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.
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 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.
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.
Comment: Given the change in redirect targets stemming from Agpigeon's subsequent move of MS Kriti I to Kriti I, part of this editor's mass page moves which others have recently taken issue with, a proper resolution would now be to move Kriti I to MS Kriti IMS Kriti I, thus restoring the stable title. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that the two done moves were trying to swap pages legitimately, yet their moves left new redirects, so step 3 has not been done. Step 2 also had to depend on a WP:R2 speedy deletion of Kriti I to free up that page name.
Comment: The double redirect was resolved by Xqbot, and I've gone ahead and retargeted both redirects to the HSC Speed Jet article. As both redirects contain non-substantive page history, it would be effectively harmless for this move to go through as is. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am mostly unhappy about how the page contents before the move (revision 1362103262) and after the Xqbot fix (revision 1363534367) were the same, except the history of the move wars since February this year are hidden in Draft: now. There must be better processes to request to hide edits or to delete the page. Also @Agpigeon.
@Abcmaxx Needs discussion. The undiscussed move was already undone by Joshua Jonathan and discussed on the talk page. A formal RM discussion is required to achieve consensus on the most appropriate title. To open a discussion, hit "discuss" above. Polyamorph (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@2600 etc Except for the fact that you just edited the list to replace instances of Oxford spelling. MOS:RETAIN would guide us to maintain the consistent spelling variety used in the article instead of unilaterally changing it to fit an editor's personal preference. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For context, the EngvarB tag was added via a script in this revision here, and is not reflective of how editors have consistently applied Oxford spelling as the standard for this article, in spite of the tag's passing imposition. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 July 2026 (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. 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 12 July 2026" and sign the post for you.
The reasons for the move can be summarized 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.
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 movedsomewhere 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.
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. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as per WP:RMEC.
Alternatively, the opener of a discussion can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the requested move has not had any comments yet, or the request was initiated via block evasion. As per WP:WITHDRAW, an opener of a discussion should use strikethrough on the nomination statement when it is prematurely closed through withdrawal.
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) – John Saul (prostitute) → John Saul (sex worker) – I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on this, but (per recent edits to the page) the term "sex worker" is preferred nowadays; however, I understand as this is discussing an historical figure, this may not be appropriate. Not sure if we need to mention in the disambiguation that he was a male sex worker who had sex with other men, as this is relevant to his historical significance. (Also, he seems to be more commonly known as "Jack" in the sources) – GnocchiFan (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2000 England v Germany football match → October 2000 England v Germany football match – Ambiguous title. There were two football matches between England and Germany during 2000; one that took place in June 2000 as part of Euro 2000, and the one being described in this article. Both attracted significant media attention for different reasons (the June match was England's first win over Germany since the 1966 World Cup final, and a major upset which eliminated the tournament holders; the October match was the last match at the original Wembley Stadium and directly led to Kevin Keegan resigning as team manager), so with its current title someone could quite easily link to the page thinking it was referring to the June match. DaveJB (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Harding Street raid → 2019 Harding Street raid – A lack of other notable raids at roads called Harding Street does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable raids at a Harding Street because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. And finally, if you look at sources, they emphasize the year it took place in: 2019.Raskuly🐰 06:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk08:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – January 2019 Louisiana shootings → 2019 Ascension–Livingston shootings – Alts: 2019 Louisiana shootings; Ernest–Theriot family murders (latter could imply hyphenated name, but I want to hear thoughts about it). A lack of other notable spree shootings across the parishes of Ascension and Livingston does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable spree shootings across Ascension and Livingston because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. This is a situation where there is no clear and obvious WP:COMMONNAME, but having "January" in the title is unnecessary disambiguation as there was no other notable shooting in Louisiana in 2019 (and no, the year is not disambiguation). Because of this, I've suggested two other alternatives, and I encourage participants to try to think of other potential alternatives as well. The current title does not follow naming guidelines for events, and needs to change one way or another. Raskuly🐰07:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 1925 Tri-State tornado outbreak → Tornado outbreak of March 17–18, 1925Tornado outbreak of March 17–18, 1925 – While the Tri-State tornado was by far the most infamous tornado of the outbreak. The current name is not in-line with standards, an entire outbreak should not be named after a single tornado, even if one is the most notable by the long shot. This outbreak was significantly more than JUST the Tri-State tornado. You had violent and deadly tornadoes in Tennessee and Kentucky, as well as tornadoes in Kansas and Alabama. I saw a move to this name was attempted prior, but apparently it is considered controversial enough to warrant a revert. Quincy Gordon (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Voskopoja → VoskopojëVoskopojë – Of the 1022 articles of settlements in Albania, 1020 use the indefinite form in their article titles. The only 2 exceptions are Voskopoja and Tirana (I will open an RM for it as well). As such, for consistency, I think that this article should be moved to the indefinite form of the name, Voskopojë. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Foreign relations of California → Intergovernmental relations of California – This page covers (1) Relations between California and tribal governments (2) Relations between California and other states and (3) Relations between California and foreign states (or their subdivisions). The current title only encompasses the third category. I use "intergovernmental" instead of "external" as many tribal nations are within California's borders and therefore not "external". CC: @RayneVanDunem:Benboy250 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Siege of Jerusalem (1187) → Conquest of Jerusalem (1187) – Most islamic historian as well as the general public will refer to this as a liberation as some sort. For the sake of neutrality, the title should be changed from siege to conquest. Furthermore, conquest is defined as the long-term political and territorial result/goal, and conquering jerusalem, reclaiming the holy land, was primarily the main objective and long term goal of Saladin. Therefore, when referring to this event, considering it was the end result of the previous military operations, the title should change from siege to conquest. ~2026-38216-66 (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – AOC (disambiguation) → AOCAOC – The use of AOC without a disambiguator to redirect to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is awfully America-centric, AOC has dozens of other meanings apart from this person's initials and is not used to refer to this person outside of the United States. In the previous RM discussion it was noted that approximately 90% of clickthroughs are to Cortez's page, however this is irrelevant purely because of the ridiculously large number of other uses of "AOC". Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity18:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Deletion process → Wikipedia:Deletion processesWikipedia:Deletion processes – The title "Deletion process" implies there is a single unified process for deletion, while we actually have several distinct processes that operate independently of one another. Most obviously, CSD, PROP, and XfDs are three entirely separate mechanisms with different criteria, timescales, participants or lack thereof, and outcomes. A page that qualifies for speedy deletion bypasses discussion entirely; a PROD resolves in seven days without discussion; an XfD runs a 7-day discussion and requires a closure to close. Within XfDs alone, there are six separate venues, each with their own scope and instructions. These obviously aren't stages of one process, they're alternatives. The singular "process" might make sense if this page were just a step-by-step walkthrough of one procedure, or if the procedures were remotely similar. The plural reflects that in a clearer way. FaviFake (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Squawk7700 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk12:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sam Phillips → Sam Phillips (record producer) – I somewhat recently closed the RM at Talk:Sam Phillips (musician, born 1962) §Requested move 28 June 2026 in which it was suggested that Sam Phillips might not be the primary topic based on the page view statistics. For simplicity's sake and in order to avoid a possible WP:TRAINWRECK with the many disambiguators I decided to close that RM and encourage the opening of a new one here. However since that has not happened I feel like it would be unjust to the editors who !voted to demote Sam Phillips from ptopic, so I am opening this RM so that it can be discussed nevertheless. I just started with record producer as disambiguator, but that is not set in stone, so feel free to propose a different one. I am quite indifferent to the result. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2025 Sumy offensive → Sumy offensive (2025–present) – Russian invaders are still in the oblast, so the offensive is still ongoing. Per the RM started here and the title at Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign, I also invite users to discuss including "Oblast" into the title ("Sumy Oblast offensive (2025–present)", as the offensive hasn't taken place in the city of Sumy nor has it had the aim to capture it) and the use of "campaign" over "offensive". I'd personally favor including "Oblast" while I have no opinion on the second issue (I honestly kind of don't know when should each word be used). Regards, SuperΨDro 00:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.1isall(talk|contribs) 00:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.–Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Donkey Kong (1981 video game) → Donkey Kong (video game)Donkey Kong (video game) – This article should be a shoe-in for WP:PARTIALDAB. The only other video game titled just Donkey Kong is Donkey Kong (1994 video game). One is a later Game Boy release that according to its article "was overshadowed by Donkey Kong Country, released later in 1994." The other is one of the most important video games of all time. Arguably the foundation for the entire platformer genre, the reason Mario exists, the foundation of Nintendo's transformation into a globally recognized brand, and one of the highest grossing arcade games of all time. This article typically gets about 5-6 times the daily page views of the Donkey Kong (1994) and not infrequently that jumps to 10-20 times. Donkey Kong (1981) is pretty clearly the primary topic here, and so should be partially disambiguated as such. It's not lost on me that this would revert the title back to what it was three years ago. In that discussion, the point was raised that there are lots of Donkey Kong games, so calling this "Donkey Kong (video game)" would be ambiguous. But this is quite frankly not how our disambiguation works, we don't title Final Fantasy (video game) as Final Fantasy (1987 video game) because someone might believe the article is actually about Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy XII. Other Donkey Kong games have well known, commonly used taglines and subtitles that readers can be expected to understand. On the other hand, readers may not be expected to have the release date of a 45-year-old video game memorized. Donkey Kong (video game) is the disambiguation that is most consistent with WP:NCVGDAB and WP:PDAB, which provides consistency for both readers and editors and makes it way easier to figure out which arbitrary parenthetical phrase gets you to the article you actually want. Whipmywillows (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk11:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Unguja → Zanzibar IslandZanzibar Island – We have got these three articles: * Zanzibar, which is about the Zanzibar Archipelago, which by which it describes as consisting of two main islands: Zanzibar island (Unguja), Pemba island (but not Mafia island). * Zanzibar Archipelago, which is also about the Zanzibar Archipelago, which it describes as consisting of three main islands: Zanzibar island (Unguja), Pemba island, and Mafia island. * Unguja (this article) which refers to (what is basically always called) Zanzibar, the island. Unguja is by a very large margin called Zanzibar by native English speakers. Here is some evidence: * This google Ngram flat out proves it. There's not even the tiniest argument in the face of that. * This google Trends chart, same deal. Overwhelming. That's worldwide, but even in Tanzania it's the same deal. * And I mean, come on. Have you even heard the term "Unguja"? The title of John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar, for instance, specifically references the island only. Because of course; he needed to use a term for the island that people understand. And so forth. I get that we would like to use endonyms instead of exonyms (Zanzibar is from Persian). It is polite and we do that often. But only if it's supported by a good percentage of English speakers worldwide, which Unguja isn't. We need to rename this article to "Zanzibar Island". The current article Zanzibar Archipelago should stay, but the article currently named "Zanzibar" needs to be folded into Zanzibar Archipelago (altho that article is much smaller... possibly fold the smaller article into the larger, delete Zanzibar Archipelago and rename Zanzibar to Zanzibar Archipelago, and make "Zanzibar" a redirect to this article. It'd take an admin to do all that. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2026 California billionaire tax initiative → 2026 California Proposition 402026 California Proposition 40 – We usually name ballot measures with their official name, and there's no good reason to make an exception here. This was referred to as the "billionaire tax" in reliable sourcing mainly as a descriptive title, not as a proper name (and obviously they couldn't call it Proposition 40 before it was numbered as such). Now that it's been numbered, it's primarily being referred to as Proposition 40 (and while it's being called a "billionaire tax" to describe it, that isn't being used as its title, so WP:COMMONNAME does not apply; this is similar to how how Proposition 8 was described as a "gay marriage ban"--but that clearly shouldn't be that article's title either). Sources published after the measure's numbering confirm that Proposition 40 is the proper way to title this. For example, LA Times: Championed by California’s largest health workers union, Proposition 40 would levy a one-time, 5% tax on California’s roughly 200 billionaires.Elli (talk|contribs) 02:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – History of Poonch district → Poonch JagirPoonch Jagir – The page is structured around and primarily focussed on the Jagir of Poonch, a semi-indepedent territory with hereditary rulers, that existed until the late 1940s. District is a modern administrative term, when the territory started being governed by elected representatives post the independence of India and Pakistan. Smart Sherlock (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Steam Controller (1st generation) → Steam Controller (2015)Steam Controller (2015) – The articles fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. The convention is to use disambiguator in form of "category", e.g. (video game), (console); "year", e.g. (2000); or combination, e.g. (2012 video game). There are no results for articles featuring ordinal followed by the specifier "generation". Using combination/category may be too verbose, as the device already includes the word "controller" in its name. No WP:NC covers the subject. I propose to rename this article to use distinctor of the device used by the manufacturer, developers, and media.
