This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.
Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:
Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.
Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.
Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:
No article exists at the new target title;
There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.
If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may
request a technical move.
If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the 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.
I moved it to mainspace but someone put it back to drafts because "it wasn't notable", even though I had provided sources that filming had begun. KingArti (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColeFrye This was draftified on 20 August and declined at AfC on 21 August. The evidence does not seem to have changed since then. This is clearly not an uncontroversial request and I advise continuing through the AfC process. Toadspike[Talk]11:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck "The evidence does not seem to have changed since then" as it appears the Stiller interview is from September. However, I still think AfC is the proper venue for this. Toadspike[Talk]11:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged) At the time I draftified it, there were no usable sources. Sources were added afterwards, but I have no strong feelings on moving it back to main. The sources on filming are there, but in my opinion, they are thin and don't combine to say much about the production period. I would not feel the need to re-draftify it or take it to AfD, though. If someone took to AfD, I would be pretty neutral. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) Is this case based on a misinterpretation of WP:NFF, which states that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", which could lead one to assume that films which have commenced shooting should have articles? That is not, of course, the meaning of NFF: it goes on to say "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released [...] should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". That, in turn, is sometimes misinterpreted as implying that films which have been released are somehow automatically notable, but that is also not the case: there are many films that have been completed, distributed, and seen by large numbers of people, which aren't notable per WP:NFILM. This particular film, if it ever comes out, may well turn out to be notable in due course, but I've seen nothing as yet to suggest it is notable already now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I'm not convinced by the objections raised here. The article has sources, it appears to met WP:GNG, and the OP requesting the move is extended confirmed (if there weren't a redirect in the way then they could freely create this article themselves). And especially since it's already been accepted once, the burden is IMHO and per WP:DRAFTOBJECT on those saying it's not notable to make their case at AFD. I will move this shortly unless someone comes up with a compelling reason why this argument is flawed... — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing it has sources, we can all see the 8 sources cited (well, 3, given that most of them are Deadline Hollywood). The problem is with the quality of those sources, they're all the usual pre-release marketing spiel, of the "actor X is in talks to join the cast" and "director Y is considering dates" kind. This is what studios put out as a matter of course. It is the equivalent of routine business reporting like "company launches new product" or "incoming CEO to focus on growth", etc. But fine, whatever, if you feel you have a superior understanding of NFILM, then by all means move it to the main space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a sporadic editor of Wikipedia, and I know it can be technical, so I'll need a little help understanding how to get this change to the point where people won't revert it.
The vast majority of people who look up "Carfax" are looking for the company, followed in distant second by Carfax, Oxford, England. Therefore, it would best serve the Wikipedia community to have the company at the main Carfax title and URL, and the dab at Carfax (disambiguation), with Carfax (company) and Carfax, Inc. redirecting to Carfax.
This seems like a good example of Primary Topic falling victim to Unnecessary Disambiguation. The fact that it has been this way for a while is not a good reason to keep it the same. I imagine when the editor changed Carfax to a dab in 2006, Wikipedia was less locked-down than it is now, and people could actually "Be Bold" and make low-stakes changes without being immediately reverted. Knowledgeispow333r (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topics are determined by pageviews and long-term notability. Carfax, Inc. has the most pageviews; but Carfax, Oxford, a locale in England which has been known as Carfax for centuries, could be seen as having more long-term notability. In such cases, there is no primary topic, and a disambiguation page, such as the one currently occupying Carfax, is used.
@Hazelnut79 This page has been moved to a title including "Kingdom of" and back three times in its history, so this request is not uncontroversial. Please open a Requested Move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link in your request. Toadspike[Talk]11:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:
there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
someone could reasonably disagree with the move.
Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.
Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.
Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.
To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:
{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}
Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 19 September 2025" and sign the post for you.
There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).
To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:
{{subst:requested move| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.
RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.
For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.
If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:
Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation)andCricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:
If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Use when the proposed new title is given. Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:. This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Use when the proposed new title is not known. Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:. This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
This template adds subsections for survey and discussion. Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst: Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion. Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:
When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• SupportOppose".
Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.
Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.
Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).
When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.
If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.
