This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
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.
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 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.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
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.
If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
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.
@Rotideypoc41352 The end of the TV Series redirect and the start of anime page seems sufficiently different from each other. Although the TV Series content was previously merged into the parent topic, there are plenty of edits on the merged content and other content that it is hard to dissociate any edits from there as well. I think we can treat this as a normal split/merge situation. – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firuzkoh→Firozkoh(move·discuss) – The city of Chaghcharan has been re-named to 'Firozkoh' in 2014, and it can not be moved to the intended title of 'Firozkoh', because 'Firozkoh' as a title already exists in another article, and that article should be re-named to 'Firozkoh (Ghurid Dynasty)' or 'Firozkoh (1146–1223)' AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and boldly closed that - never closed an RfC so I probably did something wrong, but I didn't want anybody trying to reply to it and technically being able to, which could cause issues if anybody suddenly disagrees! (nevermind, just noticed that was an archive page! I suppose it being archived is as good as being closed) As to the above, I did the other one, but am unsure as that links to a dab page - although it does look like the Serbian Orthodox leads to Eparchy of Srem, which might mean a hatnote is sufficient. ASUKITE15:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would instead recommend that this article be split into two articles about cyberstalking legislation and cyberbullying legislation, because they are distinct legal terms that have both attracted the attention of lawmakers. Putting the two topics into the same article may have made sense long ago, but I think more recent history justifies a split. If others here agree, I can start the split recommendation proceedings myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 1 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:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
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.
}}
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:
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)andCricket. 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:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
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 "• SupportOppose".
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.
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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – AirZeta → AIRZETA – The official corporate name is “AIRZETA,” in all uppercase letters, as registered on all legal documents including our business registration and all official airworthiness certificates. After the acquisition of Asiana Airlines’ cargo division, our company is officially and legally registered as “AIRZETA” in every regulatory and contractual context. This is not merely branding, but the legal and exclusive name style, which is consistent across licenses, contracts, and international documentation. I have uploaded a version of our business registration that has been carefully redacted to remove sensitive personal and confidential information for privacy and security reasons. This redacted version preserves only the essential information proving the official company name “AIRZETA” in compliance with Wikipedia’s content and privacy guidelines. shows AIRZETA (all CAP.) If further verification is required, I can provide additional documentation upon request. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Duke Deputy GM Project Lead, IATP Asiana Airlines | On Assignment to AIRZETA Supporting AIRZETA Maintenance Material AIRZETA (AIH/KJ) – formerly Air Incheon, rebranded after the acquisition of Asiana Airlines’ cargo business unit 211.177.53.200 (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 → Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Procedural deletions – We now have a second procedural deletion criterion, CSD U6, which is similar to G13 in logic but applies to user subpages of users with few or no non-userspace edits. I think the easiest way to handle this on the REFUND side is to expand the /G13 subpage to also cover U6, which is as simple as tweaking the header and changing MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js#L-49 to say "this page deleted under G13 or U6". This would make the subpage' name incomplete, though. We could rename to "/G13 and U6" (which is my second-choice !vote), but using the CSD number in the title was already a bit opaque to new users, and will become increasingly unwieldy if further procedural CSDs are ever added. So instead I suggest this, "/Procedural deletions", which is both clearer to new users interacting with the page and more forward-compatible. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Qasr Mushatta → Mshatta – The most common spelling in English is Mshatta rather than Mushatta and, moreover, it seems like more sources refer to it as simply Mshatta, without Qasr. Qasr (al-)Mshatta still appears in references, or appears as a longer version of the name alongside the shorter version, but it's not more common and evidently not necessary. See for example ngram or compare number of results in Google Scholar searches: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Plenty of direct examples in scholarly general references ([5], [6], [7], etc) or in more specialized works ([8], [9][10], etc). Nor does there appear to be any other topic that goes by this name, so there's no ambiguity or loss of precision with the more concise version. So for both WP:COMMONNAME and for WP:CONCISE, recommend moving to "Mshatta". R Prazeres (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the name change from "Baby Blinkins" to "The Blinkins" is that "Baby Blinkins" only represented a collection of the characters in their baby stages. The entire line, which encompasses the characters in all phases of their lives and adventures, is actually called "The Blinkins." This name change helps to better reflect the diversity and growth of the characters, providing a more comprehensive view of their charming universe.