(Discuss) – Vallow–Daybell doomsday murders → Vallow–Daybell murder caseVallow–Daybell murder case – Per the proposal made above, I suggest we give the article a less sensationalist title. While the "doomsday cult" aspect, the "doomsday mom" nickname, and the murderers' unusual religious beliefs attracted attention, it was never exactly clarified if their main motive was religious, financial, or romantic/sexual (one may speculate that it was all three). Anyway I have never seen the phrase "Vallow–Daybell doomsday murders" used elsewhere, so it might be a bit awkward to use a title that originated strictly on Wikipedia. Psychloppos (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.–Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ23:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Meta Qureshi → Matwa Qureshi – The current title, "Meta Qureshi", appears inaccurate and inconsistent with the subject of the article. The article's lead identifies the community as "Matva Qureshi", also known as "Matwa Kureshi". Official Government of India and Government of Gujarat records list "Matwa or Matwa-Kureshi (Muslim)" separately from "Me or Meta". This indicates that "Meta" is a separate listed name and should not be used as the title of this community's article. The proposed title "Matwa Qureshi" is more precise and consistent with the available reliable sources under WP:TITLE and WP:PRECISION. Alternative spellings, including "Matva Qureshi", "Matwa Kureshi", and "Matva Kureshi", may be retained as redirects. I am a member of this community and disclose my personal connection to the subject. Sources: Government of India, Press Information Bureau and Government of Gujarat SEBC list. MDKURESHI (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2011 St. Louis tornado → 2011 Good Friday tornado – This page was once named as such back then (specifically 2011 Good Friday Tornado), due to the event occurring on Good Friday, April 22, 2011. It was then moved on April 24, 2011 by @Cyclonebiskit to 2011 St. Louis tornado, because it was "less ambiguous" to name it for a single tornado event and that it immediately reflects the affected area (that being directly St. Louis, Missouri), and that naming it as such could refer to other tornadoes that have occurred that same day. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the local NWS office, but especially many press sources have referred this specific EF4 tornado as the Good Friday tornado in the wake of the event, and even as far as a decade or more after it happened. I personally do not find both names bad, but I am leaning more on the WP:COMMONNAME policy on renaming this article back to what it originally was named as by the creator, @Strikerforce. And despite literally being named by the media industry from in and around the St. Louis, Missouri metro as just the Good Friday tornado, it definitely would need the 2011 parenthesis to not conflict with another violent EF4 tornado (has a draft by @Lightbulb Noob) and outbreak that also occurred on Good Friday, on April 10, 2009 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Please share your thoughts on this. If any of the original editors from over 15 years ago are still present, it would be awesome to still have you around! Sharkeston (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – WHX Dubai →? – The full, official name of this international event is "World Health Expo Dubai". While the acronym "WHX Dubai" is used in branding, Wikipedia naming conventions (WP:ACROTITLE) strongly prefer the full, unabbreviated title for the main article to ensure encyclopedic clarity and accuracy. Moving it to the full name will better serve readers searching for the comprehensive expo title, while "WHX Dubai" will remain as a seamless redirect. Ezgiayoz (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Steam Machine → Steam MachinesSteam Machines – Steam Machines is a (discontinued) family of small form factor gaming computers, and a marketing term. The concept described by the article is plural, the article body already uses plural form. As it describes multiple devices, with differing names, some not including "Steam Machine" in their name moniker, using Steam Machine does not seem appropriate. I propose renaming it to Steam Machines, which will also align with marketing logotype used on the page and by Valve Corporation. There also exists Valve Steam Machine (prototype), from 2013, that was released in only 300 units (see section in the article of this talk page). 2026 Steam Machine's current Steam Machine (computer) title is also confusing. I'm not sure what it should be renamed to, I'm open to suggestions, and myself suggest Steam Machine (2026), or Steam Machine (2026 computer). I'm against using WP:DIFFCAPS title of just Steam Machine, as steam machine redirects to steam engine. Steam Machine (capitalized) should probably redirect to steam machine (disambiguation). It would also be helpful if we could agree on resolving it swifter than in 7 days. If you agree, please state so. Tracerneo (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.–Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 11:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk06:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Saugus High School shooting → 2019 Saugus High School shooting2019 Saugus High School shooting – A lack of other notable shootings at Saugus High School does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable shootings at Saugus High School because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. Regarding the previous RM, there was an apparent belief that this incident was similar to the Virginia Tech shooting, Parkland high school shooting, Uvalde school shooting, and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but the key thing separating this shooting and those is how recognizable and impactful it was. Saugus pales in comparison to the massive impacts that those events had, some of whose repercussions are still being felt today across the United States and in some cases, elsewhere. With the thousands of shooting articles across Wikipedia, only a small number can manage without a year. Raskuly🐰 05:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk06:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Harpadontinae → HarpadontidaeHarpadontidae – Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes currently treats Harpadontidae Bleeker, 1875 as a valid family in Aulopiformes, separate from Synodontidae, rather than as the subfamily Harpadontinae within Synodontidae. The current title reflects an older or narrower-rank treatment, while the proposed title matches the family-rank treatment used by Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes. The current target, Harpadontidae, is only a redirect to Synodontidae, so the article history should be preserved by moving Harpadontinae to Harpadontidae rather than creating a new page. コロネン (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2025 Prairieland ICE detention center incident → Prairieland casePrairieland case – Per WP:CONCISE and recent Talk page discussions. Although a clear WP:COMMONNAME has not emerged, the court cases (which continue as we speak) have eclipsed the original event in significance and WP:LASTING media coverage, and numerous media organizations refer to the event as some variation of "Prairieland _____ case". The most common (and, in my opinion, neutral) variation is "Prairieland shooting case"; "terrorism case" and "protest case" are also common, but each of these has WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL issues. Other justifications: the name is consistent with other court cases in Category:2020s trials, all major search engines lead the reader to the correct topic if "Prairieland case" is used as a search term, and I think we can all agree that "incident" is too ambiguous and anodyne. Carguychris (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – PennyMac Financial Services → Pennymac – The company rebranded in 2022 and is now referred to as "Pennymac" in independent reliable sources, (and not PennyMac with the capital M) making it the common name. Recent independent sources using this name include: The company itself also uses "Pennymac" as its operative brand name, as seen on its official website. Company entitities PennyMac Loan Services, LLC and PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust do not follow the new branding with a lowercase 'M'. HomeWithAYard (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – City of Manchester Stadium → Etihad StadiumEtihad Stadium – Clear WP:COMMONNAME. It simply isn't called City of Manchester Stadium by anyone anymore, with reliable sources having nearly exclusively used "Etihad Stadium" for years by now, to the point that finding a contemporary one that it genuinely takes effort to find contemporary ones that refer to it as "City of Manchester Stadium". This is about as clear-cut of a common name case as they come, and I was astounded to see the unrecognizable title we use for this article. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 10:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Guide to deletion → Wikipedia:Guide to AfDWikipedia:Guide to AfD – The current title doesn't really match what the page covers. Right after the intro, the guide says outright that it deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Verifiability and No original research, which are [...] nominated on Articles for deletion. Everything past that point, nomination, discussion, closure, behaviour, contesting the closure, and so on, is about how AfD specifically works. The other XfD venues for deleting non-article pages are only covered in one sentence which just links out to their own pages, not actually explained here. So, per WP:MOVE, the title is misleading or inaccurate, and the scope is effectively much narrower than the title suggests. "Guide to deletion" implies coverage of deletion as a whole, but the content has always been a guide to AfD specifically, not to the other XfD processes. One of the page's own shortcuts, WP:GAFD, already reads as "guide to AfD", so editors have been treating it that way informally for a while. Renaming it would just bring the title in line with the shortcut and the actual content. Also, note that we already have a guide to all the deletion processes as a whole at Wikipedia:Deletion process: speedy deletion, PROD, and the full set of XfD venues, along with the general closing procedures, consensus determination, relisting, and so on. That page covers the general "how deletion works across Wikipedia", and it already links out to venue-specific pages while trying to explain their common features. Renaming this page to Wikipedia:Guide to AfD would just stop this page from implying, by its title, that it's the general deletion guide, when we already have that at WP:Deletion process. FaviFake (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Yay! (album) → Yay!Yay! – Nothing else that the disambiguation page at Yay seems to use an exclamation mark at the end. The other entries are an airport by IATA code, two languages (ISO 639-3 code and alternate name), and an acronym for Youth Assisting Youth. None of these could plausibly be referred to as "Yay!". Also, if moved, YAY! should be a redirect to Yay!. Mathguy2718 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Harry Reid International Airport → Las Vegas AirportLas Vegas Airport – Primarily per WP:COMMONNAME: There are, from a bit of digging, many many more examples of coverage calling the airport “Las Vegas Airport” over “Harry Reid” - a search on Google Trends reveals that when comparing “Las Vegas Airport”, “Las Vegas International Airport” and “Harry Reid International Airport”, the first of the three is by a massive margin the most searched for term. Additionally, the vast majority of news articles from the last 2 years or so use “Las Vegas Airport” or very similar in their titles, only using the full official title on occasion in the article body. Danners430tweaks made17:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Crocodilia → CrocodyliaCrocodylia – The article should be moved from Crocodilia to Crocodylia. Both spellings have historical usage, but modern systematic and taxonomic sources increasingly use Crocodylia, especially for the crown group containing living alligators, crocodiles, gharials, and their extinct descendants. Reptile Database uses Crocodylia, IUCN Red List taxonomic data also uses Crocodylia for species classifications, and recent phylogenetic literature commonly treats Crocodylia as the crown-group name. Since the article is about the taxonomic order/crown clade rather than a vernacular concept, Crocodylia is the better title, with Crocodilia retained as an alternative spelling redirect. コロネン (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.1isall(talk|contribs) 13:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mary Fowler (soccer) → Mary Fowler – Reopening this to rediscuss and seek consensus. I think it's pretty clear that she's the most famous person with the name Mary Fowler. Google search results give only her. The other individuals are a geophysicist with far less information about her online, and a painter/sculptor who's already distinguished as Mary Blackford Fowler. I think there is clearly sufficient evidence that one Mary Fowler is far more well-known than the other. As for what's changed since October 2025, she's now won the double (the WSL and the FA Cup) with Man City and finished runners-up in the Asian Cup with the Matildas (as one of our best players), and will be at the next World Cup. Schestos (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2021 Qatari general election → 2021 Qatari Shura Council election – 1. Sources used in the article and sources overall overwhelmingly do not use the term "general election". 2. The official Qatar News Agency always calls it "Shura Council Elections", never "General", and Qatar has a "Media Support Committee for the Shura Council Elections" and a "Shura Council Elections Supervisory Committee".[2][3] 3. The term "general election" is ambiguous, and is often understood in English to mean elections that affect a government,[4] which is not the case here, nor in elections for similar bodies in other non-democratic countries, going against Precision from WP:CRITERIA. 4. WP:NCELECT does not have a specific guideline on "general election", and due to the particular nature of the Shura Council as a pseudo-legislature with limited powers, I believe that the appropriate guideline here is the following: "For elections to particular bodies or offices, default to the form "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [body/office] election"." Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC) غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Pratt's roundleaf bat → Swinhoe's roundleaf bat – While it is not always necessary to align common names with scientific names, the situation differs when a common name clearly corresponds to an obsolete scientific name. I believe that the current common name derived from Hipposideros pratti—a scientific name that should no longer be used—ought to be replaced by "Swinhoe's roundleaf bat," which is derived from the valid scientific name Hipposideros swinhoii (which holds priority). コロネン (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – She Chinese → Shanke dialectShanke dialect – Noting that many people may not be familiar with this language. I think it is necessary to explain the reason for the move. The study to the Hakka or Hakka-like variant spoken by the She (Shanke) people is the niche study of niche studies among existing studies to the Chinese language using English language as a medium. The study to this dialect in English is very uncommon, so it is very hard to have a uniform commonly known name in English. Different scholars used different names to call this dialect. Not to mention in English, the National Ethnic Affairs Commission AND other branches of the Chinese government has not even confirmed an official name for this dialect in Chinese. In another word, it doesn't even have an official standardised Chinese name. The language only has a widely acknowledged native endonym called "山客话 (shānkè huà)". According to the interlanguage links to this concept, there are three Wikipedia articles to this concept in three different languages, which are Chinese, Indonesian, and English. Both articles in Chinese and Indonesian Wikipedia use this language's native endonym by its native users, which is "山客 (Shanke / Shanha)" as the name for this concept. In Chinese Wikipedia, it is called "zh:山客话 (shānkè huà)". In Indonesian Wikipedia, it is called "id:Bahasa Shanha". In either way, they are based on this language's native endonym "山客话 (Shanke dialect)" called by its native speakers. Now, let me explain why it is appropriate to change the name of this article from "She Chinese" to "Shanke dialect" in English.1: The term "She Chinese" is never found in English to refer to this language. No matter whether you search "She Chinese" in Google Scholar or in other English databases, you will never find this two words "She Chinese" to be used to refer to this language. In some occasions, "She Chinese" may be used to refer to the She people, but "She Chinese" is never used to refer to this language in English. At the same time, you can find "Mandarin Chinese", "Xiang Chinese", "Yue Chinese", "Gan Chinese" everywhere in their studies. 