Notes
^A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – Greeeen → Gre4n BoyzGre4n Boyz – I have no stake in this as I just came across this by change, but it appears the group's name was changed in 2024. A move was attempted without discussion so it was reverted. I'm bringing this for discussion to gather a formal consensus. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Avicii Arena → GlobenGloben – As a Stockholmer, no one calls it Avicii Arena locally, just Globen (compare the Swedish article sv:Globen), and the station next to it is even called Globen metro station (the voice on the train/bus even says: "next station, Globen"). I personally find it ethically wrong that they named it after Avicii as a way to milk his legacy post-mortem, but at the end of the day, the arena will probably continue to be renamed, as they always do, while Globen will live on as its stable name. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧18:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Javier García (politician, born 1982) → Javier García IbáñezJavier García Ibáñez – All these articles at Javier García were moved today, unilaterally and without consensus (one of them with an ongoing discussion at my own talk page), to the current titles by the same editor, citing WP:NCPDAB and WP:COMMONNAME as a reasoning (in some cases the reasoning and the actual final title were not clear at all, look at this incredible mess: [4][5][6]). However, neither of these people are so commonly known in English to meet COMMONNAME (much less by their professions or birth years), and particularly, the newly-proposed names fail to meet either WP:CONCISE (they are longer than necessary to unambiguously identify the topics) and WP:NATURAL (using the second surname, when available, is a much more natural way to disambiguate than using such a technical description). Plus, the examples cited at NCPDAB relate to people having only one surname, so obviously second surnames cannot be used as disambiguators there. It may be sound absurd, but we use George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush as article titles (not "George Bush (born 1946)" and "George Bush (born 1924)"). Impru20talk16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Chadhaibhol → ChadheibholChadheibhol – The spelling Chadheibhol is the original and commonly used name of the village. The current title, Chadhaibhol, appears to be derived from an online census entry, which may contain typographical errors. More reliable sources, such as published books, government records, and local signage, confirm that "Chadheibhol" is the correct spelling. A search in Google Books currently does not show any references for "Chadhaibhol," whereas eighteen or more results appear for "Chadheibhol," many of which are from census publications: 1. 1964: [7] 2. 1965: [8] 3. 1971: [9] 4. 1972: [10] 5. 1976: [11] 6. 1977: [12] 7. 1980: [13] 8. 2011: [14] Additionally, the name Chadheibhol appears in reliable online sources, including: 1. The Times of India: [15] 2. Kalinga TV: [16] 3. Schools.org: [17] 4. Housing.com: [18] 5. ICBSE: [19] 6. The New Indian Express: [20] A previous argument against the move was based on Google search result counts: "Chadhaibhol" (3,060 results) vs. "Chadheibhol" (799 results). However, Google search results are not a reliable metric for determining correct spelling, as they include unrelated pages. A more authoritative approach is to prioritize books, newspapers, and government documents. Additionally, the National Highway 49 signboard in the village itself displays "Chadheibhol," further confirming local usage. The National Highway 49 signboard in Chadheibhol, showing the spelling in common use. Given this evidence, the move to Chadheibhol aligns with Wikipedia’s policy on WP:COMMONNAME, as it reflects the spelling used in historical records, government documents, and local sources Khaatir (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Loddon Bridge disaster → Loddon Viaduct collapse – I don't think calling this the Loddon Bridge Disaster complies with WP:COMMONNAME. A few observations: #A WP:GOOGLE does not suggest this is the common name – "...collapse" appears to be just as (if not more) common #"...disaster" is sensationalism; it's is not as neutral as alternatives (see WP:DISASTER) #Loddon Bridge itself is the road bridge carrying the Wokingham Road (A329); while it can also refer to the A3290 crossing, the proper name (and name often used in other sources such as the local council and the Bragg report) appears to be the Loddon Viaduct To that end I propose renaming this article Loddon Viaduct collapse. MIDI (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Amratian culture → Naqada INaqada I – Requesting move because "Naqada I" is the modern standard name for this period ("Amratian" goes back to the 19th century and is now generally depreciated): * See Kemp (2018):"An older scheme ran from the Badarian, through the Amratian to the Gerzean and then, via a somewhat ambiguous transition, to the First Dynasty. Subsequently Amratian and Gerzean were generally replaced by the terms Nagada I and Nagada II, which still left the transitional period undefined. A redivision was proposed some years ago which recognized three Nagada phases: I, II and III (III overlapping with the First Dynasty), further subdivided by the use of capital letters (e.g. IIC), and this has become the standard terminology (with the retention of Badarian)." (my emphasis) in Kemp, Barry John (2018). Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilization (3rd ed.). New-York (NY): Routledge. p. 42. ISBN978-0415827263. * Also see Hendrickx (2006): Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Brill, 2006) pp.55-56 पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 10:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gerzeh culture → Naqada IINaqada II – Requesting move because "Naqada II" is the modern standard name for this period ("Gerzean" or "Gerzeh culture" goes back to the 19th century and is now generally depreciated): * See Kemp (2018):"An older scheme ran from the Badarian, through the Amratian to the Gerzean and then, via a somewhat ambiguous transition, to the First Dynasty. Subsequently Amratian and Gerzean were generally replaced by the terms Nagada I and Nagada II, which still left the transitional period undefined. A redivision was proposed some years ago which recognized three Nagada phases: I, II and III (III overlapping with the First Dynasty), further subdivided by the use of capital letters (e.g. IIC), and this has become the standard terminology (with the retention of Badarian)." (my emphasis) in Kemp, Barry John (2018). Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilization (3rd ed.). New-York (NY): Routledge. p. 42. ISBN978-0415827263. * See Hendrickx (2006): Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Brill, 2006) pp.55-56 पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk) 10:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tal Rousso → Tal RussoTal Russo – I boldly moved this per RS common name, but it was reverted, so an RM is due. HaaretzIDFHaaretz2JPost. Google shows 22k for Russo, 3k for Rousso. The Hebrew indicates Russo or Ruso is more correct, and I see no justification for Rousso. I believe that was an error based on early sourcing. The Haaretz cite on the article may have originally said Rousso, but that link was dead and the current one uses Russo. Metallurgist (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Korat City F.C. → ? – The club has officially rebranded from Suranaree Black Cat F.C. to Korat City F.C. ahead of the 2025–26 season, introducing a new logo and competing under the new name.[21] This change has been confirmed by official announcements from the club and Thai League 3 sources.[22] Therefore, the article should be moved to reflect the current and official name. Gunkiet (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 05:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Battle of Malta → Battle of Malta (1283) – * * While the 1283 battle may be the only subject of a Wikipedia article titled "Battle of Malta", I expect many people confuse battle with siege; and there are numerous sieges of Malta more famous than the 1283 Battle of Malta. The difference between battle and siege is, in fact, minor. When the average person looks up "battle of Malta" on Wikipedia, I think many will expect the World War II siege of Malta, or the Great Siege of 1565, or perhaps the French siege, but probably not the 1283 battle. Case in point, the WWII siege averages at 300–400 daily views, the French siege at 40–70, the Great Siege at 500–700, and the 1283 battle at just 10–15. Further, a Google search of "Battle of Malta" will not display the 1283 battle on page 1. All things considered, I think the article name should be more specific so that "Battle of Malta" directs to a disambiguation page. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lumières → Enlightenment philosophyEnlightenment philosophy – In the above section a user asked if this article is a content fork. It isn’t. The problem comes from the title of this article, which was translated from the French Wikipedia by omitting the disambiguator “philosophie” and without even translating “Lumières”. This article is about Enlightenment philosophy (also known as the philosophy of the Enlightenment), i.e. the philosophy during the Age of Enlightenment. “Enlightenment philosophy” is the most common name of this subject in English. See also this Ngram which shows that “Enlightenment philosophy” is more common than “philosophie des Lumières” in English. The corresponding category is Category:Enlightenment philosophy. For some reason the French article was titled “Lumières (philosophie)” but “Philosophie des Lumières” is the normal wording in French books. The French word “Lumières”, although literally meaning “Lights”, is usually translated in English as “Enlightenment”: e.g. les Lumières italiennes = the Italian Enlightenment. Per WP:UseEnglish, WP:CommonName and WP:Precise, “Enlightenment philosophy” should be used as the title for this article. And per WP:Consistency, “Lumières” and “les Lumières” should redirect to “Age of Enlightenment” like “the Enlightenment” does (and the hatnote should move there as well). Auteuil-Passy (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Red Terror → Red Terror in the Russian Civil War – The name of this article implies its going to be about red terror more generally when it's fairly only focused on the Red Terror carried out by the Bolsheviks and allied parties to them. I think it would be more approiate to rename it to this or perhaps "Red Terror (Soviet Union)" or "Red Terror (Bolshevik)". AssanEcho (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.CNC (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – QwaQwa → QwaQwa (homeland) – Since the end of Apartheid, the name itself has become a de facto alternative and common name for the town of Phuthaditjhaba and rarely refered to the former homeland nowdays; so this rename and the redirect of this article's current name to the aforementioned town's article would make sense. 