(Discuss) – South American cougar → Puma – I believe this article should be renamed Puma. No one in South America, where the animal is native, calls it the South American cougar. The puma in South America is the nominate subspecies. The cougar in North America is a subspecies. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nutria → CoypuCoypu – Coypu is the name used in South America where the coypu is native. It has been introduced into North America and Europe. Nutria is also an ambigous name as a different species (the otter) is known as Nutria is some countries/languages. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Liberalism and radicalism in Romania → Liberalism in RomaniaLiberalism in Romania – Shorter, more concise. Current title feels original research, do sources discuss Romanian liberalism always next to radicalism? It doesn't seem so [11]. Furthermore, Classical radicalism states on its own article that it is in fact a subset of liberalism, and most of this article deals with ("mainstream"? "standard"? "non-radical"?) liberalism anyway, not with radicalism. I believe this proposed title is more appropriate and simpler and that it does not even narrow the article's scope. The move would also make this article consistent with most articles at Template:Liberalism in Europe. SuperΨDro18:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – General secretaryship of Xi Jinping → ? – From what I can tell, "General secretaryship of Xi Jinping" is completely a Wikipedia invention. I've not been able to find sources that call his tenure "general secretaryship" (which itself seems to be a pretty uncommon term). I'd also like to find some consensus on what the articles on tenures of Chinese leaderships (and perhaps other Communist leaders) should be called. The Account 2 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Paisa (region) → Paisa (person) – "Region" seems a poor choice of disambiguator here, since the article is about a group of people rather than a region. I don't know that "person" is the best possible disambiguator; perhaps someone else can come up with a better suggestion. Deor (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.ASUKITE15:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2026 United Kingdom local elections → 2026 English local elections2026 English local elections – Big move, but the reason is that the current article structure is very complicated and simply doesn't reflect the way elections in the UK are structured, nor does it reflect reliable sources report on UK local elections. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all have completely different local election systems, on different schedules, with different party leaders. In the years where elections only happen in England, sources tend to simply report on "England" (e.g. 2018, BBC), whereas in the years with devolved elections sources tend to report on all elections at once (e.g. 2016, BBC)- covering not only the local elections in England but also the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The decision to have an article which covers local council and mayoral elections across the UK but not devolved assembly and parliament elections isn't really followed by any other sources- e.g. the 2022 United Kingdom local elections article covering the local elections in Scotland and Wales but not the Northern Ireland assembly election isn't the way sources report on it at all. Having one article works out pre-1999 when there were no devolved assemblies, no mayors, and no PCCs- the election system was a lot simpler back then. But now that the UK's election system is as complex as it is, I think it would significantly improve readability to narrow down the focuses of these articles from the UK to specifically focusing on local elections in England (besides, the elections in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland have their own articles already). For summarizing the various types of elections in the UK in a given year, I would instead suggest improving the series of overview articles like 2022 United Kingdom electoral calendar. Chessrat(talk, contributions)23:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Al-Fashir → El FasherEl Fasher – El Fasher is by far the most common transliteration in all sources. With the city gaining renewed attention due to the end of the siege and subsequent ethnic cleansing, I believe that the name of the article should reflect WP:COMMONNAME. Sources using El Fasher include the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab [21], the United Nations [22], the International Crisis Group [23], and Human Rights Watch [24]. The argument regarding that al-Fashir is the direct Arabic transliteration of الفاشر is misguided, as Sudanese Arabic also writes جنينة (directly: Junaynah) as Geneina, the more common pronunciation and English transliteration. Jebiguess (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – List of entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks → ? – The current title is the equivalent of having a Wikipedia article titled List of education affected by the COVID-19 pandemic instead of Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education. The previous RM discussion a few months back failed to establish consensus in either direction. I think that, if I had avoided specifying