Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
This page 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. 94 discussions have been relisted.

November 10, 2025

[edit]

November 9, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Drone strikes in Pakistan → American drone strikes in Pakistan – The title of these two articles make no mention of the US. Both of them, however, begin with "Between 2004 and 2018, the United States government..." This was surprising to me, but it looks like this issue has been discussed before. In 2009, there was a proposed move to clarify that these strikes were done by the United States. While it was moved, the consensus was against it and the move was reverted. I believe that developments since 2009 have made the title of these articles too vague. Drone technology has become far more common since then India has attacked Pakistan with drones,[1] as well as the Pakistani army employing drone strikes in anti-terror operations.[2] This has led to confusion over if drone strikes by groups other than the US military should be discussed, mostly on the list article. Non-US attacks have been added and removed without anyone reaching a consensus on whether or not to added those. In the alternative to moving, the articles could be expanded to cover all instances of drone strikes, but I think the US ones are notable and distinct enough to have their own article. IsCat (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Strictly Come Dancing (franchise) → Dancing with the StarsDancing with the Stars – Article was moved without discussion in April 2025, using WP:TVFL as justification. This is highly problematic. The franchise is, in many of its iterations (including arguably its two most notable, Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing with the Stars (American TV series)) English-speaking, so the guidance that we should default to the native title if the show has not been widely released in the English-speaking world is not relevant. Instead we must look to: where different English-speaking countries use different titles, use the most common one and give the native and alternate English title(s) afterwards, which isn't a clear cut matter in this case between the two titles. There are three key reasons why I believe Dancing with the Stars is the most appropriate name here: #The WP:COMMONNAME question: As a franchise, there is one (Chinese) version of the show that adopted the Strictly Come Dancing name (before later switching to Dancing with the Stars); all other adaptations (and all English adaptations of the original format) take either DWTS or an alternative title. There is evidently widespread English-language recognition of the DWTS name, likely above Strictly Come Dancing outside of the UK considering the wider travel of DWTS versions. #WP:NATURAL disambiguation: The Dancing with the Stars name removes the need for parenthetical disambiguation, making it a preferential choice in the event a single common name isn't deemed apparent. #The history: Strictly Come Dancing has this source, showing that at least initially there was a level of independence in the format's international establishment from the BBC series, as it was sold by producer/creator Richard Hopkins alone. This situates Dancing with the Stars as the international format Hopkins established from Strictly Come Dancing. U-Mos (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Killing off → Character death – "Killing off" is an overly vague term that can apply to real life (like "coral are being killed off by global warming"), and also implies a specific form of fictional death in which a character in an ongoing television series that was previously not planned to die was "killed off" due to extenuating circumstances such as an actor's real-life death. This article is about essentially all forms of fictional character death. If moved, "killing off" may have to be deleted entirely due to vagueness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 8, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Grooming gangs scandal → Grooming gangsGrooming gangs – After a lot of thought, I think the best way to cover this topic is under the name "grooming gangs". There are several related concepts here, that should be covered in a single article to provide readers context, similar to how the German Wikipedia about "clan crime" (Clan-Kriminalität) is constructed [1] 1. the definition of the term "grooming gang" itself, and its controversial connotations. It is not necessary to use "in the United Kingdom" in the title, because "grooming gang" is a UK-specific term that is not widely used elsewhere. 2. The political scandal about police failure to deal with child sex abuse rings described as "grooming gangs" and whether this was to do with the ethnicity of the offenders 3. The prevalence of sexual abuse attributed to "grooming gangs", including relative to other types of child sexual abuse in the UK, and whether or not British Pakistanis or related categories are disproportionately represented among offenders. 4. Opinions about whether "grooming gangs" represents a moral panic generated by media coverage or a legitimate phenomenon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Baby Blinkins → The Blinkins – Now listed thanks to belated tag-syntax repair. Original comment by Meiljb766899 (talk · contribs) (12 August 2025, 22:48):

    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.

    Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 02:23, 8 November 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. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 7, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage → New York Times Manual of StyleNew York Times Manual of Style – This proposed title is much more concise, making the title easier to understand and enables readers to know better what the article is about. I don't think stating the whole official title is necessary as the "and Usage" part doesn't give much extra information from generic documents of a similar type. Removing "The" from the title means you don't have to type an excessive amount of letters, alleviating the cumbersomeness of the current title while retaining some — yet valuable — parts of the subject document's title.
    Alternatively, "New York Times Style Guide" would be an even better title as it is more concise but that's not my preference as it disregards the official title of the policy document, I don't think a seperate request of that could gain consensus either. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 6, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Cabinet crisis → ? – I propose that the title be changed to either Political crisis or Government crisis, both of which currently redirect to Cabinet crisis. Exhibit A: The title "Cabinet crisis" is overprecise, because it insinuates that the crises subject of the article are all caused by and centred about the failure or dissolution of a government's cabinet. When I read the title that was what I presumed the article would cover. Yet listed as examples in the article are instances of government and political dysfunction spurred by unresolved disputes between political entities, opposition to the government by the public and coups d'état. The lead itself defines a "cabinet crisis" broadly as "a situation where an incumbent government is unable to form or function, is toppled through an uprising, or collapses"; these are not problems with the cabinet, specifically, and could be the products of other factors. Though these crises do result in, and/or are worsened by, cabinet members and other officials resigning, being dismissed or otherwise vacating their positions (and several are, in fact, caused by such), the implication that cabinet failures are necessarily at the centre of the crises is inaccurate. A crisis's non-cabinet-related causes and consequences may be worthier of coverage and more impactful on a state's government and political system. "Political crisis" would, therefore, better encompass the article's subject. As an alternative "Government crisis" would still denote dysfunction with a state's government, without implying that issue must be with the cabinet. Exhibit B: "Political crisis" is also a much commoner and more familiar term. Google Ngrams gives the occurrence of "Political crisis" in English literature to consistently be several times as frequent as that of "Cabinet crisis" between years 1800 and 2022. It would make Wikipedia coverage of political crises more consistent across Wikipedia, too. Most other Wikipedia articles about political and government crises, including those listed in this very article, have "political crisis" or "government crisis" in their titles, not "cabinet crisis", unless (or even if) they pertain specifically to problematic resignations or vacancies of cabinet positions. RandFreeman (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 5, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – FYE (retailer) → FYE – Of the items on FYE, no others exactly use the all-caps spelling outside the airport code, which is not that airport's exact name. Fyé also differs by use of the accent mark, and I couldn't find widespread evidence of "fiscal year end" being commonly abbreviated as FYE outside obscure business trades. As the company name is an initialism of "For Your Entertainment", the use of all-capital letters is consistent with other commonly accepted acronyms and initialisms that often appear in all-caps, such as KFC or NBC. Also judging from the inbound links and general use outside Wikipedia, it seems the initialism "FYE" is by far most commonly understood to refer to the retailer above the code for an obscure airport or shorthand business jargon. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tamnan Phuen Mueang Chiang Mai → The Chiang Mai Chronicle – In English-language scholarship the work conventionally appears as The Chiang Mai Chronicle rather than a phonetic transliteration (e.g. Tamnān Phuen Mueang Chiang Mai). This is both clearer and more accurate: “Chronicle” immediately communicates the genre (a historical narrative/pongsāwādā/palm-leaf chronicle) to readers unfamiliar with Thai, while a transliteration neither conveys meaning nor appears in bibliographic databases, reducing discoverability. Major published English editions and academic treatments adopt the translated title (see the English edition, The Chiang Mai Chronicle, 1995; revised 1998), so using that form aligns one’s work with established scholarly conventions and facilitates citation, indexing, and cross-disciplinary readership. Therefore, the title of this page should be The Chiang Mai Chronicle. Tree2563 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 4, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Rui Borges (footballer, born 1981) → Rui Borges – A year has passed since a move was discussed. Rui Borges is notorious manager in Portugal and now Europe. He has won 2 titles. His managerial career has surpassed his player career in significance, which means that in the least, his title should not have "footballer" on it. On top of that, there are only 2 other "Rui Borges". One is a former football player with ~100-150 matches at a 1st tier level. The other is a Portuguese swimmer with no ptwiki and one single reference. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the manager is the most known Rui Borges and that if not given the page "Rui Borges", he should not have footballer on it. Earl of Gotland (talk) 12:18, 4 November 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) — Relisting. --Warm Regards, Abhiimanyu7 talk  08:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 3, 2025

[edit]
  • (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) – C. Chhunga → Ch. ChhungaCh. Chhunga – The reason I am recommending this move is that as a researcher in this field, Ch. Chhunga is the established norm of the Mizo name system. All official sources, government and academic sources use Ch. Chhunga. Other prominent Mizo figures also follow this thus as Ch. Saprawnga. My sources are the search engine results mainly. C. Chhunga yield little to no reliable sources while Ch. Chhunga brought up numerous historical documents, books and GOVT websites. https://mizoram.nic.in/gov/cm.htm The Government website here states it as Ch. Chhunga. *Nunthara, C (1996). Mizoram: Society and Polity. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. p. 42. ISBN 81-7387-059-4. *Verghese, C.G.; Thanzawna, R.L. (1997). A History of the Mizos. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. These prominent Mizo history books also use Ch. Chhunga. Suhas Chatterjee, an authority on Mizo history conforms to Mizo naming standard in his book: Suhas Chatterjee (1994). Making of Mizoram: role of Laldenga, Volume 2. M.D. Publications. p. 252. ISBN 978-81-85880-38-9. this text also used Ch. Chhunga. The biography written by James Dokhuma is called Ch. Chhunga biography. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL25405610M/Ch._Chhunga_Chanchin An official school named after him uses Ch. Chhunga https://schooleducation.mizoram.gov.in/post/pi-lalrinsangi-chawngthu-state-awardee-2025-headmaster-govt-ch-chhunga-hs My last point is that the official Mizoram Gazette in adminisntration and law uses Ch. Chhunga in their official records: https://mizoramassembly.in/storage/Assembly/Gazette/EO/GZEO1ISS_015.pdf Taitesena (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 18:24, 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. TarnishedPathtalk 11:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

[edit]
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) – 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]

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (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) – 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. TarnishedPathtalk 11:25, 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]

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Staff, Al Jazeera. "Have India and Pakistan started a drone war?". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2025-11-09.
  2. ^ "Quietly, Pakistan Wages a Deadly Drone Campaign Inside Its Own Borders". 2025-06-19. Retrieved 2025-11-09.
  3. ^ "Echinopsis Zucc". POWO. Retrieved Oct 26, 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Echinopsis Zucc". POWO. Retrieved Oct 30, 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ "Echinopsis macrogona". POWO. Retrieved Oct 30, 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ "Echinopsis Zucc". POWO. Retrieved Oct 26, 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ "Echinopsis Zucc". POWO. Retrieved Oct 26, 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1321338139#Backlog"