41.13.148.38 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Juche faction → JusapaJusapa – I unilaterally moved this article from Juchesasangpa (literally Juche Idea faction / camp) four years ago, as I thought it was less helpful for English readers to keep sasang and pa untranslated. Unlike Juche, those terms are not typically left untranslated. However, I recently reassessed English-language sources (including those published since the move in 2021) and determined that Jusapa (the Korean abbreviation of Juchesasangpa) is the common name (see for example, Google Ngram results). There is also a hotel in Spain named Jusapa, but even if one only looks at mentions of Jusapa that include mentions of Korea, Jusapa is still the dominant name in English-language sources. I therefore propose a move to Jusapa. Yue🌙 04:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Arby's Classic → The Classic at Tennessee High School – Arby's is no longer the presenting sponsor of this tournament as of 2024. The tournament is now named "The Classic at Tennessee High School" - all other information about the tournament including founders, location, host school,and results remain the same. arbysclassic.net redirects to the new tournament site, thsclassic.com. Further, thsclassic.com hosts information both on previous tournaments including the "Arby's Classic" up to 2023 and the newly named "The Classic at Tennessee High School" for 2024 and the upcoming tournament in 2025. The tournament is hosted and owned by Bristol Tennessee City Schools who has held the tournament in Viking Hall since the original "Mountain Empire Classic" in 1983. MSOInfinite (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Immortal Hulk (comic book) → The Immortal HulkThe Immortal Hulk – The "(comic book)" part of the page name is redundant, and therefore violates Wikipedia's naming policy of Concision. Currently, The Immortal Hulk is a redirect page that simply sends you to The Immortal Hulk (comic book), so it would be simpler to make that the title of the page. Removing "(comic book)" from the title would also make it more consistent with other, similar pages, such as The Immortal Thor, another series by the same writer. Therefore, Wikipedia's naming policy of Consistency would suggest that this move is appropriate. Finally, Wikipedia's policy of Naturalness supports this move; it is far more natural to search the title of a comic book (provided the book has a unique name, which this does) than to search the title with "(comic book)" tacked on the end. For all of these reasons, I think moving The Immortal Hulk (comic book) to The Immortal Hulk would help bring this page in line with Wikipedia's standards. Trevorboyd97 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Imperial Seal of Korea → Imperial coat of arms of Korea – This is not a seal, so it is misleading to have it labelled as such. A more accurate title should be used. Across Wikimedia, this symbol is predominantly known as the coat of arms (see the following categories: Imperial seals of Korea (most files, other than those called seals, are called coats of arms. Those files are clearly the same symbol), Coats of arms of Korea). This is further explained by the article itself, which says it was originally an emblem, but then used as a coat of arms. Searching up for the imperial seal yields results about the actual seal (alongside this erroneously labelled symbol). Imperial coat of arms is both a common name and a correct name. notadev (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – CTV Morning Live → ? – CTV Morning Live has now rebranded to Your Morning, but the article at Your Morning covers the national program. These local programs haven't ended, so a renaming of this article may be appropriate, although confusing. I was thinking a name like Your Morning (regional) or something like that, but that doesn't seem standard. Just want to know what everyone thinks. Limmidy (talk)00:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nommo Gallery Museum → ? – Nommo Gallery is a distinct entity from the Uganda National Cultural Centre, despite being established under it. The current redirect from "Nommo Gallery" points to Uganda National Cultural Centre, which misleads readers. Nommo Gallery, established in 1964, functions as a standalone public art gallery and should have its own article under its correct title. This move would correct the redirect and reflect accurate subject separation. MichealKal (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Vcha → GirlsetGirlset – The group has officially rebranded from Vcha to Girlset as announced by JYP Entertainment and Republic Records on August 7, 2025. Since then, they have made their debut with their single "Commas", which was released on streaming platforms under their new name and all their social media was changed to fit the rebrand. Forbes, Clash Magazine, Audacy Music, 1, 2, 3, 4Wekimekifan (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Notability points → User:Barney the barney barney/Notability points – This essay somewhat contravenes Wikipedia's method of actually deciding notability, which is reliable sources. The mere existence