a new name, then those who would've supported the general idea (but opposed the particular name I proposed) wouldn't have found it difficult to figure out how to cast an honest !vote, so I figured I'd open another discussion of this nature to give such users another chance to say something or suggest different alternative titles. As some opponents argued that the current title should be kept because the article is a list, I recently tried to start an RfC discussion to figure out where consensus would stand on converting this article to prose, but that was quickly shut down because title-changing was brought up alongside unlistification. Although I followed Zxcvbnm's suggestion and created a draft, I've never been able to figure out what to do next with it in order to push for this article's scope to be change[d] to that effect. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Universal set → Universe of setsUniverse of sets – I'm proposing a minor topic change from "Set of all sets" to "Universe of sets", having the non-existent object be a section of the article. There's a reasonable amount to say about the universe of sets in terms of model theory and philosophy. Specifically, in a Platonist view and the role of large cardinals, compared to a multiversalist view. The broader concept is already discussed here, and, honestly, it seems weird to have the non-existent object be the main topic of the article. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lysergic acid 2,4-dimethylazetidide → LSZLSZ – This drug emerged as a novel designer drug in 2013 and has since become well- and best-known by the common/trivial name "LSZ" (an acronym of one of its chemical names) (e.g., [25], [26], [27], [28]). The acronym "LSZ" currently redirects back to this page and there is an LSZ (disambiguation) page with the drug listed as the primary topic. The other entries on the LSZ disambiguation page are "LSZ reduction formula" and "Lošinj Airport" ("IATA: LSZ, ICAO: LDLO"). A previous discussion on the current talk page made the case for the drug being the primary topic for "LSZ", although this was over 10 years ago. Most of the top results for "LSZ" via Google Search are for the drug. In Google Scholar, there are 378 results for "LSZ" the drug (via some disambiguation terms) ([29]) and 1,270 results for "LSZ reduction formula" ([30]). However, the latter is distinct from "LSZ" via a longer name that is essential in describing what it is (the "LSZ" part is simply an acronym of the formula's three creators' last names). Per policies like WP:OCHEMNAME, WP:COMMONNAME (WP:RECOGNIZE), WP:ACROTITLE, and WP:CONCISE, I propose moving the drug page to "LSZ". That is, the common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies, an acronym is fine if the acronym (by itself) primarily refers to the topic in question, and the new title is more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. Also, the page name for the closely related drug LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is the acronym form similarly. Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 03:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton → American Insurance Co. v. CanterAmerican Insurance Co. v. Canter – RIP funny name, but the COMMONNAME for this SCOTUS case is clear. The only reason I cannot move this myself is because I created the redirect blocking it because I kept running into "Canter" and assumed at that time that "356" was more common just because that was the title currently. This case has come up in my studies quite a bit lately, and I have never organically come across it called "356" in any document in the last century. It is possible to find some with Google Scholar, but there are more results for "Canter." In response to "these search results are relatively small," I just say again: I've been really deep in the weeds of non-digitized books lately, and it is always Canter. lethargilistic (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Elko → Elko (disambiguation)Elko (disambiguation) – This name seems to have a primary topic, which is Elko, Nevada, with more than 300 pageviews per day. That city is a county seat and has a much higher population than any other Elko. The other Elko topics seem relatively obscure. Some of them wouldn't really be called Elko. For example, Elko County would be called Elko County, not Elko by itself (and Elko, Nevada, is also its principal city anyway, so it shouldn't be a WP:ASTONISHing destination regardless). Elko, Kentucky, and Elko, Minnesota, and Elko, New York, don't exist anymore and each get less than 10 pageviews per day. Elko, Georgia, is described as having declined after several unfortunate events about 100–125 years ago (a boll weevil blight followed by a fire followed by the termination of its train passenger service), and its reported historical population seems to have peaked at about 500 when those events began, and it gets only about 8 pageviews per day. Elko, Missouri (less than one pageview per day), has no reported population estimate and its post office closed more than 100 years ago. Elko New Market, Minnesota, gets only about 14 pageviews per day and doesn't seem to be called "Elko" by itself. The album only gets about two pageviews per day. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Smithville tornado → 2011 Smithville tornado2011 Smithville tornado – Multiple Intense-to-Violent tornadoes have impacted the Smithville area prior. In 1920 a long track and highly deadly tornado moved through the Smithville area, in total claiming 88 lives, and more recently in 2023, a deadly EF3 went through the Amory and Smithville areas, claiming 2 lives. Smithville and the surrounding area has been hit multiple times Another reason is the previous title move did not truly reach a consensus with only a single supporting comment, along with one neutral comment. The move proposal was not given enough time for more opinions to be made, and the article title should not have moved. Quincy Gordon (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 21:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Araea → Araea (genus) – Due to overlap with Araea (letter). I think this page (Araea) should be turned into a disambig. I don't think there's a WP:PTOPIC. When you search in Google scholar there's a few hits for both this genus and for the Hangul letter, and a lot of typos for "area". If you google normally, you get various stuff, but more Hangul than the genus. It's not clear to me which usage is more dominant in English. In Korean historical linguistics, the vowel araea is a major topic. It's also a current letter for the Jeju language. Imo its stature is relatively higher than compared to this genus vs the whole of biology/butterflies. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Feature toggle → Feature flagFeature flag – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, “feature flag” has become the overwhelmingly dominant term for this software engineering practice in both professional and academic sources, while “feature toggle” is now a secondary synonym. In recent years, authoritative and reliable sources have shifted to “feature flag” as the preferred name: * Web search / trend evidence: A [Google Trends comparison for “feature flag” vs “feature toggle” in the U.S.](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=feature%20flag,feature%20toggle&hl=en) shows that “feature flag” has substantially higher search interest over time (about 50x), reinforcing its broader adoption in the software community. * Martin Fowler, who originally popularized the concept, now uses the term *feature flag* interchangeably and notes that it has largely superseded “toggle”: see Fowler’s [Feature Toggles (aka Feature Flags)](https://martinfowler.com/articles/feature-toggles.html) (updated 2023). * Industry usage: Major software engineering organizations and tooling providers—including GitHub, Google Cloud, AWS AppConfig, and LaunchDarkly —all refer to the concept exclusively as feature flags in product documentation and technical blogs (e.g., [LaunchDarkly Docs](https://docs.launchdarkly.com/home/getting-started/feature-flags), [AWS AppConfig Feature Flags](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/appconfig/latest/userguide/appconfig-feature-flags.html)). * Books and references: Modern DevOps and continuous delivery texts—including *Continuous Delivery* (Humble & Farley, 2010), Accelerate (Forsgren, Humble, Kim, 2018), and Team Topologies (Skelton & Pais, 2019)—use “feature flag” as the standard term. Moving the article to **Feature flag** will align with current reliable usage, improve search discoverability, and maintain consistency with related articles like Continuous integration, Continuous delivery, and Dark launch. The current title “Feature toggle” should remain as a redirect to preserve continuity and historical context. 71.56.154.8 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Valorrr(lets chat)16:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tiendesitas → Ortigas East – I would like to propose expanding the scope of this article from covering only Tiendesitas to encompassing the entire Ortigas East (formerly known as Frontera Verde) mixed-use development where it is located. I think the current article’s scope on the shopping complex is too narrow for standalone notability and would be better contextualized as part of the larger development. Several Wikipedia articles already mention Ortigas East by name, and at least two articles and there are at least two articles on places currently and formerly located in it, such as Christ's Commission Fellowship and Ark Avilon Zoo. Having Tiendesitas covered as part of an article on the broader mixed-use estate would also be more consistent with articles like Araneta City, Capitol Commons, Greenhills (mixed-use development), and Eastwood City, which include their major establishments or malls within a single comprehensive article. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Valorrr(lets chat)16:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gliese 777 b → Gliese 777 AbGliese 777 Ab – These planets orbit the primary star of a binary system. Unlike some similar cases they are never referred to in the literature as just "Gliese 777 b", only "Gliese 777 Ab", or else "HD 190360 b" using another designation for the host star. For examples of the former see the discovery paper (GJ 777 Ab is a planet in a stellar binary system.) and this recent paper (GJ 777 Ab was discovered using RVs by Naef et al. (2003) and GJ 777 Ac was later found by Vogt et al. (2005).) SevenSpheres (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Kieler Förde → Kiel FjordKiel Fjord – Earlier user had moved page from Kiel Fjord to Kieler Förder with an invalid reasoning as they argued Förde and Fjord have two distinct meaning, which is incorrect as they are direct translations of one another, with Förde just being the name of a Fjord in German. MagnumDaGreat (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). CFA11:54, 27 October 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.TarnishedPathtalk11:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Shetland dialect → ShaetlanShaetlan – As of yesterday, Shaetlan has received an ISO 639:3 code (scz) with the name spelled Shaetlan, which is the autonym of the language. "Shetland Dialect" is now inappropriate for the title of this article when it is considered a language in its own right. The term "Shetland Dialect", while widely used locally, is an exonym, and is now inaccurate. The reason for the spelling "Shaetlan" over "Shetland" is two three-fold - 1) it accurately portrays a large portion of speakers' tendency to pronounce the word with a voiceless /d/, 2) the <ae> reflects the intuitive community spelling convention of primary stress short intercononantal vowel, cf. maet, paet, etc. which haes the same vowel as the first syllable of Shaetlan, & 3) it keeps the language name and place name easily distinguishable when written. This is the style I Hear Dee has adopted while trying to create a standardised orthography for the language. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), because of the use of Shaetlan being exclusive to the language, it would qualify as "unquestionably the primary topic for the name", so "Shaetlan language" seems unnecessary. As per Wikipedia:Article titles, Shaetlan is more precise and more concise, and it is more natural to native Shaetlan speakers as an autonym vs an exonym. This admittedly at the cost of being slightly less recognisable outside of Shetland, however Shaetlan is slowly becoming the new standard name for this language in linguistics circles. I think this is the best compromise here. After this name change, I intend to do a bit of an overhaul of this article to set the record straight on languagehood and a number of other inaccuracies. For full disclosure, I am one of the first few signatories to the ISO code change request application. I am a project co-investigator at I Hear Dee. I am also the person who requested this article be renamed last time! A lot has changed in the last 5 years in the Shetland linguistic scene - at the time I made the last request, the name change was a vast improvement over the previous name, but now is an appropriate time to move on. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 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)[reply]
(Discuss) – Team Envy → Envy (esports) – The org has shifted to branding itself as ENVY (all caps) since its 2025 relaunch. Would be similar to mousesports rebranding as Mouz (MOUZ) since the title of the article would be in normal type while I denoted its all caps name within the article. (esports) would naturally have to be tagged on for disambiguation purposes. IntMaMis (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Gizmo → The GizmotronThe Gizmotron – "Gizmotron" was the trademarked name of the product, it was used to identify and market the product by both Musitronics and Gizmotron LLC. Additionally, the Gizmotron name was embossed on the plastic housings of the product and as such, it is the most widely used name to name to identify the product. This name change was proposed to resolve the Gizmotron vs "The Gizmo" dispute. 2600:4041:434C:8A00:A4FF:5C52:1EF5:2599 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Digby and Sowton railway station → Digby & Sowton railway stationDigby & Sowton railway station – The matter has been raised before to no consensus but I thought the reason given by the nominator inadequate. Per MOS:&, when an ampersand is in a proper name, it should be retained. The proper name of the station appears to be Digby & Sowton. Madditron points out correctly that the websites of GWR and National Rail use ampersands, but also station signage displays the ampersand as seen here and station documentation does as seen here. Additionally, GWR's National Rail Contract from 2022 lists Digby & Sowton with the ampersand. A Google search reveals that the only people other than us who refer to it as Digby and Sowton are Exeter Memories, some train operators exclusively in the title of the page (my best theory is that they use the same software, which prunes text before putting it in the title) and a small amount of WP:UGC. I'm not exactly sure what documentation definitively lists names of stations or if such documentation exists, but it seems so incredibly likely that Digby & Sowton is its proper name that MOS:& should be applied to it. Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Grok (chatbot) → Grok (xAI)Grok (xAI) – The current title is outdated and overly narrow, reflecting only the project's 2023 launch as a conversational AI on X, while failing to capture its 2025 evolution into a comprehensive multimodal platform powering xAI's ecosystem (e.g., Grok 4 reasoning engine, API integrations, Grokipedia, and Tesla/X features). Per WP:COMMONNAME, the most recognizable and precise name in reliable sources (e.g., xAI announcements, tech media) is "Grok" tied directly to its developer, xAI, emphasizing its branded identity as an xAI product rather than a generic tool. This avoids recency bias WP:RECENTISM by focusing on enduring branding over initial function, while maintaining disambiguation from Heinlein's "Grok" (primary topic at plain "Grok"). Precedent: Analogous to the recent move of "Gemini (chatbot)" to "Google Gemini" (closed Sep 17, 2025), which shifted from a functional descriptor to developer-inclusive branding for Google's AI suite, recognizing its growth beyond chat interfaces. Similar patterns include "ChatGPT" (no disambiguator needed due to primacy) and "Claude (language model)" for Anthropic's offerings, prioritizing developer association under WP:SOFTWARE. Policy Alignment: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: xAI's Grok dominates modern "Grok" searches/pageviews (surpassing the neologism since early 2025), warranting a title that reflects its notability without diluting the historical term. WP:DAB: "(xAI)" provides natural, non-descriptive disambiguation, improving accessibility (WP:AT) over the anachronistic "(chatbot)." WP:PRECISION: Ensures the title scopes to the xAI entity, accommodating expansions like Grok 5 AGI without future renames. This move enhances neutrality and usability; oppose if it risks ambiguity with other xAI tools (none currently). Ronnotel (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.SmittenGalaxy|talk!09:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – George Clarke (architect) → George Clarke (architectural presenter) – We currently have three articles for George Clarkes who operate/operated as architects - George Clarke, the TV presenter / George Clarke, an Australian town planner / George Clarke, a 17th/18th century politician and architect. I think it would be helpful to the reader to retitle the articles. I certainly found it impossible to identify Dr George Clarke of All Souls, Oxford when I was looking to bluelink him, eventually finding the article by chance. I've sought input at the Architecture project page, and the above are the suggested renames. These reflect the fact that the living George Clarke is best known as a TV presenter, the deceased Australian seems to have been more of a town planner, and Dr George Clarke is probably now best remembered as an architect, rather than as a politician. Very happy to consider other suggestions, of course. KJP1 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
(Discuss) – Algieba → Gamma LeonisGamma Leonis – This page was moved with the reasoning This seems like in an ADS search, Algieba got about three times more results than Gamma Leonis, which satisfies WP:STARNAMES. For some reason, simply searching ADS for "Algieba" returns over 100,000 results, which have nothing to do with the star. (Looks like it may be showing results for "algebra"?) If "object:Algieba" is added to the query, the number of results is in the single digits and less than for "Gamma Leonis"/"Gamma1 Leonis". So I don't think that can be used to argue that "Algieba" is more common. On the other hand there may be a shift toward preferring proper names of stars as article titles (see Talk:Kochab#Requested move 15 September 2025) so people may prefer this title anyway. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Horned gopher → CeratogaulusCeratogaulus – This animal is obscure enough that "horned gopher" is not really a "common name" in a meaningful sense for this taxon (nor is it accurate because they are not particularly related to gophers), and the term has only been used a handful of times to describe this animal, or anything else otherwise in the scholarly literature [38] (note, I have added -twilightbeasts.org to remove irrelevant non peer-reviewed blog posts which are all included because the term "horned gopher" is listed on the sidebar of every article on the site). The name "horned gopher" is ambiguous because other related members of the family like Mylagaulus also bore similar horns, and has also been referred to as a "horned gopher" (e.g. [39]). Ceratogaulus is the clear, WP:PRECISE and unambiguous name for this taxon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Argentine Primera División → AFA Liga Profesional de Fútbol – The league has been operating as the Liga Profesional de Fútbol since 2021. This name reflects the official name of the league. The current name is an informal way of referring to the first division and additionally, the country demonym was applied to differentiate it from the other CONMEBOL leagues that are also informally referred to as first division in Spanish. I recommend we move to use the correct league names across CONMEBOL. MicroX (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Comedy drama → Comedy-dramaComedy-drama – "Comedy-drama" with a hyphen vs. "Comedy drama" without are both present in articles, with releases such as The Bear (TV series), Fleabag, Gilmore Girls and Ted Lasso using the former; and M*A*S*H, Sex and the City, The White Lotus and Elsbeth using the latter. There are also articles that use "Dramedy", such as Food of The Bear (TV series), Ludwig and others but consensus has already moved the page from that one. However, I would argue that Comedy-drama with a hyphen is a more succinct and accurate descriptor and is better for our readers when seeing articles with multiple genres, e.g. "black comedy-drama". On the contrary, you could also make the argument that comedy-drama is not enough of a unique descriptor or unified genre to be described as a single hyphenated word. Something else to consider is how categories are treated currently. Category:Comedy drama is written without a hyphen, however all the subcategories such as Category:Comedy-drama television series, Category:Comedy-drama films and all their own subcategories use the hyphenated term. It would be quicker to make the main category match all subcategories for the sake of parity than to remove the hyphen from all subcategories, and I'd argue it'd reduce vagueness. I have posted a CfD as well, linked here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 25#Category:Comedy drama. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)05:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ram 1500 REV (Range-Extended) → Ram 1500 REV – This is confusing as-is, as "Range-Extended" is unclear. The page using that as a disambiguator is the article for what will ostensibly be the production model; the article currently disambiguated as "All-Electric" has been cancelled and will never see production, at least not under the "REV" branding which has been repurposed for the former. Therefore, the "Range-Extended" REV is all but certain to be the primary topic going forward. Most people looking for information on the Ram 1500 REV will likely be looking for the production model, not the cancelled one. "Concept" may not be the best title for the all-electric article, but it's the clearest I could think of - I'm open to other suggestions on that. Alternatively, the content could be merged to Ram 1500 (DT). In any case, both current titles violate the MOS so I wanted to get a discussion open as soon as possible before more undiscussed moves are made. Sable232 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.WhatADrag07 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.CNC (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Anabaptist settler colonialism → History of Anabaptist migration – The current title feels odd and doesn’t really line up with how similar community histories are named. Other migrant groups who formed non-sovereign enclaves abroad (like Italian or German "colonies" in Latin America) aren’t described in this way, so calling this one "Anabaptist settler colonialism" is inconsistent and potentially misleading. A title like History of Anabaptist migration is clearer, more neutral, and better aligned with WP:CONSISTENT. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of UkraineRussian invasion of Ukraine – In 2023, the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (which is not this article) was moved to Russian invasion of Ukraine as a result of two consecutive RMs, found here and here. The RMs determined that the invasion that began in 2022 is the primary topic of the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine", since no other invasion is nearly as notable and no other article on Wikipedia has an actual title conflict with "Russian invasion of Ukraine", and thus the year is neither a necessary identifier nor means of disambiguation. However, editors could not agree on whether the invasion ended in 2022 or remained ongoing, so the RM's outcome sidestepped this question. Last week, a new RM, found here, resulted in the article moving to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) as a subtopic of the parent article Russo-Ukrainian War (notice the inconsistent capitalization), which covers events from 2014 to the present. This RM found new consensus that the invasion had, in fact, ended in 2022, and that it is therefore inaccurate to describe the events post-2022 as an "invasion", but rather a stage of the war that began in 2014. This article was subsequently created to solely cover the events of 2022, usurping the redirect 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. But this is problematic. The 2023 RM had already found consensus that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", making the year superfluous. When another editor attempted to BOLDly move this article to Russian invasion of Ukraine, it was reverted on the grounds that it should be discussed first. Some editors argued that the 2023 RM had been nullified by the most recent RM because only the 2022–present events had been found to be the primary topic of "Russian invasion of Ukraine", not the 2022 events. This is, of course, in spite of the new consensus that concluded only the latter can be characterized as an "invasion", not the former. This discussion can be found here. This post-close squabble has also led to an edit war at the Russian invasion of UkraineRussian invasion of Ukraine redirect, which has gone back-and-forth between Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, neither target makes sense, because redirecting to the former does not align with the new consensus that the war is not an "invasion", while redirecting to the latter would acknowledge it as the primary topic and make "2022" an unnecessary disambiguation. Consequently, the only viable solution to resolve this mess is to repeat what was done in 2023, for largely the same reasons: move 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russian invasion of Ukraine.
.jpg?lang=en)
