Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested move)

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page; however, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

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.

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests


Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests


I think the most prominent guideline is WP:THE, which notes the title for a publication would need to be capitalized in running text in RS, such as with The New York Times. I haven't seen this in the limited coverage I've found of this: ASUKITE 11:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

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

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 14 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 14 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 14 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2026‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
    Discussion
    Any additional comments:



    This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
    Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
    Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
    Requested move 14 June 2026

    – why Example (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
    Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
    Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
    Requested move 14 June 2026

    – why Example (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Commenting on a requested move

    All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

    • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
    • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
    • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
    • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

    When participating, please consider the following:

    • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
    • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
    • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
    • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
    • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
    • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

    Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

    Closing a requested move

    Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion. 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 requested move

    Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

    Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

    When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

    If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

    Notes

    1. ↑ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
    2. ↑ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

    Current discussions

    Shortcut
    This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 103 discussions have been relisted.

    June 14, 2026

    June 13, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Gender-critical feminism → Trans-exclusionary radical feminism – I have two reasons why this should be moved; one of them is objective and the other one is more personal. The objective reason is that this subject is much better known as "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", whereas the label "gender-critical feminism" is only used by some of its adherents and quite controversially so. As such, it should be moved according to WP:COMMONNAME. The personal (and mayhaps inflamatory) reason is that calling this article "gender-critical feminism" is like calling the article on nazism "Jewish-critical socialism". Which not only would greatly undersell the importance that attacking Jews had in nazi ideology; nazism was hardly socialist in praxis, and so is "gender-critical feminism" hardly an actual feminist movement. It is no more than a neo-reactionary attempt at stablishing a made-up barrier between two ideologies that have no real reason to be devided, considering that both feminism and transgender movements sought to challenge gender roles and as such there is no reason why feminism should antagonize transgender people as TERFs wish to do. But mayhaps this comment is already getting a little too personal, so I will stop myself here. DaniPine3 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Strategic authority region → Strategic authority area – The proposed title is unambiguous and reflects the language used in recent English Devolution Act. The term region is ambiguous and not included in the legislation creating strategic authorities in England. These areas are sometimes informally described as ‘city regions’ or just regions (even in government press releases), but this is informal, imprecise and inconsistent and not used in legislation or government formal decisions and announcements. Alternatively, I would be happy to merge this article into the Strategic authority article (so long as it describes these as areas, not regions). Thanks.Simon373737 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – 2022 Magnificent Mile shooting → 2022 Near North Side shooting – Alt – 2022 Chicago shooting. I know I opened a requested move at the end of last year to add a year, but while looking at this article again I realized that this shooting didn't even happen in the Magnificent Mile. Instead, it happened around the intersection of West Chicago Avenue and North State Street. To make it more specific than just "2022 Chicago shooting" I went with the community area which encompasses the area where the shooting took place, and the Near North Side is often mentioned in sources, including in titles. However, simply mentioning the city might be the better WP:COMMONNAME since the city isn't clearly eclipsed