of things happening to someone or something does not add "points" to something's notability, nor does such a point system actually exist. It has the risk of giving people the wrong idea about how something becomes notable, implying WP:TRIVIAL coverage can make something notable if there is enough of it. Therefore, I recommend moving it into userspace per WP:USERESSAY, which states that essays that contradict policy are more tolerated in userspace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Peter Chapman (murderer) → Murder of Ashleigh Hall – Chapman isn't notable, other than for this single event, and so there shouldn't be a biography about him as per WP:ONEVENT and WP:PERP. The murder is notable because of the significant press coverage of criticism of Facebook and the police, who had not been monitoring Chapman, who was a registered sex offender. Due to the public interest in the case, an Independent Police Complaints Commission review was conducted, which found failures in police monitoring of Chapman, which allowed him to slip off their radar. As a result, changes were made to police monitoring of sex offenders. After Chapman's conviction, Facebook issued a statement about the case and safety advice for young people using its platform. This requested move is based on the naming conventions for violent deaths WP:MURDERS. IndigoBeach (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC) IndigoBeach (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Grooming gangs scandal → Grooming gangs controversy – I think "Grooming gangs controversy" is a more neutral title for the article. People have clearly rejected removing "grooming gang" from the title of the article in the previous move discussion, but I think "controversy" better encapsulates the subject of the article than "scandal", and is better in line with the requirement that Wikipedia's writing style be formal, impersonal, and dispassionate as discussed at WP:ENCSTYLE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.– robertsky (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:No big loss → User:M.O.X/No big loss – This essay seems contradictory to policy, as it suggests that "many good articles are deleted because one person forgot to add references", further suggesting "knowledge" is lost by deleting them. By definition, an unreferenced article is automatically not a "good" article, as it will likely be full of a plethora of errors or original research. The statement that good articles are lost because of the PROD process is also vague and seems to be an assumption of bad faith in that it assumes people PRODing articles are not checking for notability whilst doing it. The opinionated nature of this essay means it should likely be moved to userspace rather than the Wikipedia namespace, as it does not line up with what articles should and shouldn't be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Frost12:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tomahawk missile → Tomahawk (missile)Tomahawk (missile) – I attempted to WP:BOLDly correct this page title after the recent RM moved to a title that does not comply with MOS. This a proposal to comply with WP:PARENDIS. Per discussion on my talk page after that previous move attempt, "Tomahawk missile" also isn't the WP:COMMONNAME; uses of that in sources are of the "Tomahawk, a missile" type (and, IMHO, it's a...I'm not sure there's a page for it, but it strikes me as being too "casual English" for a page title). It's a disambiguator, and while WP:NATURALDISAMBIG is a thing, it's not a truly natural one here. Note also a similar "one missile with different boosters leading to different designations" (i.e. why it's not at, say, BGM-109 Tomahawk - as there's also AGM-109, RGM-109, and UGM-109) is at Harpoon (missile) which is compliant with MOS, as this proposed move would make this page. The BushrangerOne ping only 07:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Toadspike[Talk]12:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Imperial Seal of Japan → Imperial Crest of Japan – All across Wikipedia (including some, but not all, foreign language pages, such as German and French) these symbols are called seals. A seal is a specific object. Seals in the Sinosphere are used similarly to seals in the West, where they are used to authenticate documents. While the impression of a seal can serve to identify a certain individual, it possesses additional legal and technical functions which are not seen either in Japanese Mon or Western heraldry – whose use is simply in that of identification. It is also worth briefly noting that in the United States of America facsimiles of seals are often used in lieu of heraldry, and as such emblems may be incorrectly referred to as seals when they do not actually function as such (most seals, such as the Great Seal of the United States or state seals are real or based on real seals however). The Wikipedia page for seals elaborates on this at the end of the lead. It is important to distinguish from this so that foreign terminology is not used inadvertently. For ease of reading, I will refer to everything using its current name on Wikipedia. In the Japanese language the difference is clear. The Privy Seal of Japan (御璽, literally "imperial seal"), State Seal of Japan (国璽, literally national or state seal), and ' (Japanese Wikipedia link) (内閣印, literally cabinetseal) are seals. They are used in the traditional manner, by having