2: "———— Chinese" is the fashion to name primary branches of the Chinese language, not varieties under primary branches. To be named "———— Chinese", the branch needs to be either large enough or distinct enough (if not large enough). "She Chinese" is neither large enough like "Mandarin Chinese" and other nine primary branches of Chinese, nor distinct enough like "Waxiang Chinese" as an ancient although tiny Chinese branch. This is quite important. For example, Huizhou dialect and Huizhou Chinese are entirely different Chinese varieties. Huizhou Chinese implies that this is a primary Chinese branch, but Huizhou dialect should be under a primary branch (although Huizhou dialect is still disputed regarding whether it should be under Hakka Chinese or Yue Chinese). "She Chinese" is apparently not large enough, and at the same time, it is not as distinct as Waxiang Chinese, because the mainstream linguists classify it as a dialect under Hakka Chinese. 3: "Shanke" as the English name for this language is not a new invention in English. It has already been used in academic journals for long to differentiate itself from other languages used by the She people, such as Dongjia language and Huonie language, and from the exonyms to this language. In 2021, in publication "Insights From Y-STRs: Forensic Characteristics, Genetic Affinities, and Linguistic Classifications of Guangdong Hakka and She Groups" on PubMed Central and PubMed, it says "She people speak the She language with different dialects such as Shanke, Dongjia, and Huonie. She language is a branch of Sino-Tibetan language families and is the primary language for the She group." In 2009, in publication "Languages of the She Minority: A Review of the Literature" on the UC Berkley's journal Journal of Chinese Linguistics collected in JSTOR, it says "The Han people call the language spoken by the She Shekehua 畲客话 or Sheminhua 畲民话 ('speech of the She guests' or 'speech of the She people'), but the She people call their own language Shankehua 山客话, or Shanhahua 山哈话 'speech of the mountain guests'." The name "Shanke" as the dialect's English name in its English spelling has been used and collected by academic authorities for a long time already. 4: According to the WP:COMMONNAME, it says "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly". All of the four names I have seen in English publications, which are the two native endonyms "Shanke dialect (山客话)" and "Shanha dialect (山哈话)", and two externally defined exonyms "She dialect (畲话)" and "She language (畲语)" referring to this same language, are uncommon, because the study to this language itself is uncommon. Scholars improvised different translations to the name of this language each time when they need to mention this language in English. There is no standardised name or widely known name. You can't even find an entry for this language in a Chinese dictionary, English dictionary, Chinese-English dictionary, or English-Chinese dictionary. There are in fact many Chinese topics that are rarely discussed or not at all discussed in English. For example, Younian dialect of Chinese spoken by ethnic Yao people is almost never discussed or mentioned in any English source (Google Scholar search result), but it still has an English Wikipedia article. Therefore without a common name (or without a pre-existing name at all) in English is never a real issue. As long as a good translation is created or selected. There is a policy in Chinese Wikipedia called zh:WP:名从主人 meaning the name needs to follow what is defined by its owner (主人). That is why "山客话 (Shanke dialect)" is used as the name in Chinese Wikipedia. When the Chinese government does not confirm a standardised name for this language, the native users of this Chinese dialect should be ranked the second to define how this language should be called. There are similar proposals in English Wikipedia in Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/COMMONNAME sandbox, but not in official policies. Therefore I request to move the article from "She Chinese" to "Shanke dialect", following how this language is called in Chinese Wikipedia as "山客话 (Shanke dialect)" and in Indonesian Wikipedia as "Bahasa Shanha". "Shanke" should be preferred, because "Shanha (山哈)" represents the phonetic loan Chinese character for "Shanke (山客)". "Shanke" is like the true spelling of an English word. "Shanha" is like a common misspelling of an English word. We use the true spelling, not the misspelling. Sinowriter (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ethnic cleansing of the Rahanweyn → Clan cleansing of the Rahanweyn – The current title uses the term “ethnic cleansing”, which is imprecise and potentially misleading in this context. The large-scale violence and expulsion targeting the Rahanweyn (Digil-Mirifle) clans in southern Somalia in 1991–1995 was carried out by other Somali clans, primarily Hawiye- and Darod-affiliated militias. As the leading scholarly monograph on the subject demonstrates, the violence is more accurately characterized as clan cleansing, that is, the systematic targeting and expulsion of civilians on the basis of clan affiliation within a single ethnic group. In her 2012 book Clan Cleansing in Somalia: The Ruinous Legacy of 1991, historian Lidwien Kapteijns explicitly argues that the post-1991 violence in Somalia is better understood through the framework of “clan cleansing” rather than ethnic cleansing. She notes that, unlike classic cases of ethnic cleansing, the perpetrators and victims in Somalia largely shared the same ethnicity; the decisive marker of identity and targeting was clan. Kapteijns devotes substantial attention to the Rahanweyn case in the inter-riverine regions (the so-called “Triangle of Death”), documenting the massacres, deliberate starvation, land seizure, and forced displacement that occurred there. This terminology is supported by other reliable sources that engage with the same events and conceptual framework. The proposed title therefore better reflects the most detailed academic analysis of these events and provides greater precision.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]Garaadiye (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Spinoff (media) → Spin-off (media)Spin-off (media) – The page was unilaterally moved by User:2pou in 2024 without discussion, claiming that the word is used more often without the hyphen in a media context. I noticed the move because all the related categories were also moved to the non-hyphenated version in a procedural way. It was pointing to a single dictionary definition, but the hyphenated word also appears commonly in dictionaries referring to media, such as here. Ngrams also indicates that "spin-off" is used far more often in the literary corpus. There was no convincing proof given that the non-hyphenated version is the common name, beyond vague handwaving, and in my opinion a bold move was improper in the first place. Note: The page was also moved to Spin–off (media) beforehand, but, as far as I know, an endash is the proper grammar, so it may have been moved by accident. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.–Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ17:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Vantage Airport Group → Vantage Group – I am the user Kdenney and have disclosed on my user page that I am affiliated with Vantage Group. Per the guidance above and because of my conflict of interest, I am requesting that the community consider this move rather than attempting to make it directly. The article title no longer appears to reflect the name by which the company is now commonly identified.While the article remains titled Vantage Airport Group, the lead, infobox, website, and article text already identify the company as Vantage Group and describe "Vantage Airport Group" as its former name.Since the company's June 2024 rebrand, multiple independent reliable sources have consistently referred to the company as Vantage Group, including TRBusiness (20 June 2024); Airport X News (25 June 2024); The Moodie Davitt Report (20 June 2024); TravelDailyNews (21 June 2024); AirportIR (22 October 2024). These sources were provided in my earlier COI edit request above. Given that the article itself already acknowledges the current company name, I believe the article title should be evaluated under Wikipedia's naming conventions to determine whether Vantage Group has become the appropriate title. If editors determine that another title (such as a disambiguated title) is more appropriate, I welcome that discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Kdenney (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Vijayawada Airport → Vijayawada International AirportVijayawada International Airport – I read the previous move requests and felt that this has not been properly handled or addressed. I’m proposing that we move this article to "Vijayawada International Airport." Since 2017, the airport has officially held international status, and that's the name used by the Airports Authority of