Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Rm)

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


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 8 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 8 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 03:36, 8 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 8 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 03:36, 8 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 8 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 03:36, 8 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 8 June 2026

    – why Example (talk) 03:36, 8 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 8 June 2026

    – why Example (talk) 03:36, 8 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. 101 discussions have been relisted.

    June 8, 2026

    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]
    • (Discuss) – Livvy Dunne → Olivia Dunne – Page was WP:BOLDLY moved three years ago under the auspices that most sources use the term "Livvy" and that she herself advertises herself on her SM as "Livvy." The latter is no longer true, as her display names all use "Olivia." As for the sources, from what I remember, that wasn't really true in August 2023, and even now, it seems dubious to suggest that there's a clear preference for Livvy over Olivia (bear in mind that likely includes Wikipedia influence). I lean towards moving back to Olivia, but its close enough that I won't WP:BOLD it. — Knightoftheswords 05:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 6, 2026

    • (Discuss) – 2008 Akihabara massacre → Akihabara massacre – Why: Adding a year violates WP:NOYEAR as it can be described easily without it. Previous move seemed to be off of a trend of adding years, while neglecting this: when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Though it is a judgement call for others. The Akihabara massacre was a huge case in Japan, and was one of the few incidents of mass murder recorded in the internet age of Japan. It was a shock to many, since Japan is usually seen as a peaceful country and cases like these shock the country. It can be described easily without the year due to the impact it had. It cna be argued thought it has a year in it when you look it up but the other half describes it without the year in the title. ButteyFelicity (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (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]

    June 5, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Innovations for Learning → Chapter One NFP – The global early-literacy nonprofit organization "Innovations for Learning" officially underwent a full corporate rebrand and changed its name to "Chapter One," with its legal registered entity name being "Chapter One NFP." Moving the page to "Chapter One NFP" will accurately reflect the organization's current identity while cleanly distinguishing it from other pages on the site. Note: I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) as an affiliate of this organization, which is why I am requesting that an independent administrator execute this move rather than doing it myself. Thank you! ChapterOneNFP (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – South Gosforth TMD → ? – "South Gosforth TMD" is not the common name for this depot, but rather appears to reflect a TOPS naming convention that might have applied from 1970 to 1980, but I don't believe still applies since the depot was transferred to Nexus and especially since the original depot was rebuilt in 2020. Even if was still considered in TOPS, naming it exclusively for that reason could violate WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The most common names would be either "Gosforth Depot" or "Gosforth Metro Depot". "Gosforth Depot" would be more concise, but "Gosforth Metro Depot" would match the naming convention already established for Tyne and Wear Metro stations. "South Gosforth Depot" could also be an option but is both less common and less concise. For all of these options, "depot" could be written in all-lowercase, matching Howdon depot for consistency, although I personally think Depot is part of a proper noun for both. Whatever the consensus is, I would also suggest creating redirects from the alternative common names. HopperElec (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 21:26, 5 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)[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)[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)[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)[reply]
    • (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)[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)[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)[reply]

