguation)Titan (disambiguation) – Titan (moon) is already disambiguated, but I also believe that Titans is the primary topic for the word, as the initial source of the name and mythological beings that remain heavily used in culture. Moving the DAB page wouldn't really affect reader navigation either, as the moon could easily be added to the hatnote in Titans followed by the DAB page with the other less popular uses of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Gizmo → The GizmotronThe Gizmotron – "Gizmotron" was the trademarked name of the product, it was used to identify and market the product by both Musitronics and Gizmotron LLC. Additionally, the Gizmotron name was embossed on the plastic housings of the product and as such, it is the most widely used name to name to identify the product. This name change was proposed to resolve the Gizmotron vs "The Gizmo" dispute. 2600:4041:434C:8A00:A4FF:5C52:1EF5:2599 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Swindon Stadium → Abbey Stadium (Swindon) – The stadium is about to close. After it has closed (or it could even be argued now), the WP:COMMONNAME applies to the County Ground. So I believe it makes sense, and is within Wikipedia's policy, to move to "Abbey Stadium (Swindon)" and have Swindon Stadium to direct to the County Ground page. Icaldonta (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Syro-Hittite states → Neo-Hittite statesNeo-Hittite states – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. "Neo-Hittite" is overwhelmingly more common than "Syro-Hittite" in sources on the subject (including in this article's sources). See also this Ngram and this one confirming that "Neo-Hittite" is the dominant term in English-language sources. As mentioned in the article's Name section, the prefix Syro- is anachronistic in this context, as the name Syria did not exist during the time of these kingdoms. The Greeks only began designating Aram as "Syria" after the Assyrian conquest of Aram, with Syria originally being a shortened form of Assyria. Moreover, Mirko Novák (page 105) observes that "Syro-Hittite" overemphasizes the "Syrian" (i.e. Aramean) aspect while neglecting the Luwian one. He notes that "Luwian–Aramean" would be linguistically most precise, but that "Neo-Hittite" remains appropriate, since the Luwian–Aramean kingdoms consciously identified with the Hittite imperial tradition. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Princess Alexandra (born 1936) → ? – "(born 1936)" is only used when disambiguation is needed for two people sharing the same name, and occupation. There is no need for disambiguation here as the subject has a unique name. Now, since there's an issue with this title, maybe it could be moved to simply Princess Alexandra in which case the disambiguation page could be moved to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). Of course, the short description "British princess (born 1936)" would disambiguate it. Spectritus (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Algieba → Gamma LeonisGamma Leonis – This page was moved with the reasoning This seems like in an ADS search, Algieba got about three times more results than Gamma Leonis, which satisfies WP:STARNAMES. For some reason, simply searching ADS for "Algieba" returns over 100,000 results, which have nothing to do with the star. (Looks like it may be showing results for "algebra"?) If "object:Algieba" is added to the query, the number of results is in the single digits and less than for "Gamma Leonis"/"Gamma1 Leonis". So I don't think that can be used to argue that "Algieba" is more common. On the other hand there may be a shift toward preferring proper names of stars as article titles (see Talk:Kochab#Requested move 15 September 2025) so people may prefer this title anyway. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester → Alexander MontaguAlexander Montagu – Per WP:NPOVTITLE, it appears to be quite controversial whether Montagu even legitimately holds the title of Duke of Manchester. Significantly, Montagu is not listed at the Roll of the Peerage, which is often considered the definitive source for a list of current dukes. Significantly, a recent move discussion surrounding another former duke placed considerable weight on the former duke's removal from the Roll of the Peerage. As Montagu has never been listed on the Roll, it seems quite controversial to consider him a duke in good standing. As such, it is proposed to rename the article, with some mention in the lede that some consider him to be the lawful Duke, but he is not listed in the Roll. Dash77 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Regnal years of English and British monarchs → Regnal years of English monarchsRegnal years of English monarchs – This page was moved from "English monarchs" to the longer "English and British monarchs" title without discussion a couple of years ago. I understand the intention of the mover, but I believe it is unnecessarily longer, and adds confusion. In lists of "British kings", I expect to see at least Kings of Scotland listed, as well as Kings of Northumbria, Mercia, Gwynedd, etc. This page does not cover those. It only covers Kings of England since 1066 and their legal successors after 1707. Moreover, this is about de jure official dating citation used in English law (there is no such thing as "British law"). Thus, regnal years begin only in 1066, the English legal memory limit, and the dates are guaranteed only for citations in English law. The article does not pretend or guarantee to apply to citations in Scots Law, an entirely separate legal system. Given the article range means to apply only to English law, the title should refer to "English monarchs", and let the post-1707 