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. 73 discussions have been relisted.

December 16, 2025

[edit]

December 15, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Kidnapping of Noa Argamani → Noa ArgamaniNoa Argamani – This request had been made before on June 10th, 2024, and was opposed. However, since then, she has become a prominent advocate (to the extent of making the Times 100 Most Influential List in 2025). Given her notability as an advocate (with her post-rescue activities section being the longest section in this article), this article is more about Noa Argamani than her abduction, and the title can be changed to reflect as such. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Black belt (martial arts) → Black beltBlack belt – This would revert an undiscussed move of 2005 (performed without an edit summary by an editor who I will notify). "Black belt" currently redirects to a disambiguation page at Black Belt, where the other topics generally use uppercase for "belt" and would typically also use extra words or special context for clarity in writing or conversation. The ordinary native English speaker would expect the term "black belt", by itself with lowercase for "belt", to be the belt/rank/rating level in martial arts. I don't think pageviews tell the whole story here (because of uppercase/lowercase and other factors), but here they are for what they're worth. Wikinav data for the disambiguation page is more mixed, but again I point out that this mixes together uppercase and lowercase uses of "belt". The martial arts meaning is the only meaning provided in the Cambridge dictionary. Collins provides other meanings but explicitly only for when "belt" is capitalized. Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Wiktionary provide secondary meanings for geographical and ethnographic regions (the details for Oxford are paywalled). All dictionaries agree that the primary meaning has to do with martial arts (referring to the physical object, the practitioner who wears it, or the associated level of skill. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. → Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery – Proposing to address whether this potentially controversial move would be a feasible alternative. This article was initially created as "Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix" based on Netflix's bid to acquire Warner Bros.'s studios and streaming assets part of Warner Bros. Discovery. That was before Paramount Skydance launched its hostile takeover bid. Now that there is no clear winning bidder, including either name in the title would be WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:CONCISE. However, the present title may be confusing and/or misleading because the bids propose acquiring assets not necessarily exclusively part of Warner Bros., as addressed in arguments in this discussion, which have called for this move. Either bid proposes purchasing assets from the company, with Netflix's bid offering to complete a spin-off of select assets before such an acquisition closes, so each bid is still for the entire company as it stands officially. There have also been earlier historic acquisition proposals of Warner Bros., so it could be disingenuous not to use the full company name, per WP:RECENTISM. Because other recent moves have been carried out in haste, I am seeking a formal determination. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette → Marquis de LafayetteMarquis de Lafayette – This is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for the Marquis. While WP:NCPEER normally suggests titling the article "Personal name, peerage name", there are a couple of strong reasons to not follow that norm here. The first is that NCPEER also says that there is an exception to this rule "when one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", which is true in this case. Marquis de Lafayette already redirects here, and the only competitor we have would be his father Michel du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette, who is much much less important. This change would match the article with a number of others, including Lord Byron, the Marquis de Condorcet, Lord Mountbatten, the Marquis de Custine, Lord Kelvin, and the Marquis de Sade. The second reason is that this article is written in American English, as the subject has strong national ties to the United States. That's the reason we use the American spelling "Lafayette" in the article and not the standard French spelling "La Fayette". In the United States, the use of "Gilbert du Motier" is incredibly obscure; as you can see here, "Marquis de Lafayette" is about ten times more common in books, and this is including sources that just mention "Gilbert du Motier" and then proceed with "Marquis de Lafayette". In fact, the name is so sufficiently obscure that including it in the title harms searching, as Lafayette does not show up at all when you type "Marquis" into the search bar, when it should probably be either right before or right after Marquis de Sade. "Marquis de Lafayette" is effectively treated as his full name in nearly all cases, and most are unaware that he has another name at all. Ladtrack (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 14, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – -ade (suffix) → -ade-ade – Wikipedia does not describe anything else called exactly "-ade", and indeed -ade-ade redirects to this article, making it WP:MISPLACED at the current title. There were a few moves several years ago, including one that added the disambiguator "(drink suffix)", but that would only make sense if the general suffix (e.g. in "blockade") were likely to get its own separate article. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Yoshimi P-We → YoshimiO – This name seems to be the name that Yoshimi has used most frequently, and the one that she's currently seems to primarily use. From release credits, she hasn't seemed to have used the "P-We" moniker prominently since the early 2000s.[1] Since then, the YoshimiO moniker seems more prominent, with it being used on her social media[2], on the biography pages of bands she's in[3], recent release credits[4], in the band name YoshimiOizumikiYoshiduO (YoshimiO Izumi Kiyoshi Duo), and in articles referencing her.