by the community area. A lot of articles say things along the lines of "Chicago's Near North Side" and local sources appear more likely to say the community area. Raskuly 🐰 20:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Joscelin III → Joscelin III, Count of Edessa – Joscelin was and is, generally known, as Joscelin III, Count of Edessa. He was referred to as count by contemporaries: in a charter from 1176, he is Comes Joscelinus, and in another one from 1179, he is Comes Ioscelinus senescalcus (963 & 1034, The Crusades Regesta) Secondary scholarship refers to him as such, based on indexes: Joscelyn III, Count of Edessa (Joscelyn III and the Fall of the Crusader States)[1] Joscelin III, titular count of Edessa, seneschal of Jerusalem (The Crusader States)[2] Joscelin III of Courtenay, count of Edessa (The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century)[3] Joscelin III de Courtenay, titular count of Edessa (Sybil, Queen of Jerusalem)[4] Joscelin III of Courtenay (his father and grandfather being named Joscelin II and I of Courtenay; The Routledge Companion to the Crusades)[5] Joscelin III de Courtenay of Edessa (Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100 to 1291) [6] Joscelin III of Courtenay, titular count of Edessa (The Crusades)[7] Joscelin of Courtenay, C Edessa (his father and grandfather are absent; The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277)[8] His status as count of Edessa is usually recognized and explicit. In only one of these examples is his countship not explicit, and there it is not unique to him in his family. Wombatmanboy (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Wombatmanboy (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Maize → Corn – Okay. I have read the most recent Maize VS. Corn discussion. (2023) Now, a common argument is that apparently "Maize" is the formal, scientific common name. BUT I don't understand the claim that "Corn" is another way of saying cereal. Corn is WP:Commonname here. I can follow up with additonal sources and arguments if needed. Also, I heavily recommend that respondents here read the previous discussions (especially the 9 February 2023 discussion.) Thank you. Robloxguest3 (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 12, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Philadelphia metropolitan area → Greater Philadelphia – The above closed discussion did not really get a lot of engagement, so I figured I would narrow it down to the direct target page that I personally would like to see this be moved to, and perhaps this will garner more engagement. I presented facts/my argument comparing the three names for consideration in the aforementioned previous discussion, and so I will summarize that here. Essentially, "Delaware Valley" is far and away the most common name, "Greater Philadelphia" trails behind by a wide margin, but it is still used widely based on Ngrams and Newspapers.com hits. Then, in third, trailing "Greater Philadelphia" by a decent margin as well, is "Philadelphia metropolitan area". At this point, consensus seems to be that "Delaware Valley" is too ambiguous to be suitable. So, I think that should be completely thrown out of any consideration. With that, I argue we should simply revert to the next-most-common name that is clear and understandable enough to suit the title, and that is "Greater Philadelphia", not "Philadelphia metropolitan area". Red0ctober22 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 09:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 14:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Irgen-Gioro → Irgen Gioro – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NOR. Undiscussed move made by a user with lack of understanding on Manchu naming custom. The family name of "Irgen Gioro", in its nature, is not a double-barrelled name or hyphenated surname like it may have appeared to some people in the English-speaking environment. This kind of naming is somewhat similar to German "von XXX", Dutch "van der XXX" or the "de, da, di" in French, Italian or Spanish where one word (e.g. Irgen, Aisin, Sirin) supplements the other (Gioro). Thus, in reality, it is mostly socially acceptable to address a person with hyphenated surname one of the surnames (e.g. Knowles-Carter, Ms. Knowles, Mrs, Carter). But, it won't work if you call someone Von, Van, de, da, di, and most importantly "Irgen". This is why the most reputable American academic researchers of Manchu studies do not use hypen with the Manchu last names in this fashion (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Especially, example 2, subject expert Giovanni Stary in his work Manchu clans dictionary using "Giyamuhu ba-i Irgen Gioro" (Giyamuhu area's Irgen Gioro) demonstrated the textbook answer on when to and not to use hypen. Therefore, please be familiar with the culture and subject first before taking any major actions like renaming articles. 㡣骨大 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 㡣骨大 (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Sirin-Gioro → Sirin Gioro – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NOR. Undiscussed move made by a user with lack of understanding on Manchu naming custom. The family name of "Sirin Gioro", in its nature, is not a double-barrelled name or hyphenated surname like it may have appeared to some people in the English-speaking environment. This kind of naming is somewhat similar to German "von XXX", Dutch "van der XXX" or the "de, da, di" in French, Italian or Spanish where one word (e.g. Irgen, Aisin, Sirin) supplements the other (Gioro). Thus, in reality, it is mostly socially acceptable to address a person with hyphenated surname one of the surnames (e.g. Knowles-Carter, Ms. Knowles, Mrs, Carter). But, it won't work if you call someone Von, Van, de, da, di, and Sirin in this subject. This is why the most reputable American academic researchers of Manchu studies do not use hypen with the Manchu last names in this fashion (e.g. 1, 2)Please get familiar with the subject first before taking any major actions like renaming articles. 