    June 4, 2026

    • (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)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Thomas & Friends merchandise → The Railway Series and Thomas & Friends merchandise – The current title does not quite fit because the article includes merchandise from both The Railway Series (the original books) and the later Thomas & Friends TV franchise. It specifically mentions items produced for the books well before the TV show even started in 1984 (e.g. Pre-Cut Model Engine Book, Meccano) I get that Thomas & Friends is the much more familiar name these days for the whole franchise, but leaving out the original Railway Series entirely feels misleading here. The article covers both, so the title should reflect that. Per WP:PRECISE, titles need to clearly match what’s actually in the article. Using WP:AND for a combined name would be more accurate without ignoring how dominant the TV brand has become. Keeping Thomas & Friends in the title makes sense, but we should not pretend the pre-1984 stuff does not exist. Thomasfan1000 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 21:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – WOXY 94.5 FM → WOXY (FM) – While the recent renaming of this article from WYDB was done in good faith–per the naming conventions in this topic area, US radio station articles are titled at the current official call sign–the title chosen is nonstandard. While clearly intended to disambiguate this WOXY from the previous use of the call sign on WKRP-FM, the standard in this topic area is to use the silent "(FM)" disambiguator in cases where it is not sufficiently enough of a primary topic to have no disambiguator at all, with a hatnote providing further clarity if needed. (WOXY's situation is further complicated by the existence of a separate article for the defunct WOXY.com webcast that continued a previous format of the prior WOXY/current WKRP-FM.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 4 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)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Feather River School shooting → 2024 Feather River School shooting – A lack of other notable shootings at schools called Feather River School does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable shootings at any Feather River Schools 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 🐰 02:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 3, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Georgia–South Ossetia border → Outline of South Ossetia – There is no "border" between so-called "South Ossetia" and Georgia. It is a region of Georgia, it is internationally recognized as such, the world community does not recognizes the violently established genocidal separatist rule in Tskhinvali. The borders can only exist between states. "South Ossetia" is not a state, and therefore there can only be a de facto border at best, or more accurately - a separation line, just a boundary which is not recognized as border but only separates territory from the rest of the country (Georgia). Based on Outline of Transnistria article this should also be changed to similar neutral term instead of calling this a "border" like as if "South Ossetia" is actually a state. ~2026-33054-71 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Abkhazia–Georgia border → Abkhazia–Georgia separation line – There is no "border" between Abkhazia and Georgia. Abkhazia is a region of Georgia, it is internationally recognized as such, the world community does not recognizes the violently established genocidal separatist rule in Abkhazia. The borders can only exist between states. Abkhazia is not a state, and therefore there can only be a de facto border at best, or more accurately - a separation line, just a boundary which is not recognized as border but only separates territory from the rest of the country (Georgia). There is also an administrative boundary between autonomous republic of Abkhazia and other Georgian regions, and there is no reason to give supremacy to violent separatist "border". ~2026-33054-71 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Rachele Mussolini → Rachele Guidi – It's not customary for Italy to take husband's surname upon marriage, and Italian sources refer to her as Rachele Guidi. The article was created back in 2000s, starting with Donna Rachele Mussolini (née Guidi). It was later corrected that "donna" is a honorific and "née" is inapplicable here, but the title is still incorrect, which was pointed out several times on a discussion page. Qbli2mHd (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 2, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Mississippian culture → Mississippian period (archaeological) – I'd like to refer to the sources used by the page itself. The first four relevant sources, composing of the New Georgia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of Alabama, the educational page from about.com, and nps.gov, written by well-known academics in Mississippian period academia, used the term Mississippian period rather than culture. "Metropolitan Life on the Mississippi" and "The Natchez Indians" don't use either. In fact I'd argue most citations don't use the term Mississippian culture. David Pollack in Caborn-Welborn - Constructing a New Society after the Angel Chiefdom Collapse uses Mississippian period once and never Mississippian culture. Hudson uses Mississippian culture in the anthropological/sociological sense of a group of people's way of life, not in the sense of an archaeological culture. Pauketat, who figures prominently in the citations on this page, never uses the term outside of the anthropological/sociological definition. In Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone, Mississippian culture, again, is never used outside of the sense of someone's way of life, and in general this cultural manifestation is called the Mississippian period, and Mississippian culture is the culture from that period. Unlike the rest of the sources thusfar, I do not have the pdf of Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands on hand, but a search on google books indicate that it is used once, and it is somewhat used as the archaeological definition. More commonly however is Mississippian period or Mississippian period culture. Pompeani et al. uses Mississippian period, South Appalachian Mississippian: A Definition and Introduction prefers Mississippian period (at least based on the pages that loaded for me. Regardless, it's 50 years old), Benjamin Steere uses period not culture, Tejas-Caddo Fundamentals uses neither, From Chicaza to Chickasaw uses Mississippian period. Some blog on the Plaquemines does use Mississippian culture, but they also call it the Cahokian culture which puts its credibility in doubt. I could continue for the remaining 8 citations but I think I've made my point. A fairly credible and official website that uses the archaeological term for culture to categorize the Mississippians is NPS' Ocmulgee branch. The issue with theirs is they also term the Woodland period as a 'culture' in the same article. They are also guilty of a really old and controversal model of Mississippian development wherein the Mississippians push out local woodlanders, but I digress. The reason for the supplementation of "Mississippian culture" with "Mississippian period" in academia is because of the controversial position and dubious usefulness of archaeologial culture as a term, which can be explored on the Wikipedia page of archaeological culture itself , in Sørensen's "The archaeological culture concept: Hot or cold understandings", in Hermon et al.'s "Formally defining the time-space-archaeological culture relation: Problems and prospects", and many more authors that could talk about it far better than I can. There are also numerous controversies related to change and continuity between Mississippians, preceding, and following 'cultures' or 'periods' with 1900s "Mound Builder myth" and racist undertones, which I'd be happy to elaborate on, but I feel is not necessary to talk about at the moment. A simple reason is just that if on Wikipedia we write off the Woodland 'culture' as a period, likely because calling it a culture would be confusing, why not the Mississippian period? The Hsinging Tree (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    June 1, 2026