arrangements be noted in the lede. Shorter, clearer and cleaner. Walrasiad (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – AirZeta → AIRZETAAIRZETA – The official corporate name is “AIRZETA,” in all uppercase letters, as registered on all legal documents including our business registration and all official airworthiness certificates. After the acquisition of Asiana Airlines’ cargo division, our company is officially and legally registered as “AIRZETA” in every regulatory and contractual context. This is not merely branding, but the legal and exclusive name style, which is consistent across licenses, contracts, and international documentation. I have uploaded a version of our business registration that has been carefully redacted to remove sensitive personal and confidential information for privacy and security reasons. This redacted version preserves only the essential information proving the official company name “AIRZETA” in compliance with Wikipedia’s content and privacy guidelines. shows AIRZETA (all CAP.) If further verification is required, I can provide additional documentation upon request. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Duke Deputy GM Project Lead, IATP Asiana Airlines | On Assignment to AIRZETA Supporting AIRZETA Maintenance Material AIRZETA (AIH/KJ) – formerly Air Incheon, rebranded after the acquisition of Asiana Airlines’ cargo business unit 211.177.53.200 (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 → Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Procedural deletions – We now have a second procedural deletion criterion, CSD U6, which is similar to G13 in logic but applies to user subpages of users with few or no non-userspace edits. I think the easiest way to handle this on the REFUND side is to expand the /G13 subpage to also cover U6, which is as simple as tweaking the header and changing MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js#L-49 to say "this page deleted under G13 or U6". This would make the subpage' name incomplete, though. We could rename to "/G13 and U6" (which is my second-choice !vote), but using the CSD number in the title was already a bit opaque to new users, and will become increasingly unwieldy if further procedural CSDs are ever added. So instead I suggest this, "/Procedural deletions", which is both clearer to new users interacting with the page and more forward-compatible. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Qasr Mushatta → Mshatta – The most common spelling in English is Mshatta rather than Mushatta and, moreover, it seems like more sources refer to it as simply Mshatta, without Qasr. Qasr (al-)Mshatta still appears in references, or appears as a longer version of the name alongside the shorter version, but it's not more common and evidently not necessary. See for example ngram or compare number of results in Google Scholar searches: [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Plenty of direct examples in scholarly general references ([8], [9], [10], etc) or in more specialized works ([11], [12][13], etc). Nor does there appear to be any other topic that goes by this name, so there's no ambiguity or loss of precision with the more concise version. So for both WP:COMMONNAME and for WP:CONCISE, recommend moving to "Mshatta". R Prazeres (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the name change from "Baby Blinkins" to "The Blinkins" is that "Baby Blinkins" only represented a collection of the characters in their baby stages. The entire line, which encompasses the characters in all phases of their lives and adventures, is actually called "The Blinkins." This name change helps to better reflect the diversity and growth of the characters, providing a more comprehensive view of their charming universe.
(Discuss) – South American cougar → Puma – I believe this article should be renamed Puma. No one in South America, where the animal is native, calls it the South American cougar. The puma in South America is the nominate subspecies. The cougar in North America is a subspecies. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nutria → CoypuCoypu – Coypu is the name used in South America where the coypu is native. It has been introduced into North America and Europe. Nutria is also an ambigous name as a different species (the otter) is known as Nutria is some countries/languages. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Liberalism and radicalism in Romania → Liberalism in RomaniaLiberalism in Romania – Shorter, more concise. Current title feels original research, do sources discuss Romanian liberalism always next to radicalism? It doesn't seem so [14]. Furthermore, Classical radicalism states on its own article that it is in fact a subset of liberalism, and most of this article deals with ("mainstream"? "standard"? "non-radical"?) liberalism anyway, not with radicalism. I believe this proposed title is more appropriate and simpler and that it does not even narrow the article's scope. The move would also make this article consistent with most articles at Template:Liberalism in Europe. SuperΨDro18:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – General secretaryship of Xi Jinping → ? – From what I can tell, "General secretaryship of Xi Jinping" is completely a Wikipedia invention. I've not been able to find sources that call his tenure "general secretaryship" (which itself seems to be a pretty uncommon term). I'd also like to find some consensus on what the articles on tenures of Chinese leaderships (and perhaps other Communist leaders) should be called. The Account 2 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Paisa (region) → Paisa (person) – "Region" seems a poor choice of disambiguator here, since the article is about a group of people rather than a region. I don't know that "person" is the best possible disambiguator; perhaps someone else can come up with a better suggestion. Deor (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.ASUKITE15:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2026 United Kingdom local elections → 2026 English local elections2026 English local elections – Big move, but the reason is that the current article structure is very complicated and simply doesn't reflect the way elections in the UK are structured, nor does it reflect reliable sources report on UK local elections. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all have completely different local election systems, on different schedules, with different party leaders. In the years where elections only happen in England, sources tend to simply report on "England" (e.g. 2018, BBC), whereas in the years with devolved elections sources tend to report on all elections at once (e.g. 2016, BBC)- covering not only the local elections in England but also the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The decision to have an article which covers local council and mayoral elections across the UK but not devolved assembly and parliament elections isn't really followed by any other sources- e.g. the 2022 United Kingdom local elections article covering the local elections in Scotland and Wales but not the Northern Ireland assembly election isn't the way sources report on it at all. Having one article works out pre-1999 when there were no devolved assemblies, no mayors, and no PCCs- the election system was a lot simpler back then. But now that the UK's election system is as complex as it is, I think it would significantly improve readability to narrow down the focuses of these articles from the UK to specifically focusing on local elections in England (besides, the elections in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland have their own articles already). For summarizing the various types of elections in the UK in a given year, I would instead suggest improving the series of overview articles like 2022 United Kingdom electoral calendar. Chessrat(talk, contributions)23:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Al-Fashir → El FasherEl Fasher – El Fasher is by far the most common transliteration in all sources. With the city gaining renewed attention due to the end of the siege and subsequent ethnic cleansing, I believe that the name of the article should reflect WP:COMMONNAME. Sources using El Fasher include the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab [24], the United Nations [25], the International Crisis Group [26], and Human Rights Watch [27]. The argument regarding that al-Fashir is the direct Arabic transliteration of الفاشر is misguided, as Sudanese Arabic also writes جنينة (directly: Junaynah) as Geneina, the more common pronunciation and English transliteration. Jebiguess (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – List of entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks → ? – The current title is the equivalent of having a Wikipedia article titled List of education affected by the COVID-19 pandemic instead of Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education. The previous RM discussion a few months back failed to establish consensus in either direction. I think that, if I had avoided specifying a new name, then those who would've supported the general idea (but opposed the particular name I proposed) wouldn't have found it difficult to figure out how to cast an honest !vote, so I figured I'd open another discussion of this nature to give such users another chance to say something or suggest different alternative titles. As some opponents argued that the current title should be kept because the article is a list, I recently tried to start an RfC discussion to figure out where consensus would stand on converting this article to prose, but that was quickly shut down because title-changing was brought up alongside unlistification. Although I followed Zxcvbnm's suggestion and created a draft, I've never been able to figure out what to do next with it in order to push for this article's scope to be change[d] to that effect. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Universal set → Universe of setsUniverse of sets – I'm proposing a minor topic change from "Set of all sets" to "Universe of sets", having the non-existent object be a section of the article. There's a reasonable amount to say about the universe of sets in terms of model theory and philosophy. Specifically, in a Platonist view and the role of large cardinals, compared to a multiversalist view. The broader concept is already discussed here, and, honestly, it seems weird to have the non-existent object be the main topic of the article. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton → American Insurance Co. v. CanterAmerican Insurance Co. v. Canter – RIP funny name, but the COMMONNAME for this SCOTUS case is clear. The only reason I cannot move this myself is because I created the redirect blocking it because I kept running into "Canter" and assumed at that time that "356" was more common just because that was the title currently. This case has come up in my studies quite a bit lately, and I have never organically come across it called "356" in any document in the last century. It is possible to find some with Google Scholar, but there are more results for "Canter." In response to "these search results are relatively small," I just say again: I've been really deep in the weeds of non-digitized books lately, and it is always Canter. lethargilistic (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Elko → Elko (disambiguation)Elko (disambiguation) – This