India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation in all formal documentation. Keeping it as "Vijayawada Airport" feels a bit outdated now. Most other major Indian airports with international status (like Chennai, Coimbatore, or Madurai) use their full formal names on Wikipedia, so moving this would bring it in line with those. It's a simple, straightforward correction to match the airport's official status. Edit: Adding secondary source link - Note that most of the references say "Vijayawada Airport" in the title but mention "Vijayawada International Airport" in the text body of the reference, so I believe it's upto users to interpret whether they should pick the title or the text body to consider something as commonname, as it being brought up as the only big barrier.Wikipicked (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Grateful dead (folklore) → Grateful deadGrateful dead – Attempting the move again per WP:CCC. Not only does this fall under WP:DIFFCAPS, but the grateful dead page has a high amount of longterm significance as an ancient element of folklore, and the band admitted that they got the name from that very story element. Wikipedia determines page placement not solely on the amounts of votes from fans of a particular rock band, but on its cultural significance stretching back to the dawn of history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lutra → Lutra (Lutra) – Under the classification currently adopted by Wikipedia, Aonyx is a paraphyletic group that includes Lutrogale. Ferran et al. (2022) supports the inclusion of the subgenera Lutra, Aonyx, Amblonyx, and Lutrogale within an expanded Lutra. Mammal Diversity Database adopts this classification. I plan to convert the three existing articles into articles on subgenera, while repurposing the Lutra entry into an article covering the expanded genus. As this change in classification has previously been mentioned on the article's talk page and could be controversial, I am submitting this "Requested Move" proposal. コロネン (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.1isall(talk|contribs) 04:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Novopavlivka offensive → Dnipropetrovsk Oblast offensive (2025–present) – I had already expressed concerns over this article's scope at Talk:Novopavlivka offensive#Scope (I'll be pinging some users from that discussion). Essentially I expressed some doubt over the decision to focus this article on the settlement of Novopavlivka. To me it seemed back then, and still does, that this article focused more simply on Russian advances into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast than on this little settlement. The article itself currently states the following: The locality itself [Novopavlivka] is not particularly strategic, though its location just over the border of the Dnipropetrovsk region makes it significant as Russia has not entered this oblast in the first three years of their full-scale invasion. Therefore, it would mainly mark a moral blow for Ukraine, should Russia cross into the Dnipropetrovsk region and seize Novopavlivka. It puts more weight on the simple fact that Russia has reentered this oblast than on the advances towards this particular settlement, and I would argue WP:RS coverage has focused more on this too. Novopavlivka is a small settlement of 3,439 people (2001). Typically we've had articles on offensives on specific settlements for small towns, larger than this one. I Know I'm Not Alone, the author of much of this article, did make some fair defense on the use of Novopavlivka as the article's focus at the aforementioned discussion. Nonetheless, as you can see on the map (outdated by the way), most of the territory taken during the offensive covered in this article is located in a different part of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, near Velykomykhailivka. IiSmxyzXX also made some argumentation on this point and on the notion that this offensive being focused on Novopavlivka specifically might be WP:OR. I believe sources have focused more on the simple fact that Russia has achieved advances in a different oblast beyond Donetsk Oblast. This article is notable in my opinion largely due to this psychological and PR effect. Sources cited in this article seem to struggle giving this offensive a particular strategic sense, and I don't think there's many capable of doing this among the sources not already cited. Thus, I would like to propose renaming this article to better reflect its focus on, simply, Russian advances into this oblast beyond the Donbas region. It is necessary to differentiate these advances from the ones that took place in 2022 (see more at Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast#2022) and also to note the fact that this offensive is apparently still ongoing (though this article should be updated after the events of the 2026 Southern Ukraine counteroffensive). Such a format title is already employed in this topic area (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), Dnieper campaign (2022–present)) and it suggests treating the topic in a similar fashion to other in my opinion comparable cases, such as the 2025 Sumy offensive. We could still mention Novopavlivka in some section header, it would be completely fair in my view to divide this article into two axes, one for Novopavlivka and another for Velykomykhailivka (we've already done stuff like this, see the sections at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive). "Dnipropetrovsk offensive (2025–present)" could also be an alternative WP:CONSISTENT with the aforementioned Sumy offensive that has taken place in the oblast and not the city, and in this particular case it would be unambiguous as the capital is not called Dnipropetrovsk but Dnipro. But then we also have Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign for example. And given the apparent lack of a strategic single focus, with this article focusing more on military engagements taking place on a specific defined area, "campaign" might be a better choice over "offensive". I invite editors to discuss all possible options. Regards, SuperΨDro 00:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Impeachment trial of Sara Duterte →? – This is technically the first impeachment trial of Sara Duterte. Although the Senate had convened as an impeachment court during the first impeachment, it remanded the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives before the trial proper could begin. The Supreme Court later ruled that the Senate had not acquired jurisdiction over the case and that no impeachment trial would proceed. HueMan1 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Naas → Naas, Ireland – This Irish town does not appear to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Searching "Naas" online and in Google Scholar leads to a myriad of varying results, very few of which concern the subject of this article. This article should thus be disambiguated. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sicangu → Brulé (tribe) – I propose moving this article to Brulé (tribe) and redirecting Brulé to the disambiguation page at Brule. Although Sicangu is now the preferred autonym used by the Lakota communities, Brulé remains the historically established and most widely recognized name in historiography, classical anthropology, and international reference works. It is the term under which the group has been identified for more than two centuries in the vast majority of works on the Lakota, the Indian Wars, and the history of the American West, and it is still the name most readily recognized by readers. ~2026-38768-37 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The King Kong That Appeared in Edo → King Kong Appears in EdoKing Kong Appears in Edo – I'm fairly sure that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME and, contrary to what this article claimed until today, also very likely a more accurate translation of the Japanese. Japanese doesn't distinguish proper names from common nouns by the use of the definite article, so a more accurate ane equally literal translation than the current title would be King Kong, Who Appeared in Edo. That said, without doing a thorough survey on how verb tense and ... 体言止め (English? "relative clauses" probably gets the meaning across) are used in Japanese and English film titles, I'm extremely reluctant to second-guess the reliable sources that call this film King Kong Appears in Edo, which sounds much more natural in English than the current article title. (Conversely, a word-for-word translation into Japanese of King Kong Appears in Edo, such as キングコング江戸に現れること, would sound awful.