㡣骨大 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 㡣骨大 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Yehe-Nara clan → Yehe Nara – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NOR. Undiscussed move made by a user with lack of understanding on Manchu naming custom. The family name of "Yehe Nara", in its nature, is not a double-barrelled name or hyphenated surname like it may have appeared to some people in the English-speaking environment. This kind of naming is somewhat similar to German "von XXX", Dutch "van der XXX" or the "de, da, di" in French, Italian or Spanish where one word (e.g. Irgen, Aisin, Sirin) supplements the other (Gioro). Thus, in reality, it is mostly socially acceptable to address a person with hyphenated surname one of the surnames (e.g. Knowles-Carter, Ms. Knowles, Mrs, Carter). But, it won't work if you call someone Von, Van, de, da, di, and Yehe in this subject. This is why the most reputable American academic researchers of Manchu studies do not use hypen with the Manchu last names in this fashion (e.g. 1, 2, 3)Please be familiar with the subject first before taking any major actions like renaming articles. ;㡣骨大 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 㡣骨大 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Šušu-Gioro → Šušu Gioro – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NOR. Undiscussed move made by a user with lack of understanding on Manchu naming custom. The family name of "Šušu Gioro", in its nature, is not a double-barrelled name or hyphenated surname like it may have appeared to some people in the English-speaking environment. This kind of naming is somewhat similar to German "von XXX", Dutch "van der XXX" or the "de, da, di" in French, Italian or Spanish where one word (e.g. Irgen, Aisin, Sirin) supplements the other (Gioro). Thus, in reality, it is mostly socially acceptable to address a person with hyphenated surname one of the surnames (e.g. Knowles-Carter, Ms. Knowles, Mrs, Carter). But, it won't work if you call someone Von, Van, de, da, di, as well as "Šušu" in this particular case. This is why the most reputable American academic researchers of Manchu studies do not use hypen with the Manchu last names in this fashion (e.g. 1, 2)Please be familiar with the subject first before taking any major actions like renaming articles. 㡣骨大 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 㡣骨大 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Anglo-Saxons (racialist term) → Anglosaksy – The title of this article is misleading, because it implies that the issue is racist use of the English phrase "Anglo-Saxons". Now, we know that the English phrase really can be used in America as a self-identifier of advocates of white supremicism, as discussed at White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, but this article is about the pejoritive use of the Russian equivalent, Anglosaksy, to disparage the English-speaking countries. To make this clear, we need to change the title, and also rewrite the opening sentence. Apart from that, the word "racialist" is dated - today we say "racist", so the title is odd anyway. Doric Loon (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Orinda shooting → 2019 Orinda shooting – Alt: 2019 Orinda Halloween shooting. A lack of other notable shootings in Orinda 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 in Orinda 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. The alt is because a lot of sources note that it occurred during a Halloween party, and it is arguably WP:COMMONNAME to include the name of the holiday. Raskuly 🐰 08:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting → 2019 Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting – A lack of other notable mass shootings at Naval Air Station Pensacola 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 Naval Air Station Pensacola 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. Raskuly 🐰 07:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Directly elected mayors in England → Directly-elected local authority mayors in England – Most of the content in this article was written prior to the expansion of regional mayors across England. The vast majority of the content of the article is relating to local authority mayors specifically, and the only real content relating to the regional mayors is the list of them. Given that regional mayors have a very different role to local council leaders, I have created a new article about regional mayors specifically. At the moment this article is misleading as large parts of it are only about local authority mayors (including the entire "Removing the post of mayor" and "Powers" sections), so I think it would be less confusing for readers if the article was refocused to explicitly only cover local authority mayors, with information about the regional mayors moved into the regional mayor article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Rajneesh → Osho – Rajneesh is commonly known as Osho, a name overwhelmingly used in news articles, print publications, and various outlets. This distinction is important as "Osho" is not commonly associated with any other individual and is distinct from the Japanese Oshō, meaning Buddhist priest. While it is acknowledged that English Wikipedia operates autonomously from other language editions, it is worth noting that cross-referencing with other language versions may yield insightful observations. {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, all referring to Osho. |- |-  ! Sr. No.  ! Language  ! Name  ! Translation |- | 1 | 日本語 (Japanese) | Osho | Osho |- | 2 | Azərbaycanca (Azerbaijani) | Oşo | Osho |- | 3 | Català (Catalan) | Osho | Osho |- | 4 | Deutsch (German) | Osho | Osho |- | 5 | Esperanto | Oŝo | Osho |- | 6 | Français (French) | Osho | Osho |- | 7 | Ido | Osho | Osho |- | 8 | Latviešu (Latvian) | Ošo | Osho |- | 9 | Lietuvių (Lithuanian) | Ošo | Osho |- | 10 | Norsk bokmål (Norwegian Bokmål) | Osho | Osho |- | 11 | Occitan | Osho | Osho |- | 12 | Shqip (Albanian) | Osho | Osho |- | 13 | Slovenščina (Slovene) | Osho | Osho |- | 14 | Srpskohrvatski / Serbo-Croatian | Ošo | Osho |- | 15 | Suomi (Finnish) | Osho | Osho |- | 16 | Svenska (Swedish) | Osho | Osho |- | 17 | Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) | Osho | Osho |- | 18 | Türkçe (Turkish) | Osho | Osho |- | 19 | Čeština (Czech) | Osho | Osho |- | 20 | Български (Bulgarian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 21 | Ирон (Ossetian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 22 | Македонски (Macedonian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 23 | Русский (Russian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 24 | Қазақша (Kazakh) | Ошо | Osho |- | 25 | עברית (Hebrew) | אושו | Osho |- | 26 | العربية (Arabic) | أوشو | Osho |- | 27 | تۆرکجه (Turkmen) | اوشو | Osho |- | 28 | سنڌي (Sindhi) | اوشو | Osho |- | 29 | فارسی (Persian) | اشو | Osho |- | 30 | مصرى (Egyptian Arabic) | اوشو | Osho |- | 31 | پنجابی (Pashto) | اوشو | Osho |- | 32 | کوردی (Kurdish) | ئۆشۆ | Osho |- | 33 | नेपाली (Nepali) | ओशो | Osho |- | 34 | मराठी (Marathi) | ओशो | Osho |- | 35 | हिन्दी (Hindi) | ओशो | Osho |- | 36 | ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (Punjabi) | ਓਸ਼ੋ | Osho |- | 37 | தமிழ் (Tamil) | ஓஷோ | Osho |- | 38 | తెలుగు (Telugu) | ఓషో | Osho |- | 39 | ತುಳು (Tulu) | ಓಶೋ | Osho |- | 40 | සිංහල (Sinhala) | ඕසෝ | Osho |- | 41 | မြန်မာဘာသာ (Burmese) | အိုရှို | Osho |- | 42 | ქართული (Georgian) | ოშო | Osho |- | 43 | 中文 (Chinese Traditional) | 奧修 | Osho |- | 44 | 吴语 (Chinese Simplified) | 奥修 | Osho |- | 45 | Polski (Polish) | Osho (guru) | Osho (Master) |- | 46 | Español (Spanish) | Osho (gurú) | Osho (Master) |- | 47 | Euskara (Basque) | Osho (gurua) | Osho (Master) |} {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, referring him as Osho, but also mentioning different names in the title. |- |-  ! Sr. No.  ! Language  ! Name  ! Translation |- | 1 | Dansk (Danish) | Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) | Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) |- | 2 | Italiano (Italian) | Osho Rajneesh | Osho Rajneesh |- | 3 | Հայերեն (Armenian) | Օշո (Բհագվան Շրի Ռաջնիշ) | Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) |- | 4 | 한국어 (Korean) | 오쇼 라즈니쉬 | Osho Rajneesh |- | 5 | Српски / Serbian | Раџниш Ошо | Rajneesh Osho |} {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, all referring to Rajneesh. |- |-  ! Sr. No.  ! Language  ! Name  ! Translation |- | 1 | ไทย (Thai) | รัชนีศ | Rajneesh |- | 2 | മലയാളം (Malayalam) | രജനീഷ് | Rajneesh |- | 3 | ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada) | ರಜನೀಶ | Rajneesh |- | 4 | संस्कृतम् (Sanskrit) | रजनीशः | Rajneesh |- | 5 | भोजपुरी (Bhojpuri) | रजनीश | Rajneesh |- | 6 | Татарча / tatarça | Раджниш | Rajneesh |- | 7 | Ελληνικά (Greek) | Ραζνίς | Rajneesh |- | 8 | Português (Portuguese) | Rajneesh | Rajneesh |- | 9 | Română (Romanian) | Rajneesh | Rajneesh |} {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, referring to different names. |- |-  ! Sr. No.  ! Language  ! Name  ! Translation |- | 1 | Bikol Central | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh |- | 2 | Magyar (Hungarian) | Radzsnís Csandra Mohan Dzsain | Rajneesh Chandra Mohan Jain |- | 3 | Nederlands (Dutch) | Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh | Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh |- | 4 | Simple English | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh |- | 5 | Українська (Ukrainian) | Чандра Мохан Раджніш | Chandra Mohan Rajneesh |} Out of all 66 language editions reviewed, 47 (71%) use "Osho" directly, demonstrating its widespread recognition as Commomname. A simple internet search also supports this usage: "Osho" returns approximately 23 million results, whereas "Rajneesh" yields about 8 million results. Given this overwhelming evidence of common usage and recognition, renaming the page to "Osho" aligns with policy. Lorstaking (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – House of Aisin-Gioro → House of Aisin Gioro – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NOR. Undiscussed move made by a user with lack of understanding on Manchu naming custom. The family name of "Aisin Gioro", in its nature, is not a double-barrelled name or hyphenated surname like it may have appeared to some people in the English-speaking environment. This kind of naming is somewhat similar to German "von XXX", Dutch "van der XXX" or the "de, da, di" in French, Italian or Spanish where one word (e.g. Irgen, Aisin, Sirin) supplements the other (Gioro). Thus, in reality, it is mostly socially acceptable to address a person with hyphenated surname one of the surnames (e.g. Knowles-Carter, Ms. Knowles, Mrs, Carter). But, it won't work if you call someone Von, Van, de, da, di, as well as "Aisin" in this particular case. This is why the most reputable American academic researchers of Manchu studies do not use hypen with the Manchu last names in this fashion (e.g. 1. Giovanni Stary's work, [2. Pamela Kyle Crossley's work, 3. Evelyn S. Rawski's work, 4. Mark C. Elliott's work). You maybe able to find some hypen examples, however, neither the author nor the book is related to the Manchu names or Manchu studies at all. So please be familiar with the subject first before taking any major actions like renaming articles. 㡣骨大 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 11, 2026