name seems to have a primary topic, which is Elko, Nevada, with more than 300 pageviews per day. That city is a county seat and has a much higher population than any other Elko. The other Elko topics seem relatively obscure. Some of them wouldn't really be called Elko. For example, Elko County would be called Elko County, not Elko by itself (and Elko, Nevada, is also its principal city anyway, so it shouldn't be a WP:ASTONISHing destination regardless). Elko, Kentucky, and Elko, Minnesota, and Elko, New York, don't exist anymore and each get less than 10 pageviews per day. Elko, Georgia, is described as having declined after several unfortunate events about 100–125 years ago (a boll weevil blight followed by a fire followed by the termination of its train passenger service), and its reported historical population seems to have peaked at about 500 when those events began, and it gets only about 8 pageviews per day. Elko, Missouri (less than one pageview per day), has no reported population estimate and its post office closed more than 100 years ago. Elko New Market, Minnesota, gets only about 14 pageviews per day and doesn't seem to be called "Elko" by itself. The album only gets about two pageviews per day. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Araea → Araea (genus) – Due to overlap with Araea (letter). I think this page (Araea) should be turned into a disambig. I don't think there's a WP:PTOPIC. When you search in Google scholar there's a few hits for both this genus and for the Hangul letter, and a lot of typos for "area". If you google normally, you get various stuff, but more Hangul than the genus. It's not clear to me which usage is more dominant in English. In Korean historical linguistics, the vowel araea is a major topic. It's also a current letter for the Jeju language. Imo its stature is relatively higher than compared to this genus vs the whole of biology/butterflies. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Feature toggle → Feature flagFeature flag – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, “feature flag” has become the overwhelmingly dominant term for this software engineering practice in both professional and academic sources, while “feature toggle” is now a secondary synonym. In recent years, authoritative and reliable sources have shifted to “feature flag” as the preferred name: * Web search / trend evidence: A [Google Trends comparison for “feature flag” vs “feature toggle” in the U.S.](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=feature%20flag,feature%20toggle&hl=en) shows that “feature flag” has substantially higher search interest over time (about 50x), reinforcing its broader adoption in the software community. * Martin Fowler, who originally popularized the concept, now uses the term *feature flag* interchangeably and notes that it has largely superseded “toggle”: see Fowler’s [Feature Toggles (aka Feature Flags)](https://martinfowler.com/articles/feature-toggles.html) (updated 2023). * Industry usage: Major software engineering organizations and tooling providers—including GitHub, Google Cloud, AWS AppConfig, and LaunchDarkly —all refer to the concept exclusively as feature flags in product documentation and technical blogs (e.g., [LaunchDarkly Docs](https://docs.launchdarkly.com/home/getting-started/feature-flags), [AWS AppConfig Feature Flags](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/appconfig/latest/userguide/appconfig-feature-flags.html)). * Books and references: Modern DevOps and continuous delivery texts—including *Continuous Delivery* (Humble & Farley, 2010), Accelerate (Forsgren, Humble, Kim, 2018), and Team Topologies (Skelton & Pais, 2019)—use “feature flag” as the standard term. Moving the article to **Feature flag** will align with current reliable usage, improve search discoverability, and maintain consistency with related articles like Continuous integration, Continuous delivery, and Dark launch. The current title “Feature toggle” should remain as a redirect to preserve continuity and historical context. 71.56.154.8 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Valorrr(lets chat)16:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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) – Manukau → Manukau CentralManukau Central – I don't believe this area is primary for the term 'Manukau', it gets about equal page views as Manukau City and 4% of readers click through to Manukau City (most readers get here via external Google search I suggest that a disambiguation page be created at Manukau as I do not believe there is a primary topic. The area is often referred to as Manukau Central or Manukau City Centre instead of simply 'Manukau', which is often used for the former Manukau City area. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Shetland dialect → ShaetlanShaetlan – As of yesterday, Shaetlan has received an ISO 639:3 code (scz) with the name spelled Shaetlan, which is the autonym of the language. "Shetland Dialect" is now inappropriate for the title of this article when it is considered a language in its own right. The term "Shetland Dialect", while widely used locally, is an exonym, and is now inaccurate. The reason for the spelling "Shaetlan" over "Shetland" is two three-fold - 1) it accurately portrays a large portion of speakers' tendency to pronounce the word with a voiceless /d/, 2) the <ae> reflects the intuitive community spelling convention of primary stress short intercononantal vowel, cf. maet, paet, etc. which haes the same vowel as the first syllable of Shaetlan, & 3) it keeps the language name and place name easily distinguishable when written. This is the style I Hear Dee has adopted while trying to create a standardised orthography for the language. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), because of the use of Shaetlan being exclusive to the language, it would qualify as "unquestionably the primary topic for the name", so "Shaetlan language" seems unnecessary. As per Wikipedia:Article titles, Shaetlan is more precise and more concise, and it is more natural to native Shaetlan speakers as an autonym vs an exonym. This admittedly at the cost of being slightly less recognisable outside of Shetland, however Shaetlan is slowly becoming the new standard name for this language in linguistics circles. I think this is the best compromise here. After this name change, I intend to do a bit of an overhaul of this article to set the record straight on languagehood and a number of other inaccuracies. For full disclosure, I am one of the first few signatories to the ISO code change request application. I am a project co-investigator at I Hear Dee. I am also the person who requested this article be renamed last time! A lot has changed in the last 5 years in the Shetland linguistic scene - at the time I made the last request, the name change was a vast improvement over the previous name, but now is an appropriate time to move on. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ram 1500 REV (Range-Extended) → Ram 1500 REV – This is confusing as-is, as "Range-Extended" is unclear. The page using that as a disambiguator is the article for what will ostensibly be the production model; the article currently disambiguated as "All-Electric" has been cancelled and will never see production, at least not under the "REV" branding which has been repurposed for the former. Therefore, the "Range-Extended" REV is all but certain to be the primary topic going forward. Most people looking for information on the Ram 1500 REV will likely be looking for the production model, not the cancelled one. "Concept" may not be the best title for the all-electric article, but it's the clearest I could think of - I'm open to other suggestions on that. Alternatively, the content could be merged to Ram 1500 (DT). In any case, both current titles violate the MOS so I wanted to get a discussion open as soon as possible before more undiscussed moves are made. Sable232 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.WhatADrag07 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.CNC (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Anabaptist settler colonialism → History of Anabaptist migration – The current title feels odd and doesn’t really line up with how similar community histories are named. Other migrant groups who formed non-sovereign enclaves abroad (like Italian or German "colonies" in Latin America) aren’t described in this way, so calling this one "Anabaptist settler colonialism" is inconsistent and potentially misleading. A title like History of Anabaptist migration is clearer, more neutral, and better aligned with WP:CONSISTENT. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of UkraineRussian invasion of Ukraine – In 2023, the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (which is not this article) was moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine as a result of two consecutive RMs, found here and here. The RMs determined that the invasion that began in 2022 is the primary topic of the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", since no other invasion is nearly as notable and no other article on Wikipedia has an actual title conflict with "Russian invasion of Ukraine", and thus the year is neither a necessary identifier nor means of disambiguation. However, editors could not agree on whether the invasion ended in 2022 or remained ongoing, so the RM's outcome sidestepped this question. Last week, a new RM, found here, resulted in the article moving to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as a subtopic of the parent article Russo-Ukrainian War (notice the inconsistent capitalization), which covers events from 2014 to the present. This RM found new consensus that the invasion had, in fact, ended in 2022, and that it is therefore inaccurate to describe the events post-2022 as an "invasion", but rather a stage of the war that began in 2014. This article was subsequently created to solely cover the events of 2022, usurping the redirect 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. But this is problematic. The 2023 RM had already found consensus that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", making the year superfluous. When another editor attempted to BOLDly move this article to Russian invasion of Ukraine, it was reverted on the grounds that it should be discussed first. Some editors argued that the 2023 RM had been nullified by the most recent RM because only the 2022–present events had been found to be the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", not the 2022 events. This is, of course, in spite of the new consensus that concluded only the latter can be characterized as an "invasion", not the former. This discussion can be found here. This post-close squabble has also led to an edit war at the Russian invasion of UkraineRussian invasion of Ukraine redirect, which has gone back-and-forth between Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, neither target makes sense, because redirecting to the former does not align with the new consensus that the war is not an "invasion", while redirecting to the latter would acknowledge it as the primary topic and make "2022" an unnecessary disambiguation. Consequently, the only viable solution to resolve this mess is to repeat what was done in 2023, for largely the same reasons: move 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russian invasion of Ukraine.
.jpg?lang=en)