ink applied to the matrix and then being impressed onto a document. The Imperial Seal (菊紋, literally chrysanthemumcrest (in Western heraldry a crest is the part of the coat of arms which appears above the helm and shield, however as the English Wikipedia page for mon explains, they are often called the crest) or chrysanthemum mon (it has some additional names which all mean essentially the same thing, and make no mention of it being a seal: 菊花紋, 菊花紋章, and 菊の御紋)) and the Government Seal of Japan (this symbol commonly refers to the the 5-7 Paulownia (五七桐, literally fivesevenPaulownia), which is one of the many paulownia mon (桐紋, literally Paulowniacrest(s) (also sometimes known as 桐花紋)). The latter two symbols function only as mon, and the former three seals function only as seals. I believe there is no dispute about this, and all pages individually make that clear. I have myself made that clear on the page for national seals of Japan before I had the idea of requesting this move. It is now worth looking into how these terms are translated into English from Japanese. For the State and Privy Seal, there is a general consensus that these are always called as such. Some information from outside of Wikipedia can be found on the Imperial Household Agency's page. There is little information about the Cabinet seal, however its use can be observed on various documents uploaded to the internet, such as the document seen on the following page, appointing Makoto Oniki to be deputy minister of defence, where it is seen alongside the larger Privy Seal. This too can be accurately referred to as a seal. The English names for the two mon is more complicated. On Wikimedia projects, we can observe that various names are used, including Imperial seals and Kiku mon (Japanese crests of chrysanthemum). These categories themselves are part of categories which refer to mon as crests (Japanese crests of flowers and plants) or by their literal name (Mon by name). The former category is within Mon (emblem). The Imperial seal's file names usually refer to it as either a seal or crest, while the Government seals (plural as many different paulownia crests exist) file names always refers to it as a crest. It seems clear that for this type of symbol it is accepted that they are called emblems, crests, or mon. It is only for these two particular mon, that is the Imperial and Government seals, which are called seals. There is no other mon which is called a seal. As previously mentioned, the articles themselves make it clear that this is not a seal, but an emblem. The usage of the imperial seal as a banner or coat of arms in Western heraldry exemplifies its primary function, and it is not commonly seen on imperial documents. Outside of Wikipedia results vary. I believe that due to the fact that these names have always been used on Wikipedia there has been some impact on the internet, with other websites following course, not really knowing (or needing to know) what is a seal and what isn't, and as such have started to use these names. However I believe that it should be generally agreeable that it is not appropriate to refer to this as a seal. It is difficult to find authoritative sources on this topic, but I believe the following are acceptable to represent general usage: * Edwin O. Reischauer and others, Japan: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (Kodansha 1993), p 200: "The chrysanthemum has long been considered a noble flower, and the crest of the imperial household is a stylized representation of a chrysanthemum blossom." * "The Chrysanthemum: Flower of Emperors" on nippon.com: "ichimonji (flat blossoms with two overlapping rows of petals, the type of chrysanthemum on which the imperial crest is based)." * Danielle Demetriou, 'Golden phoenixes and 16-petal crests: Japan's Emperor Naruhito to take seat on Chrysanthemum Throne' The Telegraph (22 October 2019): "The golden roof is adorned with 16-petal chrysanthemum crests, crowned by a clutch of mythical phoenix birds in flight. Sitting just next to it is a smaller twin version of the same curtained throne, reserved for the empress." * W. H. Hodge, 'Would You Believe A Chrusanthemum Kabuki' The New York Times (14 November 1971), section D, p 39: "The chrysanthemum, with 16‐ray flowers (or showy petals), is the Emperor's flower and has served as the crest of the Imperial Family for over a century. Actually, the identical chrysanthemum crest has existed as a familiar design in Japanese arts and crafts for over 800 years." * France 24: 'Gold, silk, lacquer: the kit and garb of Japan's imperial ceremony': The emperor's seat sits inside a canopy featuring rich purple curtains hanging from a roof decorated with golden curlicue adornments and 16-petal chrysanthemum crests. There is less coverage on the government seal, as it is just a simple mon used to symbolise various organisations, however there are various databases which can be found on the Paulownia crests, none of which refer to it as seals. They can be found under external links on Government Seal of Japan, one of which actually uses the word crest. Many users have voiced their concerns on various talk pages over the years, I found one example from 2006 on how the imperial seal is not a seal. I believe the reason that these names have endured for so long is simply because no one cares, however I also believe that there is a large potential to inadvertently mislead readers. As such I think it is important that the