Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

< Wikipedia:Requested moves
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current)
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 88 discussions have been relisted.

June 19, 2026

edit

June 18, 2026

edit
  • (Discuss) – Muhame Giles → Giles Muhame – There are some page move shenanigans here so we have to be careful to not accidentally create a copyright issue. 1) His name is Giles Muhame, not Muhame Giles. 2) The reason this is backwards is because there was a consensus to merge the Giles Muhame article into Rolling Stone (Uganda) in 2011. This was presumably done to get around that merge without opening a formal discussion. However, it has made his name incorrect. 3) Since that page is merged and we need to maintain its history for copyright reasons, any page name change needs to maintain the history of Giles Muhame and not delete it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 18 June 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, Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 18 June 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, Super Ψ Dro 00:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 17, 2026

edit
  • (Discuss) – Progress Energy Inc → Progress Energy – Progress Energy (without the suffix) is currently a disambiguation page, but the only contents of it besides this page are: * Progress Energy Center for the Performing Arts and Progress Energy Park, a theater and ballpark that Progress Energy formerly sponsored. Due to the merger and the expiration of naming rights, both no longer use that name (going by Raleigh Memorial Auditorium and Al Lang Stadium, respectively). * A Canadian company called Progress Energy Resources. This company was renamed to PETRONAS Canada in 2018, and its article was deleted in 2020 under WP:G11 (promotional material). Per WP:NCCORP, adding the "Inc." suffix to a company's page is typically only used when needed for disambiguation. However, the Canadian company is not currently on Wikipedia, and if a new article were made for it, it would be under the new name. (In such a case, a Template:Distinguish can be added to this page for the old name.) Meanwhile, sponsored facilities generally do not need disambiguation from their namesakes, especially since both have since changed names. This means that this page does not require disambiguation, so removing the "Inc." is preferred. The U.S. company itself did not use the suffix in its publicity materials (see this archive of its website), making the suffix-less version match WP:COMMONNAME, as well. LazyCat256 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 00:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 2026

edit
  • (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 &middot; 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 &CenterDot; 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) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 15, 2026