    • (Discuss) – John Pringle (biologist) → John Pringle (American biologist) – This move has previously been reversed, so I must seek consensus here. To try to keep it brief: * Wikipedia:NCPDAB seems quite clear: in general, article names have to be sufficiently specific that they could not refer to two different people—or at the least, not to two notable people who already have dedicated English Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the existence of John William Sutton Pringle alongside this article indicates that "John Pringle (biologist)" is not a suitable name for an article in English Wikipedia * The major exception to this is when one subject is so prominent over all others as to be the primary topic for the name. But it does not seem likely that John R. Pringle NAS is pre-eminent enough over John W. S. Pringle FRS (the first scientist ever to get recordings from single neurons in insects, apparently) to be recognised as the primary topic for "John Pringle (biologist)". Clearly someone could make the case, but note that arguing that "John Pringle (biologist)" has a primary topic is arguing for a primary topic for a partially disambiguated name * The evidence suggests that John W. S. Pringle was and is commonly referred to just as "John Pringle", although he did use "J.W.S. Pringle"/"John William Sutton Pringle" as his author name in (some or all of) his scientific publications. (In fact by MOS:NAME it seems that the British Pringle's article title should just be "John Pringle", if it weren't necessary to disambiguate.) * I'm not aware of anything in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) or elsewhere on the site which ought to change the outcome here. Naturally if there is some specific guideline which is relevant, please inform me * I'm not strongly advocating that this page should move to "John Pringle (American biologist)" specifically. It seems that "John Robert Pringle" would be a suitable alternative, for instance. Another possibility is a pair of name changes to eg. "John Pringle (geneticist)" and "John Pringle (zoologist)", though that route has its own problems. But a single "John Pringle (biologist)" → "John Pringle (American biologist)" move is now the least disruptive possible change, while the status quo is not acceptable (again, unless someone can make a strong argument for John R. Pringle as the primary topic, or cite some revelant specific exception) . RW Dutton (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 21:28, 1 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)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Milwaukee brewery shooting → 2020 Milwaukee brewery shooting – A lack of other notable shootings at breweries in Milwaukee does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable shootings at breweries in Milwaukee 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 🐰 04:06, 1 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)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Phoenix freeway shootings → 2015 Phoenix freeway shootings – A lack of other notable series of shootings at freeways in Phoenix 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 series of shootings on freeways in Phoenix 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 🐰 03:48, 1 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) – 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)[reply]

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
    • (Discuss) – Puskás (disambiguation) → PuskásPuskás – The long-term significance aspect of WP:PTOPIC was barely implied in the previous discussion, but the presence of engineering pioneer Tivadar Puskas definitely means Ferenc Puskas is not the primary topic, because there's definitely at least comparable educational value in telling readers about more people when they land at this Hungarian surname. As the previous status quo of almost two decades had no actual issue guiding readers interested in the footballer there, I don't think it ever surprised anyone, and we should return to that. (I will post further about history and statistics below.) --Joy (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 19:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]

    Malformed requests

    See "Bot considerations"

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

    See also

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