above pages are changed to more accurate titles. Before I finish, I would just like to take note of the pages for South Korea and Mongolia, who clearly have their emblem labelled as the emblem, and the seal labelled as the seal. National seals of the Republic of China, similar to the page for Japan, includes only actual seals, and not emblems. On Emblem of Vietnam, emblems and seals are clearly distinguished by being titled correctly. For the PRC, the former seal is correctly labelled on its own page, while the usual symbol is the National Emblem of China. Practice across Wikipedia clearly shows that the term 'seal' is only used for objects which are actually seals (seals in the USA notwithstanding). I therefore do not see why Japan should be exempt from this. I apologise for any errors in translation or typography I have made. notadev (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mark Meechan → Count DankulaCount Dankula – Virtually all references to Meechan using his real name say that he is known as Count Dankula, including every single source regarding his conviction with many of them using his alias in favour of his birth name. Looking at Google Trends, the term "Count Dankula" received a massive spike in March 2018 while "Mark Meechan" only received a small bump. In my eyes, this is a clear cut case of WP:COMMONNAME. Sock(tock talk)19:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Borrowers → The Borrowers (novel)The Borrowers (novel) – I recently split The Borrowers (book series) from The Borrowers (first novel in the series). It is however not universally clear to me which should be the primary article. The book series seems like the more encompassing topic and a more expected reader’s experience, so it feels like having "The Borrowers" be about the series would be more natural. But the novel is also historically the first with this title, and the more famous book in the series, notably as the main source for the screen adaptations. Internal links are about the same: 45 for the book, 40 for the series, but many places that mention the book could also be written to mention the series. There’s also the possibility of moving The Borrowers (disambiguation) to the main title, and it’s the title of not only the book and its series, but also several of their adaptations, so someone linking to "The Borrowers" might be thinking of any of those. Opening the request to get second opinions and decide of the primary topic collectively. ~ nicolas (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – RostamKhan → Kapneh Karan, IranKapneh Karan, Iran – This article has been moved from its old title several times in the last few months by Amirxrst, who has argued intently that "RostamKhan" is the correct name for the village - without providing any sources beyond go to Google Maps and check openstreetmap to prove it. (here). In any case I found no reliable sources indicating that this is correct; on the other hand, the census and other sources in the article report the name of the village as Kapneh Karan (or a variant, such as "Kapneh Keran" in the Iran Atlas). JavaHurricane 04:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Jang-geum → JanggeumJanggeum – After a quick Google search, it appears to me that there is no clear preference for the hyphenated name in reliable sources (Korea.net uses Janggeum). In this case, I find it more adequate that the hyphen is deleted. Firstly, the National Institute of Korean Language discourages the use of optional hyphens (hyphens which denote the separation of the two syllables in a Korean given name), and secondly, it is not certain whether "Jang-geum" was the subject's full given name. Subject has ten passing mentions in historical sources. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Cuffy (slave) → Cuffy (person)Cuffy (person) – Adding in this section, per the controversial moves protocol. Current history communication steers away from labelling people as "slaves," but rather "enslaved persons," to better reflect their humanity and identity beyond the enslaved state. There is also no other article about a person named "Cuffy," thus no ambiguity would be created by naming this article "Cuffy (person)." Quaoarian (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Anno Domini → Anno Domini and Before Christ – Per WP:AND. Basically when there are two or more closely related articles that are covered by a single article, it should use a title covering all cases when possible. But where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and". In this article, both terms are in bold and are discussed in this single article. Prothe1st (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nazi hunter → Nazi hunting – Article and sources focus on the process of nazi hunting over individuals involved. Many of the most significant captures are attributed to Mossad or other national-scale agencies, rather than individuals or dedicated nazi-hunting organizations. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Port of Gqeberha → Port of Port ElizabethPort of Port Elizabeth – Highly likely that no WP:RS calls it the "Port of Gqeberha". The sole reference in the lead prose: [1] calls it the Port of Port Elizabeth. Here's an article post-name change that still calls it that: [2]Google News shows a steady stream of news articles (whose reliability I haven't checked yet) calling it the Port of Port Elizabeth. As for controlling to make sure that I'm not including results about the Port Newark–Elizabeth Marine Terminal, since the query is "Port of Port Elizabeth" with quotes, it requires that it be that very specific string. Here's an article that calls it "Gqeberha's Port of Port Elizabeth": [3]