edit
  • (Discuss) – Emily Kam Kngwarray → Emily Kame Kngwarreye – I believe there is strong evidence that the article title should be reconsidered. The National Museum of Australia's retrospective Utopia: The Genius of Emily Kame Kngwarreye states: "It was the artist's wish during the development of the retrospective of her work in 1998 that, in the event of her death, her name be used in full for her professional life as an artist, for exhibitions and in publications. This ensures that the name Emily Kame Kngwarreye remains in perpetuity as a connection to her work, her people and to Australia."[1] The spelling Emily Kame Kngwarreye was the name used throughout the artist's professional career. It appears on her artworks, exhibition catalogues, publications and associated documentation created during her lifetime. While the National Gallery of Australia adopted the spelling Emily Kam Kngwarray in 2023 following consultation regarding updated Anmatyerr orthography, the spelling Emily Kame Kngwarreye remains in widespread use by major institutions, including the National Museum of Australia and the National Museum of Women in the Arts.[2] Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia article titles are generally based on the name most commonly used in reliable sources. Given the artist's documented preference for her full professional name, and the continued widespread use of Emily Kame Kngwarreye in reliable sources, I propose moving the article to Emily Kame Kngwarreye. ~2026-35158-12 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC) ~2026-35158-12 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pancasila (politics) → Pancasila – Requested move based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PRECISION, WP:CONCISE, and WP:ATDAB. Precision and concision (WP:PRECISION, WP:CONCISE): the current parenthetical qualifier "(politics)" is imprecise for a codified state ideology and constitutional principle. It reads as a broad political field rather than the name of a defined national doctrine. If the Indonesian state ideology is the primary topic for the exact plain-English spelling "Pancasila", the undisambiguated title Pancasila is more precise and more concise than Pancasila (politics). Primary topic for the exact spelling (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:ATDAB): this request concerns the exact undiacriticised spelling "Pancasila", not every concept historically derived from Sanskrit/Pali pañca-sīla. The Buddhist topic is already at Five precepts; the Pali/Sanskrit-derived form is represented by the diacritic title Pañcasīla; and the Sino-Indian diplomatic concept is normally treated under Panchsheel / Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. By contrast, the plain spelling "Pancasila" is the natural English title for the Indonesian state philosophy. The Indonesian concept is also the foundational state ideology of Indonesia and has been constitutionally central since 1945. Current disambiguation structure (WP:ATDAB, WP:HATNOTE): this proposal does not require deleting or replacing the existing disambiguation page at Pañcasīla. The current title Pancasila redirects to Pañcasīla, while Pañcasīla already serves as the broad disambiguation page for the Pali/Sanskrit-derived term and related Panchsheel uses. The existing redirect Pañcasīla (disambiguation) also points to Pañcasīla and can be retained. If this move is closed as successful, Pancasila would become the article on the Indonesian state philosophy, while Pañcasīla would remain available for readers looking for other meanings, with an appropriate hatnote from Pancasila to Pañcasīla. Evidence from the existing dab page. The current dab page at Pañcasīla already separates the major competing meanings: the Buddhist topic is listed at Five precepts, the Sino-Indian diplomatic topic is listed at Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence / Panchsheel-related titles, and the Indonesian entry is listed as Pancasila (politics), "the Indonesian state philosophy". This supports retaining Pañcasīla as the broader disambiguation page while allowing the plain ASCII spelling Pancasila to point to the Indonesian topic. WhatLinksHere evidence. Special:WhatLinksHere/Pancasila (politics) currently shows 877 incoming links, while Special:WhatLinksHere/Pañcasīla shows 26. This suggests that within English Wikipedia, the Indonesian state ideology is far more often the intended linked topic than the broader diacritic/disambiguation page. This is relevant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ATDAB because the question is not whether the term has other meanings, but whether the plain title Pancasila should point to the topic readers and editors are most likely seeking. Pageview evidence. Using Pageviews Analysis for 2025-06-15 through 2026-06-15, all-access platform and user agent only, the totals were:  :*Pancasila (politics) – 112,864  :*Five precepts – 99,959  :*Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence – 32,471  :*1954 Sino-Indian Agreement – 8,962  :*Pañcasīla – 1,815 These pageviews are supporting evidence only and are not decisive by themselves. They show that the Indonesian article receives much more traffic than the current diacritic dab page Pañcasīla and the Panchsheel-related articles, while Five precepts is also a high-traffic article but is already naturally and recognizably titled in English as Five precepts, not "Pancasila". The central naming question therefore remains whether readers typing the exact plain-English spelling "Pancasila" are most likely seeking the Indonesian state philosophy. I believe the current link structure, current dab structure, exact spelling distinction, and long-term significance support that conclusion under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PRECISION, WP:CONCISE, and WP:ATDAB. Wixatic (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Roadkill → Wildlife vehicle collision – "Roadkill" is the most common name, and vehicle collisions to animals are usually catastrophic to the animal, but they do not always kill the animal. I am looking at where to put information on rehabilitation for injured wildlife. For the state of Virginia in the United States, I have records of thousands of wild animals being hit by cars, then collected and brought into wildlife animal clinics for triage and sometimes rehabilitation. I think the best place for "wildlife collision" content is in this article, but it is currently called "roadkill", but that title best refers to animals who die on the road, and not to animals who have a collision which is not immediately fatal. I have this 2025 review article for example which uses the term, "wildlife vehicle collision", and I think scientific articles generally use this term. *Bíl, M.; Balčiauskas, L.; Bílová, M.; Cellina, S.; Favilli, F.; Gačić, D.; Guinard, E.; Heurich, M.; Ivanova, N.; Junghardt, J.; Keuling, O.; Kruuse, M.; Kukalaj, Q.; Langbein, J.; Laube, P.; Licoppe, A.; Masaryk, P.; Maślanko, W.; Mayer, M.; Moroney, A.; Moț, R.; Mrđenović, D.; Náhlik, A.; Nebunu, A.; Nezval, V.; Niemi, M.; Pokorny, B.; Psaralexi, M.; Ralevic, S.; Ricci, S.; Rolandsen, Ch.M.; Rosell, C.; Santos, S.M.; Seiler, A.; Steiner, W.; Swinnen, K.R.R.; Šprem, N.; Trajçe, A.; Trpeski, V.; van der Grift, E.A.; Vogiatzakis, I.; Zihmanis, I. (April 2025). "Wildlife-vehicle collision liability in Europe: A review of existing approaches and their implications". Journal of Environmental Management. 380: 124986. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124986.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) I think using that title would constructively broaden this article. I think "Roadkill" should still be listed as an alternative title. Thoughts from others? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 14, 2026

edit
  • (Discuss) – Case Closed → Detective Conan – English common name of all releases of the series outside of Viz Media's releases, while the anime has never used the name Case Closed. Usually this would be an instant oppose from other editors for consistency with Viz Media, Viz Media's recent announcement of adopting this name would invalidate the main reason to use the name Case Closed, even if it may be controversial. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:39, 14 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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 13, 2026

edit
  • (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)[3] Joscelin III, titular count of Edessa, seneschal of Jerusalem (The Crusader States)[4] Joscelin III of Courtenay, count of Edessa (The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century)[5] Joscelin III de Courtenay, titular count of Edessa (Sybil, Queen of Jerusalem)[6] Joscelin III of Courtenay (his father and grandfather being named Joscelin II and I of Courtenay; The Routledge Companion to the Crusades)[7] Joscelin III de Courtenay of Edessa (Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100 to 1291) [8] Joscelin III of Courtenay, titular count of Edessa (The Crusades)[9] Joscelin of Courtenay, C Edessa (his father and grandfather are absent; The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277)[10] 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

edit
  • (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) – 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]

Elapsed listings

edit
  • (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) – 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]

Backlog

edit

Malformed requests

edit

Possibly incomplete requests

edit

References

edit
  1. ↑ "Utopia: The Genius of Emily Kame Kngwarreye – The exhibition". National Museum of Australia. Retrieved 2026-06-16.
  2. ↑ "Emily Kame Kngwarreye". National Museum of Women in the Arts. Retrieved 2026-06-16.
  3. ↑ Robert Nicholson, p.227
  4. ↑ Malcolm Barber, p.465
  5. ↑ Kevin James Lewis, p.333
  6. ↑ Helen Nicholson, p.199
  7. ↑ Peter Lock, p.520
  8. ↑ John La Monte, p.289
  9. ↑ Hans Eberhard Mayer, p.325
  10. ↑ Jonathan Riley-Smith, p.345
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1360102384"