[5] To me, this heavily suggests it is the name she is most frequently referred to, and known by. JellyfishReflector (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC) JellyfishReflector (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 13, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Anedjib → AdjibAdjib – Within this article, Anedjib is referred to only as Adjib, with the exception of the first paragraph and the gallery, the former of which claims that the more correct version of his name is Adjib. Additionally, the royal titulary section has his name listed as ˁḏ-jb (Adj-jb) with no "n" in sight. The name of the article should match the name used within the article. Veristune (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Frederica of Hanover → Frederica of GreeceFrederica of Greece – She was Frederica of Hanover, until she married King Paul of Greece and she became (Queen) Frederica of Greece short for Frederica Queen Consort of the Hellenes. When her husband died she gained the title of Queen Mother of the Hellenes as the mother of King Constantine II of Greece. Thus, she needs to be named by her last and highest title defined by law: Frederica of Greece, the title displayed on her tomb. Also, the most recent Greek Queen is named Anne-Marie of Greece and not Anne-Marie of Denmark, and her sister-in-law, Queen Sofia of Spain, is named Sofia of Spain, and not Sofia of Greece. That is even more clear in Frederica's case, in which Frederica was Princess only for one year of her life! Thus, when she married into Greek monarchy 20 years later, she wasn't even a princess - legally by the Weimar Republic! To conclude, the judgments are backed by clear evidence, first of all that the only inscription on her tomb is Frederica - Queen of the Hellenes. Also to address your claim about maiden names of consorts, the Greek Constitution (both 1911 and 1952 versions) did not use the term consort. And royal decree and international recognition, the king’s wife was styled as “Queen of the Hellenes” not Queen consort. The evidence is clear and points to Frederica of Greece. Lastly, using n grams and using different POVs, we can see that the name Frederica of Greece is more dominant in American and British English. Also, there is another Frederica of Hanover, Princess Frederica of Hanover. Thus, Frederica of Greece competes with both the Princess and Queen, still it remains higher. In conclusion, the name of Her Late Majesty is: Frederica of Greece. Walterfgnn (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 12, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – List of biggest box-office bombs → List of films with the largest box office losses – The term "box-office bomb" is potentially contentious and not always used when discussing films that lose on budget. Whereas the criteria for inclusion here is more appropriately defined by just looking at the size of the box office loss and thus far less contentious (eg the case like for a critically acclaimed film like the Wolfman above). This also makes it easier for links back into this page, as unless there is sourcing that calls it a "box office bomb", using the current name can be an issue. The lede should still discuss what a box office bomb is (eg that most films on this are considered as such). Note that any other title suggestions similar to my suggested one is fair. I'm using "largest" over "biggest" since the loss of money is a quantifiable aspect. Masem (t) 19:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of UkrainePrelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – Consistency: this article's title was based on the old "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article. Recently, this RM split that article into 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (for the initial full-scale invasion) and Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) (for the entire war since 2022). "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is now a redirect. Per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONSUB, we should update this article's title accordingly. "But Russian invasion of Ukraine now redirects to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), not 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" - be that as it may, I believe Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a more elegant and logical title than Prelude to the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). It avoids the parenthetical disambiguation, and specifically refers to the prelude to the events of 24 February 2022. Before the RM that split the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article, I argued that the title of this prelude article was flawed because our articles on the war (correctly) acknowledge that Russia first invaded in 2014 (examples below), so the "prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine" can't have taken place in 2021. However, a move of the prelude article wasn't feasible because it had to be consistent with the main article "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Now that the main article has been moved/split, that issue has been solved, and we should make this article's title consistent both with the title of the main article and with our other coverage of the war.
Helpful Cat {talk} 15:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – OKD → OKD (company)OKD (company) – This is a three-letter acronym also used in a wide variety of fields of endeavor, and this mining company does not appear to be the primary topic for it. Per WP:DPT, we can for example look at: * All-time monthly page views comparison between the top two meanings shows that it's unlikely that the average English reader strongly associates this term with the company, when the readership of the article about this and other software is 50 times larger (!) than the readership of the article about the latter * Google Books Ngrams for this and related terms indicate the company is occasionally mentioned, but there's no clear indication that it's the most commonly known topic, let alone more common than all others combined * With a Google Books search for OKD, in the first 10 results I only get 1 that mentions the company, 2 that mention the software, and 7 others I already disambiguated a handful of incoming links and disambiguated it, but the move was then reverted as "potentially controversial". I don't quite see the controversy, but let's have a formal discussion just in case. The other 'issue' was that the OKD software doesn't have a standalone article, but that's not relevant as it meets the standard of WP:DABMENTION. All in all, when even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic, I don't think there can be a genuine discussion about there being a primary topic by usage. With regard to long-term significance, I don't think there can be any substantial advantage for a nationally-known company that is not active in the English-speaking parts of the world, when compared to internationally-known software in English usage. Even if it is technically 10 times older, both are generally recent. Plus the language and the airport in other parts of the world, too. This acronym is simply ambiguous, and we should not risk surprising English readers by presenting them a false lack of ambiguity. Joy (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 13:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lakes of Titan → Lakes and rivers of Titan – The notable subject here is liquid bodies on Titan's surface created by its hydrological cycle. Titan's lakes depend on its rivers and its rivers feed into its lakes. The infobox at the end of this article already groups Rivers into the "Lakes and seas" section and there are external sources like WIRED and Space.com that talk about Titan's lakes and rivers in the same article. This article already talks about "dark drainage channels" that Huygens saw, "the formation of Titan's river deltas", "Some appear to have channels associated with liquid and lie in topographical depressions", "Channels in some regions have created surprisingly little erosion, suggesting erosion on Titan is extremely slow, or some other recent phenomena may have wiped out older riverbeds and landforms". After the move, more information on the rivers can be added here as well as a list of rivers that could link to other articles like Saraswati Flumen. Vid Flumina is already linked by this article but in the description of an image thumbnail. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 11, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Stephen Marshall (murderer) → Killings of William Elliott and Joseph Gray – Person notable for only one event. As explained in WP:BIO1E, "[t]he general rule is to cover the event, not the person" in a case such as this. It rarely happens that the extraordinary political, social or historical nature of an event can make a single person merit their own page (Crooks, Chauvin, Guiteau), but the event in question here has no more relevance than any other notable true-crime cases that we usually cover on Wikipedia (maybe even less, since this one doesn't even meet WP:SUSTAINED). I see nothing out of the ordinary here that would lead us to go against conventional standards and give this person an individual article that, in this case, overshadows the event itself. V. S. Video (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy → Samantha Fulnecky essay dispute – I propose renaming the page to Samantha Fulnecky essay dispute because it more accurately and neutrally reflects what reliable sources describe. The core issue is a disagreement between the student and instructor over the essay, not a broad scandal or major public controversy. Per WP:AT titles should be neutral and non editorial, and should reflect the actual scope of the topic. Because this involves a living person, WP:BLP requires conservative, factual wording and advises avoiding sensational framing. The description "controversy" is discouraged under WP:WORDS as a vague and value laden term. "Dispute" is a more neutral descriptor and aligns better with the proportional treatment required under WP:NPOV. Dispute is also a neutral term used by the media.[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] I also think it is important to note that the dispute is between the student and the instructor and is not one sided so consideration for 2025 University of Oklahoma Essay Dispute should also be considered. Note: This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy. This RM focuses only on the appropriate title if the article is kept. For these reasons, the proposed title provides a clearer and more policy compliant framing. Docmoates (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Romanization of Serbian → ? – Serbian hasn't had to be romanized for over a century now, and this article largely doesn't actually describe the time periods when it did; rather, most of it is about the more recent times when it's been digraphic. The title should reflect that reality (the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe). What's a better title for it - maybe Serbian use of Latin, Digraphia in Serbian, or something else? I tried to get to the bottom of this a few years back in #Article title and scope, but we didn't make progress at the time, possibly also because of an oversized influence of an editor who got indefinitely blocked in the meantime. Here's hoping this discussion doesn't get disrupted. Joy (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Parliamentary procedure → Legislative procedureLegislative procedure – Parliament, a congress-type legislature, and a supreme state organ of power are not the same. A parliament, if we are strict here, implies the fusion of power and exists within a parliamentary system. A congress-type legislature (an article we are currently missing) exists within presidential system and is organised on the separation of powers. A supreme state organ of power exists in communist states and is based on unified power. However, they all have their distinct procedures. A distinct article on parliamentary procedure should and could be created, but this article about legislative procedure more generally in all states, whether they practice the fusion of powers, the separation of powers or unified power. The article title should reflect that. I have a distinct feeling someone will say; not all parliaments are based on the fusion of powers. That is true, in some African states that originally practiced a parliamentary system (with the British monarch as their monarch) have instituted separation of power systems, or that some refer to their legislature as parliament. Therefore, one confusingly has a term that can entail everything and one specific thing (parliamentary fusion of power systems). However, legislature, uncontroversially, encompasses a parliament, a congress-type legislature, a supreme state organ of power or any other form of legislative body. That is uncontroversial. So let's pick a name that is both accessible and most correct. TheUzbek (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of Armenia → Arab invasion of ArmeniaArab invasion of Armenia – The current title doesn't follow WP:NPOV with respect to scholarship on the topic, which eschews the language of "Muslim conquest" in favour of "Arab invasion/conquest". This is clear from the Ngram, which producss nothing for the current title, and from the RS that support the page, which reference in turn: "The Arab Period in Arminiyah" (Dadoyan), "The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni" (Nina), and "The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia" (Ter-Ghewondyan). The sourcing (and WP:NPOV) doesn't really support an alternative to "Arab invasion/conquest", with "invasion" seemingly having the slightly greater RS profile of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – LuniZunie(talk) 05:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 10, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies → House of Bourbon – Two Sicilies – or House of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies. The hyphen seems grammatically incorrect. An unspaced en dash would also not be correct, as this is not expressing a "between" relationship, but rather a context of this being a branch of the House of Bourbon that is from the Two Sicilies. I also see the suggested alternative with "of the" in some cited sources. I also found "House of Bourbon Two Sicilies" (with a space and no punctuation) in some sources, but that doesn't seem correct either. Some constructions seem to imply a House that is of a place or lineage called "Bourbon Two Sicilies", but this is not about "Bourbon Two Sicilies" or "Bourbon-Two" Sicilies. It is about a House of Bourbon in the Two Sicilies. There are also 22 other Wikipedia articles that have "House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" somewhere in their titles that should presumably be moved too, but I thought I would just start with the main topic's article title and then worry about the others. I took a look, and the 23 articles seem to generally have almost no English-language sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 9, 2025