    • (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: @FOARP Voteins (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 10, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Rugby World Cup → Men's Rugby World Cup – The official name 'Men's Rugby World Cup' is increasingly being used by media and is being used in all promotional materials for the 2027 tournament, as well as being used by wikipedia for its articles. This name is the official and widely used one, and given how the name 'Rugby World Cup' is often used interchangeably for both men's and women's, not changing the title will only lead to confusion. PotatoIV (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Otakou → Ōtākou – following the consensus of the Great Macron Debate of 2020, I propose this spelling fix. * Authoritative sources: the Ngāi Tahu atlas and the Ōtākou Runaka website use Ōtākou. * WP policy says Māori words, when they appear as the title of articles, are usually written with macrons indicating long vowels, and with a redirect from the unmacronned form. * the Gazeteer has a non-official name of Otakou, suggesting it merely hasn't been updated (and the only dates mentioned on that entry are 2013 and 1987). WP naming policy states do not take guidance from the New Zealand Gazetteer if the entry is labelled as "not official" * Other wikipedia articles vary between Otakou/Ōtākou. Formally using the macronned form will lead to consistency. * even the tangential discussion above this uses the macron form. TreeReader (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 9, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Battle of Orewin Bridge → Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd – I propose renaming this article to Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. However, the problem remains that J. B. Smith in Llywelyn ap Gruffudd: Prince of Wales mentions the presence of 'armies' (p. 561, 562) and calls it a battle (pp. 563, 564, 566), but only refers to it as the 'encounter near Builth' (p. 563), so thought he died in combat I doubt there is a name here more suitable than 'Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd' for the title of the article. I suppose the reticence by Smith to name the battle is because the common name for the battle now is Cilmeri but that name did not exist for the area in 1282 (see p. 571).Tipcake (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Senua (video game) → Senua – The article subject's official and commonly used title is simply Senua. The article itself identifies the game as Senua, and reliable sources after announcement use that exact title; for example, Xbox Wire titles its official article "Senua: Answering the Big Questions..." and explains that "the title of just Senua" reflects the project's distinct identity rather than being marketed as Hellblade III. The current base title Senua redirects to Senuna, but the article at Senuna is titled for the goddess Senuna; Senua is listed there as one of several attested name forms. Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the exact-title video game article should be considered for the base title Senua, with hatnotes to Senuna, Senua (Hellblade), and Senua, Arunachal Pradesh. A disambiguation page at Senua would be a possible fallback only if editors determine that there is no primary topic, but the current redirect to Senuna is not the best reader outcome because users searching the exact title "Senua" are likely to be seeking the newly announced game. Umais🗣 06:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 8, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Interpunct → Medial point – This article would do best to be a broad-concept article about every use of every character that looks like ·, and not about the classical Latin word divider. It's already halfway towards this happier state: it already covers every use of every character that looks like ·. We just have to rename the page to something else, rewrite the lede (pending) and move all the sections that are actually about different word dividers that don't look like · into word dividers. I will call "every use of every character that looks like ·" dotmarks for this post. (This can't be the Wikipedia article name, because I just made it up.) So, what to name the article? I think there are a couple good candidates. From roughly worst to best in my opinion, the real contenders (leaving off the many many too bad to mention) are:  ; interpunct: this is both a name for the classical Latin word divider (which did not always look like ·) and also a name for dotmarks. While it's a pretty popular synonym for it, it's ambiguous and perhaps a bit colloquial in the latter usage, or at least fails WP:natural disambiguation  ; interpoint: this seems like a fine name for it as well, but I have not encountered people actually using this in the wild. Also, it might be a synonym for interpunct in the more specific sense?  ; middot: this seems like a fine name for it as well, but I have not encountered people actually using this in the wild. Note also that html · summons a U+00B7 · MIDDLE DOT, which means if we use the term we risk implying, confusingly, that our Wikipedia page is about U+00B7 in particular. (U+00B7 is one dotmark but not all of them, so our page on dotmarks is going to need a section discussing U+00B7 specifically and its many uses.)  ; raised dot: also a fine name, in the abstract, and descriptive, and I have seen people use it. The main problem with this name is that the Unicode character U+2E33 ⸳ RAISED DOT is slightly different — slightly lower than an interpunct, yet higher than a full stop. If we use this name, we're just asking for confusion about this.  ; middle dot: a fine name, in the abstract, and descriptive, and I have seen people use it. The main problem with this is that U+00B7 is called "middle dot" in Unicode, which means if we use the term we risk implying, confusingly, that our Wikipedia page is about U+00B7 in particular. (U+00B7 is one dotmark but not all of them, so our page on dotmarks is going to need a section discussing U+00B7 specifically and its many uses.)  ; centered dot: a fine name, in the abstract, and descriptive, and I have seen people use it. You could even say it's just a neutral description of the mark. Only problem with this is that · makes a U+00B7, see above for why that might be bad. Also, tex \cdot makes a "centered dot" ... it's hard to say if that's good or bad or the same thing or different.  ; vertically centered dot: this is a bit too wordy but I like it as a neutral yet exact description and I have seen people identify the mark with this in the wild.  ; medial point:  This one is my favorite because it's not only a great description, but it's also found in two of our sources (academic ones) that need to discuss how the interpunct word divider wasn't always a dotmark, and they use this term. So this must be the term for the mark itself, in their eyes. This term is also used when discussing greek punctuation (cf , suggesting wide applicability to dotmarks found in every language. (Although, I can't rule out the possibility that they actually mean "medial" in some other way.) But, I would be happy with many of these. The defects I'm speculating about are minor. It's also been pretty hard for me to gauge which term is "most popular" for this mark. I also didn't try that hard, because I got tired after looking up "interpunct" extensively. I don't want to portray myself as a source of exhaustive expertise on this topic, although I guess I do know a lot more than average about it by now. CC User:JMF, who was discussing this topic on the article talk page with me earlier. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Buffalo, Minnesota clinic attack → 2021 Buffalo, Minnesota, clinic attack – A lack of other notable attacks at clinics in Buffalo, Minnesota, 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 attacks at clinics in Buffalo, Minnesota, 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. I added a comma after "Minnesota" to make it in-line with MOS:GEOCOMMA. Raskuly 🐰 03:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 10:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 08:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Mayfair Mall shooting → 2020 Mayfair Mall shooting – A lack of other notable mass shootings at Mayfair Mall 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 Mayfair Mall 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. Now this one is a bit tricky, as there was another notable shooting outside Mayfair Mall earlier that year, the Killing of Alvin Cole. However, readers would be probably be unlikely to search for "Mayfair Mall shooting" when searching for the Alvin Cole article, so I don't believe disambiguating by month is necessary, but I invite editors to comment on that. Raskuly 🐰 04:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 08:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 7, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Tri-Cities (Michigan) → ? – I could not find any widespread reference to the Grand Haven-Ferrysburg-Spring Lake area being called the "Tri-Cities". "Tri-Cities" + "Grand Haven" turned up mostly false positives, whereas "Tri-Cities" + "Saginaw" turned up plenty of uses such as this, this, this, this, and this, to name a few. Outside a couple business names, I found no widespread use of "Tri-Cities" in reference to the Grand Haven area, and the Tri-Cities (Michigan) page as it is does not have a single source corroborating "Tri-Cities" as a widely-used term for that region. In my opinion, it is wholly WP:OR to say that the Grand Haven region is a "Tri-Cities" of its own. Everything I tried for "Tri-Cities" + "Michigan" across GNews, GBooks, Newspapers.com, and other sources was an explicit reference to the Bay City-Saginaw-Midland region. The previous page move request from 2025 was shaky and didn't have much evidence or participation, but I feel like I have brought a lot more evidence and a stronger case this time. Furthermore, I live not far from this region, and I hear it called "Tri-Cities" all the time, which would suggest "Tri-Cities" is a WP:COMMONNAME. At the very least, any mention of the Grand Haven region should be removed from the "Tri-Cities (Michigan)" page, as I was wholly unable to corroborate it. At the best, I think there is enough of an argument here that "Tri-Cities" is the WP:COMMONAME for this region and it should be moved accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 15:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 16:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – JPEGMafia → JPEGMAFIA – This has gotta be the only website ever where JPEGMAFIA's name is capitalized as "JPEGMafia". On his own article, every source capitalizes his name as "JPEGMAFIA" except three-ish that say "Jpegmafia". This "JPEGMafia" capitalization appears to have been made up by someone who decided that his name should be capitalized the way they wish it could be capitalized. —theMainLogan (t•c) 07:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 1isall (talk | contribs) 03:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Elapsed listings