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Weather news → Weather channelWeather channel – When I created this disambiguation a few years ago, I sought to disambiguate different local, national, and international weather channels; but looking back the title I created might not have been the obvious term for this topic, and this topic is likely notable given the existence of many channels with weather-oriented programming so the next logical step would be to convert the disambiguation into a standalone article. Aasim (話す) 03:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Isaak Illich Rubin → Isaak RubinIsaak Rubin – Per the five WP:CRITERIA. (1) Consistency: The prevailing standard convention is to omit the patronymic for Russian and Soviet academics; see Lev Vygotsky, Evgeny Pashukanis, Mikhail Bakhtin, etc.; (2/5) Concision & Precision: "Isaak Rubin" is adequate to identify the subject, and there is no need for disambiguation here; (3/4) Recognizability & Naturalness: While translated texts frequently credit him by his initials (I. I. Rubin), standard English-language prose and general readers naturally default to Firstname Lastname. In Day and Gaido's collection of his writings, a major source on him, he is consistently called "Isaak Rubin" in their introductions. — Goszei (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Do not call list → Do Not Call listDo Not Call list – These lists are almost exclusively referred to as Do Not Call lists (for instance, Australia's Do Not Call Register, Canada's National Do Not Call List, Belgium's Do Not Call Me, Singapore's Do Not Call Registry, the United States's National Do Not Call Registry, etc.). None of these are capitalized as "Do not call" lists. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mount Rushmore → Mount Rushmore National MemorialMount Rushmore National Memorial – Quite simply, this article is about the statues on the face of Mount Rushmore and the larger National Memorial. Mount Rushmore, the peak itself, has only secondary notability. In fact, it was a peak that hardly had any mention at all in historical sources prior to Gutzon Borglum choosing it as the site for his memorial project. Having the article name as the name of the peak also creates the problem that the article doesn't really discuss the mountain as a geographical feature until about three paragraphs in. If "Mount Rushmore" really is the primary topic, that should be discussed in the first few sentences. Changing the title far better aligns the title with the actual subject of the article. So I propose moving the article to Mount Rushmore National Memorial and that Mount Rushmore redirect to that, the reverse of the current situation. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Jat Airways → JAT (airline)JAT (airline) – While the situation may have been different when this article was created, in retrospect, the ten years that the airline was called Jat Airways for are far less relevant than the prior half a century where it was known as JAT, the period where it peaked in terms of passenger count and global prestige. Also, I people still call Air Serbia "JAT" colloquially, even more so 13 years ago when it was Jat Airways. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Vivek Vaswani → Viveck Vaswani – The subject's name is misspelled in the article. The correct spelling is 'Viveck',and not 'Vivek'. I am the subject of this article and have a conflict of interest, so I am requesting an editor to perform the move. Please see the following reliable sources verifying the correct spelling: * * Thank you. ~2026-38591-67 (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Robinson list → Opt-out registry – The article should be moved from Robinson list to Opt-out registry. The current title appears to be region-specific and potentially unclear to readers who are not familiar with the term "Robinson list". The article itself defines the topic more generally as an opt-out list or register for people who do not wish to receive marketing communications by email, post, telephone, or fax. The examples in the article also show that many jurisdictions use other terms, such as "National Do Not Call List", "Do Not Call Register", "Do Not Call Registry", "Telephone Preference Service", and "Public Registry of Oppositions". Under WP:TITLE, article titles should generally be recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. I do not think "Robinson list" is the most recognisable or natural title for the broader international concept. It appears to be one regional or historical name for a wider class of opt-out registers. "Opt-out registry" would be a more descriptive and internationally understandable title. The proposed title may also better satisfy WP:PRECISE, because it describes the general subject of the article rather than one particular name used in some jurisdictions. It may also better reflect WP:COMMONNAME in a broad sense, as the article covers several national systems that are not commonly called Robinson lists. Even if individual schemes have specific names, the general concept is more clearly described as an opt-out registry. This move would also help with WP:CONSISTENT and WP:WORLDVIEW, because the article discusses systems in multiple countries. A title based on one regional term risks giving undue prominence to that terminology, whereas "Opt-out registry" is more neutral and descriptive across jurisdictions. This request is also relevant to the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do not call list, where editors are considering the relationship between Do not call list and Robinson list. If overlapping content is merged, the target article should ideally have a title that is clear, internationally understandable, and broad enough to cover telephone, postal, email, and fax marketing opt-out systems. For these reasons, I think Opt-out registry would be a better title than Robinson list. Kirbylegal (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Battle of Orewin Bridge → Battle of BuilthBattle of Builth – As per the previous discussion, it would appear that Battle of Builth is the best name for this article, and is one of the two names used in modern academic scholarship, together with Battle of Cilmeri. However, as JB Smith noted, Cilmeri is not the medieval name of the area. Either, however, would work, as Cilmeri is generally how the battle is referred to today in popular culture in Wales, especially in Welsh nationalist circles. Tipcake (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Northern League (British neo-Nazi organisation) → Northern League (neo-Nazi organisation) – The problem with the current title is that they were not even mostly British and functioned as a global network. It was technically founded in India and was simultaneously active in Europe and with multiple chapters in the USA. To quote Dreamer of the Day, pp. 469–470: Carto's connections in the segregationist right led him to join a mysterious organization called the Northern League for Pan-Nordic Friendship. [...] [William] Stephenson let the southern-U.S. branch of the Northern League operate out of The Virginian's office [...] the NL also published The Northlander out of its Scotland headquarters. After Carto joined, the League's West Coast headquarters became Right. [...] A Scotsman named Alastair Harper ran its European wing from League headquarters in Dunfermline, Scotland.22 The League's founder and Central Organizer was Roger Pearson, an Englishman who at the time of the League's creation was living in Calcutta, India.23 [...] The NL quickly established branches throughout the United States and Europe, including a cell for the western part of the United States created in 1958 through Right." PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2014 Harris County shooting → Murder of the Stay family – Why would be better and more concise. Would help differentiate better from the other Harris County shooting since this was a whole family killed instead of different members with different last names. Also would be precise and consistent with other familicides like Murder of the Bologna family and Todt family murders. ButteyFelicity (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Reims – Champagne Air Base → Reims-Champagne Air Base – or Reims Air Base. The article body conflicts with the article's title, and the "Reims – Champagne" construction seems more conventionally hyphenated, as in ÉF Reims-Champagne and Automobile Museum Reims-Champagne. This does not seem to be expressing a "between" relationship, since Reims is located within Champagne (if I understand correctly), and that would be "Reims–Champagne", not "Reims – Champagne". Sourcing (without citogenesis from Wikipedia) seems difficult to find about this topic. Possibly a somewhat different term should be used. Some sources just say "Reims". — BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2023 Doerman killings → Murder of the Doerman children – Why more precise and accurate. He was convicted of murder and since it's a familicide it's different to most