[edit]

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) – Pattullo Bridge replacement → ? – The Government of British Columbia officially unveiled the official Indigenous name "Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" and the official English name "Riverview Bridge" at a press conference. The current title no longer reflects the established official naming. Admin assistance is required due to the blacklist. Efuture2 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – KEXP-FM → KEXPKEXP – The WP:COMMONNAME for this station/organization is obviously "KEXP" without the "-FM" suffix. The Wikipedia:Article titles policy would support to using "KEXP". WP:RADIONAMING is a Wikiproject home page, not a policy document. It links to the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), which states:  :Articles in [...] the United States are almost universally call sign-titled—that is, the title is the current call sign issued by a national regulatory authority. In these countries, all such stations are issued a call sign. There may, of course, be cases where a group of stations has a common name title. (emphasis mine) The guideline has a clear provision to allow common name article titles even in regions where call sign titles are the norm. A move to "KEXP" would use the common name title while still utilizing the shortened, more common form of the callsign. The suffix present in the official call sign is not needed for disambiguation. "KEXP" also better represents the overall parent "arts organization" described in this article that happens to run two radio stations; "KEXP-FM" and "KEXC" could exist as sub-sections in the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mar-a-Lago face → Republican makeup – I merged Mar-a-Lago face into Republican makeup per the discussion at § Distinction from Republican makeup, but the direction of the merge was contested. Since a RM was proposed during the merge discussion itself, and the consensus on the target wasn't clear, i think a proper move discussion is needed. I'm personally open to alternatives but for now I consider Republican makeup to be a better target, as was very nicely explained in this comment by @Herostratus:

    "Republican makeup" is more or less value-neutral while "Mar-A-Lago face" is lowkey insulting, inflammatory, and female body-shaming (even tho "Republican makeup" is intended to be pejorative, it's not that bad; you can certainly envision someone saying "I'm proud of my conservative dress and Republican makeup" straight-up but not "I'm proud of my Mar-A-Lago face" so much except as an asteism (rather than rejecting an insult, transforming it into a badge of honor) which is not the same thing at all).

    [...] I don't care how many sources use the phrase Mar-A-Lago face. [...] If the article was primarily about the phrase (etymology etc) rather than the phenomenon that'd be different. But it's not.

    FaviFake (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 09:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fixer (person) → Fixer (journalism)Fixer (journalism) – Moving is step one of cleaning this page up, step two being the removal of large amounts of trivial content. This article as it exists currently is a clear example of a DICDEF covering three separate topics at once, only one of which appears to be notable in its own right; a "person who gets things done" is not an encyclopedic topic and we already have an article on match fixing. The usage in journalism is the only one that appears to have the potential for an article of its own (plenty of sources to be found — [64], [65], [66]), and this, I propose that this article be reshaped to fit that purpose. — Anonymous 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Street storming → Đi bãoĐi bão – 'Street storming' is one way to translate 'đi bão', but I much more commonly hear 'go storm', 'go for a storm', 'go make a storm', 'riding the storm' and all sorts of variants of that. It would be best for the article to treat đi bão as a proper noun for a global audience and refer to it as such within the article, since there is no agreed upon English term that can be attested, especially outside of Vietnam. It is kind of like 'nhậu' - the best way to refer to it in English is also 'nhậu' since there is no agreement on an English translation that can capture its nuance. QUYE7 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.

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. ^ ""Yoshimi P-We" at Discogs". www.Discogs.com.
  2. ^ "YoshimiO's Instagram". www.instagram.com.
  3. ^ "OOIOO Profile". www.ooioo.jp.
  4. ^ ""YoshimiO" at Discogs". www.Discogs.com.
  5. ^ "Red Bull Academy article". www.redbullmusicacademy.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1327749849#Elapsed_listings"