Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request a technical move below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

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

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

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

"WP:RSPM" redirects here. For entries on the perennial sources list that start with "M", see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/5.
Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 14 November 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 14 November 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 16:12, 14 November 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 14 November 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 16:12, 14 November 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 14 November 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 16:12, 14 November 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 14 November 2025

– why Example (talk) 16:12, 14 November 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 14 November 2025

– why Example (talk) 16:12, 14 November 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. 81 discussions have been relisted.

November 14, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 1966 Palomares incident → 1966 Palomares accident – I propose renaming this article to 1966 Palomares accident per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION and WP:CONSISTENCY. All authoritative governmental and scientific documents and the overwhelming majority of scholarly and journalistic sources use accident, not incident. Scholarship has documented the use of "incident" as a contemporary euphemism to misrepresent the seriousness of the accident. Keeping it today contradicts current terminology and presents an inaccurate description of the event. 1. Authoritative definitions According to the U.S. Department of Defense “Definitions”: https://web.archive.org/web/20201030002357/https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/narp/Reference_Docs/Definitions.htm * Nuclear Weapon Accident (Broken Arrow): an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that results in any of the following: accidental launching; loss or destruction; non-nuclear detonation; or public hazard, actual or implied. * Nuclear Weapon Incident: an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that does not meet the above criteria. The 1966 Palomares B-52 crash meets the Nuclear Weapon Accident definition criteria and appears in U.S. military literature as a canonical Broken Arrow case. 2. Authoritative sources * USAF Nuclear Safety (1966), *Broken Arrow. Palomares, Spain* https://web.archive.org/web/20090327090414/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/133.pdf * U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency (1975), Palomares Summary Report, *Section 1: The Accident* https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16478624.pdf * U.S. DOE (1985), *Nuclear Accidents at Palomares, Spain in 1966 and Thule, Greenland in 1968* https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb475/docs/doc%207.pdf * CIEMAT and Spanish governmental scientific literature consistently use *accidente de Palomares*. 3. Why "incident" is inaccurate Beyond contradicting official definitions and sources, the use of "incident" as a 1966 euphemism – deliberately employed to misrepresent and minimise the event – has been extensively documented by scholars, including: * Eibenschutz Hartman, C. et al. (1984), *El accidente nuclear de Palomares, 1966–1986*. ISSN: 0213-4462.  * Herrera Plaza, J.; Sánchez Picón, A. (2003), *Operación Flecha Rota. Accidente Nuclear en Palomares*. ISBN: 84-8266-355-0. * Megara, J. (2006), "Dropping Nuclear Bombs on Spain: the Palomares Accident of 1966 and the U.S. Airborne Alert". http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-2502 * Moran, B. (2009), *The Day We Lost the H-bomb: Cold War, Hot Nukes, and the Worst Nuclear Weapons Disaster in History*. ISBN: 9780891419044.  * Herrera Plaza, J. (2015), *Accidente Nuclear en Palomares. Consecuencias (1966–2016)*. ISBN: 978-84-15387-75-6.  * Herrera Plaza, J.; López Arnal, S. (2019), *Silencios y deslealtades. El accidente militar de Palomares: desde la Guerra Fría hasta hoy*. ISBN: 978-84-16783-88-5. * Florensa, C. (2021), "A nuclear monument the size of a football field: The diplomatic construction of soil nuclearity in the Palomares accident (Spain, 1966)", https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12378 * Abreu-Colombri, J.A. (2024), "La comunicación dictatorial del riesgo: El Caso Palomares 1966 en España", https://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2024.i25.02 "Incident" misrepresents the event, reproduces 1966 political messaging, and conflicts with official definitions and current usage across governmental, scientific, scholarly and journalistic sources. 4. WP:COMMONNAME Since the 1970s, the overwhelming majority of high-quality secondary sources (official, academic, scientific) use accident. The proposed title 1966 Palomares accident satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, and WP:CONSISTENCY, aligns the article with official definitions and specialised sources, corrects an inaccurate designation, and avoids reproducing a historical euphemism that is incompatible with encyclopedic precision. KLEIÓHISTORÍAN ΚΛΕΙΩΙΣΤΟΡΙΑΝ 15:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mattancherry Bridge → Thoppumpady Bridges – The page is really confusing as it interchangeably mentions both bridges: southern BOT bridge/new bridge and northern harbour bridge/old bridge. The first image used is of the new bridge, taken from the old bridge; the 2nd and 3rd images are of the old bridge. It claims Bristow built the bridge(s) but he only built the first one, he was long dead by the time the new bridge was built. Map shows the old bridge's location. Second thing is the place, noone now refers it as Mattancherry bridge as now the area around is called Thoppumpady and Mattancherry is further north. Malayalam wikipedia only has the article for the old bridge and it clearly states facts only about that one. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 13, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Krypto the Superdog → Krypto the Superdog (TV series)Krypto the Superdog (TV series) – The character Krypto is formally known as "Krypto the Superdog", and should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially considering in the years since the inception of the articles for the character and the TV series using the formal name, some readers may not immediately know "Krypto" differs from "crypto" (ie cryptocurrency). I can imagine some would add "the Superdog" as the full name and expect to be brought to an article for the character, not one for a 2005 TV show. Here are the all-time pageviews of both articles, which show a spike for "Krypto the Superdog" in December 2024, around the time the character was revealed to be appearing in the 2025 Superman film. Since then, searches for both have continued to increase, with "Krypto" consistently ranking higher. Adding the "(TV series)" DAB to the TV series article and moving "Krypto the Superdog" itself (and any associated redirects, such as Krypto the super dog) would avoid any feasible confusion readers would have when searching for the character versus the 2005 show. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 23:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – CW → CW (disambiguation)CW (disambiguation) – The CW is the primary meaning of CW now. If you want to disprove me, neither centiwatt (the c in cW when it has this meaning is always lowercase) nor the C Omega language (the letters W and Omega are not the same letter) can disprove me in any way. Those 2 meanings are at the top of this page, and The CW is hidden deep in the page, suggesting that it is more likely that someone who types CW will search for one of the 2 meanings I brought up first. CW should re-direct to its primary meaning, The CW; the article will remain where it is. Georgia guy (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Poor law union → Poor Law UnionPoor Law Union – Poor Law is invariably capitalised; Poor Law Union is more common. See comment from Eric Corbett on the article's talk page: "The present title, Poor law union, doesn't really make sense, as Poor Law is invariably capitalised. The only two sensible options are Poor Law union or Poor Law Union, both of which are represented in the literature, with the balance being significantly in favour of Poor Law Union. The latter would also be consistent with Poor Law Commission, for instance." I cannot move the page myself, as a redirect exists at Poor Law Union, and has edit history. TRiG (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Six-Day War → 1967 War1967 War – WP:COMMONNAME per metrics:  :*N gram  :*Google Trends According to WP:RS, the current title is also a WP:POVTITLE:  :"The June 1967 war is the subject of disagreement even as to its name. To Israel, it was the “Six-Day War,” an appellation that highlighted Israel’s military superiority for winning in a short time."  :*Quigley, John (2012). The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 5. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139424530. ISBN 978-1-107-03206-4.  :"The symbolic meaning of the Hebrew appellation of that war is obvious: just as the universe was created in six days, so was the Land of Israel emancipated in six days."  :*Ram, Uri (November 2000). "National, Ethnic or Civic? Contesting Paradigms of Memory, Identity and Culture in Israel". Studies in Philosophy and Education. 19 (5–6): 405–422. doi:10.1023/A:1005211009924. ISSN 0039-3746. إيان (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 12, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Child pornography → Child sexual assault material – I think it's time to have this discussion again. To be frank, I'm really not convinced by any of the past discussions of this. # I don't really care about WP:COMMONNAME when WP:BEBOLD and WP:IGNORE are both a thing. # Here's the Internet Watch Foundation and Interpol literally making the argument that keeping the name child pornography is actively harmful to those who are victims of it. # It is the WP:COMMONNAME used by the multiple governments, including the U.S. Department of Justice. Porn is a legal piece of content that those over the age of majority watch. CSAM is explicitly illegal over almost the entire world (what the hell the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Somalia, and Dominica have going on, I don't know, but since they have roughly 0.4% of the world's population, I feel comfortable with my hyperbole). It's time to change the name of the Wikipedia article to reflect what "child porn" really is: evidence of a horrible crime against a child that will continue to affect it's victims until the day they die. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mirror life → Mirror-image lifeMirror-image life – The term “mirror-image life” is more precise, descriptive, and consistent with scientific literature. In biochemistry, chirality is expressed as mirror-image molecules (e.g., mirror-image proteins, mirror-image ribosomes, mirror-image DNA). The concept of “mirror life” refers to a hypothetical form of life composed of such mirror-reflected biomolecules; therefore, “mirror-image life” aligns with standard terminology used in the primary sources. A literature search shows that authoritative papers and reviews predominantly use mirror-image life rather than mirror life. Examples include: * Xu, Yuan & Zhu, Ting F. (2022). “Mirror-image T7 transcription of chirally inverted ribosomal and functional RNAs.” Science.378(6618): 405–412. * Harrison, K.; Mackay, A. S.; Kambanis, L.; Maxwell, J. W. C.; Payne, R. J. (2023). “Synthesis and applications of mirror-image proteins.”Nature Reviews Chemistry .7(6): 383–404. * Zhu, Ting (2025). “Mirror of the unknown: should research on mirror-image molecular biology be stopped?” Nature.645(8081): 588–591. Furthermore, “mirror life” is ambiguous linguistically—it could be interpreted metaphorically rather than chemically. The “mirror-image” phrasing explicitly refers to molecular chirality, which is central to the concept. In short, renaming to “Mirror-image life” improves precision, aligns with scholarly usage, and avoids potential ambiguity. Raskimsakira (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Estadio Monumental (Buenos Aires) → Mâs Monumental – This page was moved without a discussion taking place. The stadium was previously named after a former club president. It has now been renamed to Mâs Monumental and the previous name has been dropped. The mover used this to substantiate the move but they didn't move it to the actual new name. They dropped the former club president's name and then added "(Buenos Aires)" to disambiguate the stadium from other "Estadio Monumental"-named stadiums. Shouldn't the stadium name reflect the new name? I found an English source referring to it at Mâs Monumental. However, other sources also use the old River Plate Stadium. Debating whether the move should be to Estadio Mâs Monumental, Mâs Monumental, Mâs Monumental Stadium, or return to River Plate Stadium. Although the latter seems the least likely considering English sources do refer to it as Mâs Monumental. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, MicroX (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 11, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Robin Corbett, Baron Corbett of Castle Vale → Robin CorbettRobin Corbett – The Oxford biography knows him as just Robin Corbett; the award named after him knows him as just Robin Corbett; the UK Parliament knows him as Robin Corbett, and yet misguided precedent, WP:NCROY, here on Wikipedia has resulted in an unnecessary disambiguator being added in the form of his full, honorary title. In the context, this goes blithely against the criteria of naturalness and conciseness, is unnecessary for precision and is no more recognisable than the base name, which is also the clear WP:COMMONAME without any disambiguation. The naming criteria are policy, whereas WP:NCROY is just a convention that is sometimes useful for disambiguation. Here it is not; here it is just a nuisance that flagrantly violates the core naming criterion of concision, alongside other guidelines against needless embellishments, notably WP:HONORIFIC. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:58, 11 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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 10, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Online predator → Online enticement – Currently, Pedophile redirects to Pedophilia, Child Sexual Offender/Abuser both redirect to Child Sexual Abuse. Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors was redirected here. I have listed many terms on the talk page, but Enticement is used by professional organizations and legal organizations to describe "Approaching children online for future sexual exploitation or sexual abuse", and it's also a criminal charge in some places to discuss the specific online-before-abuse behavior that we don't have a main article for currently. We have articles for Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking, already. This is a good example of a definition of Online Enticement: [21] and it a term often used today with Online Predator, like this article: [22]. I feel it's a precise term - it's only used for this type of behavior, and it's very neutral and professional in it's use. Denaar (talk) 19:30, 10 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) — Relisting. mwwv converse∫edits 14:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 9, 2025

  • (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,[6] as well as the Pakistani army employing drone strikes in anti-terror operations.[7] 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

  • (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 [23] 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) – 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

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) – 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]

Backlog

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

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. ^ https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-drone-rubicon-secret-ukraine-war/33532804.html
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkirichenko/2025/09/03/russias-growing-rubicon-drone-force-is-a-major-threat-to-ukraine/
  3. ^ https://prm.ua/en/the-superiority-of-ukrainian-drones-is-under-threat-rubicon-changes-the-rules-of-war/
  4. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/08/14/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-resurgence.html
  5. ^ https://www.ft.com/content/05ca82cc-2613-4144-a4e0-fd595246df8e
  6. ^ Staff, Al Jazeera. "Have India and Pakistan started a drone war?". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2025-11-09.
  7. ^ "Quietly, Pakistan Wages a Deadly Drone Campaign Inside Its Own Borders". 2025-06-19. Retrieved 2025-11-09.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
16:12, Friday, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1322120788#Commenting_on_a_requested_move"