    Shortcut
    The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
    • (Discuss) – Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech → ? – Similarily to my reasoning at Putin's recognition of the Donbas republics, where I have just opened a RM, I find the practice of not displaying Putin's full name in an article title quite informal and unencyclopedic. This is the only aspect that I find unnegotiable. And I think there are other aspects worth discussing here. For instance, "address" might be more WP:COMMON than "speech" (and it honestly sounds nicer for an encyclopedia). Other wording constructions and arrangements are possible too. I'd primarily suggest Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech as an easy immediate improvement. In the last RM, the current descriptive title seems not to have been discussed much, but to have been approved as a late alternative better than any other proposed one. Another proposal that comes to my mind is reversing the wording into Vladimir Putin's speech on invading Ukraine, if anyone finds it preferential (personally I find it more formal too, as the main noun is not thrown away as the title's final word). But there's other stuff that we could do. I'd like to stir some more discussing on the current descriptive title as I find it quite sloppily approved. I'd also like it if editors could agree on outcomes on both this article and the one on the other 2022 speech that are WP:CONSISTENT with each other, specially as I have proposed an opposite wording order there, if editors think that's relevant. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 23:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 09:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog

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

    Malformed requests

    See "Bot considerations"

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

    References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
    1. ↑ Robert Nicholson, p.227
    2. ↑ Malcolm Barber, p.465
    3. ↑ Kevin James Lewis, p.333
    4. ↑ Helen Nicholson, p.199
    5. ↑ Peter Lock, p.520
    6. ↑ John La Monte, p.289
    7. ↑ Hans Eberhard Mayer, p.325
    8. ↑ Jonathan Riley-Smith, p.345

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1357002193"