shooting articles. This also is a weird thing to add a year since it would apply if it was like the Brownsville child murders but since it's the last name of a family instead of the town then no year is needed. ButteyFelicity (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Two-Way Stretch → Two Way Stretch (1960 film) – There are currently three pages with almost no difference in title, and without a disambiguation page to distinguish them: * Two-way stretch, a redirect to Stretch fabric. * Two-Way Stretch, this 1960 film. * Two way stretch, a redirect to the film page. For the film, I think the title which should be used in WP should be Two Way Stretch, without the hyphen. WP:COMMONNAME says that articles should be titled with "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". Here are some sources for the two alternatives: Two Way Stretch (my preferred spelling): * BFI record * BBFC certification record * Film's on-screen opening credits * Leslie Halliwell Halliwell's Film GuideTwo-Way Stretch (the current title): * The original poster, shown in the infobox. However, this also uses all lower case, and film advertising posters are often unreliable records of titles * EIDR content record * Kine Weekly p. 9 in-article reference * Ephraim Katz The Film Encyclopedia A Google Books search here shows a roughly even split. I think the clinchers here should be the BFI and BBFC records, supported by the film's own credits. So, I suggest moving the current page to be titled Two Way Stretch (1960 film), and deleting the Two way Stretch redirect to it. Masato.harada (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2026 (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) – Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting → 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting – A lack of other notable mass shootings at the Gilroy Garlic Festival does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable mass shootings at the Gilroy Garlic Festival because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. Raskuly🐰 12:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.1isall(talk|contribs) 13:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) – Model Farms → Model Farms, New South WalesModel Farms, New South Wales – This page was recently moved from the target on the grounds that it was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with no prior discussion. However, there is already a page called Model farms (lower case "f") that redirects to Demonstration farm. This has created an issue where the search result will differ depending on whether the term is input with uppercase or lowercase letters. There are also no hat notes on either page to account for this. The lifetime pageviews for Demonstration farm is over 39,000. The lead at Demonstration farm includes "model farm" as a bolded alternative name in the first sentence (although the redirect from "model farms" itself has only a bit over 100 pageviews). Model Farms, New South Wales had only 4766 lifetime pageviews at the time of the move. Determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is generally determined by consensus and requires us to consider a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Based on the page view numbers, it is difficult to conclude that a reader searching the term "model farms" is seeking information on a relatively obscure locality within the Sydney suburb of Winston Hills as opposed to the much more likely alternative term for demostration farms. In the absence of a consensus around primary topic, disambiguation is required per WP:NCAUST. Dfadden (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.–Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ14:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Soldier Boy → Soldier Boy (The Boys) – Per WP:RECENTISM, I do not think Soldier Boy from The Boys should be WP:PRIMARY as the idea of a "Soldier Boy" dates back long before The Boys was ever created, and is probably how the character got his name in the first place. Soldier Boy from The Boys might currently be what most people think of when they hear "Soldier Boy", but this may not be the case in the future (again going back to how "Soldier Boy" is a historical term/phrase/idea/something). ThePoggingEditor (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Destinyokhiria(talk / cont)17:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Deep (character) → The Deep (The Boys) – I think it makes sense to have the DB be the franchise where this character comes from instead of (character). The current DB was probably done to match what most DBs are for pages on comic book characters, but characters from The Boys were written specifically for The Boys and not for the publisher to use in other works (a counter-example of this would be Kingpin (character) from Marvel Comics). ThePoggingEditor (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Destinyokhiria(talk / cont)17:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Operation Kikusui I → Operation Ten-Ichi-Go – I hate to open another move request so soon after the last one closed, but it looks like the previous move was done without reference to sources. Unfortunately, I believe the new name chosen was incorrect. The Japanese plan for resisting the American invasion of Okinawa was named Ten-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven). In the initial planning, Ten-Go did not include a naval component. It only included ground force elements and a series of aerial kamikaze attacks designated Kikusui Sakusen (Operation Floating Chrysanthemum). After the Emperor noted the lack of the Navy's participation, the attack by the Yamato and company was added at the last minute. This was designated Ten-Ichi-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven 1). The Japanese Wikipedia helpfully includes the actual text of the order, with source: 「航空攻撃有利なる場合、1YBは特令により出撃し敵攻略部隊を撃滅す。本作戦を天一号作戦と呼称す」 "Should conditions for an aerial offensive prove favorable, the 1st Surface Attack Unit shall sortie under special orders to annihilate the enemy invasion force. This operation shall be designated Operation Heaven 1." Source: Official Japanese war history (Senshi Sōsho), Vol 93, pg 258-259 Each of the ten Kikusui attacks was numbered one through ten, i.e. Kikusui I, Kikusui II. Note they do not include the word Sakusen (Operation). The aerial attacks are distinguished in reliable sources from the attack by the Yamato. For example, 'Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945: the Naval History of World War II' mentions the two separately (pg. 407). Tagging original requestor: @Palm Dogg, relisters: @Bunnypranav, @Sophisticatedevening, @Jeffery34964, and closer: @FOARPVoteins (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.{{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.–Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ06:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Northern Thai people → Lanna peopleLanna people – As Noktonissian's research above and many users have pointed out, Northern Thai is not a single ethnic group, but it consists of multiple groups who inhabit the northern region of Thailand. Therefore, I think the best terms to call people in these 2 articles should either be "Lanna people" and "Lanna language" or "Tai Yuan people" and "Tai Yuan language". Personally I'm leaning toward "Lanna" Tree2563 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mystery box show → Mystery boxMystery box – The article title should at the very least be changed to mystery-box show. Because "mystery box" is functioning as a compound modifier before the noun "show", meaning it is should include a hyphen. I quickly checked the usage and many articles do correctly hyphenate it, though I admit there are also many that do not. However, I'm inclined to favor mystery box because I find that much of the reliable-source coverage over time has used "mystery box" (often just like that, and often in quotation marks too), as in "a mystery box" or "mystery boxes", or even "the Mystery Box". Οἶδα (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Fortek67 (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk01:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template names should be made of one or more words, and describe the template clearly, as in {{Math topics sidebar}}. Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization. Avoid having templates whose names differ only in case, spacing, or punctuation.
↑Menkhaus, Ken (2003). "State Collapse in Somalia: Second Thoughts". Review of African Political Economy. 30 (97): 405–422. doi:10.1080/03056244.2003.9659774.
Not done Considering this is your first article, I will suggest submitting it for review. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 13:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}