(Discuss) – Octave twelve → Vox Mando-Guitar – I couldn't find any reliable sources calling this sort of guitar an "octave twelve". The lone source in the article seems to be an unreliable aggregation and might even be a case of citogenesis. Extensive searching for variants of "octave twelve" in relation to guitars turned up only false positives that used the words "octave" and "twelve" next to each other in unrelated contexts, and no hits on GBooks in relation to the Vox Mando-Guitar call it an "octave twelve". I did, however, find books such as this and this which discuss the Vox Mando-Guitar, which suggests that should be the name of the article instead. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)17:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
(Discuss) – Corselet → CorseletteCorselette – As per the OED, this is "usually in form corselette", when used with this meaning. "Corselette" has only the meaning of women's clothing and "corslet" has only the meaning of armor, where as "corselet" can mean either. So I suggest the two articles should be "courselette" and "corslet", with each listing "corselet" as an alternative spelling. By default, "corselet" should redirect to "corselette", since that is the far more common meaning today. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Bare notability → User:Sebwite/Bare notability – This essay establishes a concept known as "Semi-notability" that is not in policy and is likely to mislead editors. In truth, an article is notable or it's not. Articles with unclear notability should be made clear, that is a fact, but this essay frames that in a very odd way by saying that an article in limbo is in itself a special class of article, appearing to add confusion and complication that is unnecessary. Due to the mismatch with actual policy, it should likely be moved out of the Wikipedia namespace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Aghstafa (river) → Aghstev (river) – Aghstev is the name used in the UN and Britannica pages, more common in English google results, and also used in both Google and Apple maps, not to mention the majority of the river itself lies in Armenia. The previous talk page on this had great points with numerous sources in favor of Aghstev (as it was originally named) before a user moved it to the Azerbaijani term of Aghstafa without explanation. I think this move should be considered controversial, and the user should not have changed it without consulting the talk page. I think the article name should revert back to what it was originally, which was Aghstev, to prevent confusion when users search up the name of the river on Google. Thank you! Chilloutpeeps (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) – List of largest biomedical companies by market capitalization → ? – Seems these two lists are not clear or precise on what they are meant to define, especially considering the word "biomedical" is in neither one of these lists (other than their current titles and the links to each other in their respective "See also" sections). Both lists have the phrase "...pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical companies..." in them, but I'm not sure replacing "biomedical" in each of these titles with that phrase would be accurate since it potentially makes the scope of these lists too broad and possibly inaccurate. Is there a better way to title these lists to get rid of the "biomedical" word, or ... will these lists ultimately be potential WP:AFD candidates? (Also note that List of biomedical companies and List of largest biomedical companies do not exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Bensci54 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus protests and occupations during the Gaza war → Gaza war protests at Columbia University – Keep "campus occupations". In titles that have "campus occupation(s)" without "protests", keep "campus occupations". YYYYY * 1B — Replace with "protests". In titles that have "campus occupation(s)" without "protests", replace "campus occupations" with "protests". YYYYYY * 1C — Use "campus occupations and protests". In titles that have "campus occupation(s)" without "protests", rename to "campus occupations and protests". ==== 2) Campus occupation(s) and protests (both present) ==== * 2A — Keep both. In titles that include both "campus occupation(s)" and "protests", keep both. YYYYY * 2B — Keep only "protests". In titles that include both terms, keep only "protests". YYYYYY ==== 3) Title format (verbosity) ==== * 3A — Status quo. Keep the "X pro-Palestinian campus protests during the Gaza war ..." format. YYY * 3B — Concise "Gaza war". Adopt the "Gaza war protests at X" format. YYYYY * 3C — Concise "Gaza genocide". Adopt the "Gaza genocide protests at X" format. YYYYYY ==== 4) Dates in titles ==== * 4A — Keep all dates.YYY * 4B — Conditional removal. Remove dates only if article content currently extends beyond 2024. YYYYYYY * 4C — Remove where possible. Remove dates from titles as much as possible and reorganize articles accordingly. Y ==== 5) Inclusion of the word "the" ==== * 5A — Keep "the" conditionally. In articles that currently preface university names with "the", keep "the". YYYYYYY * 5B — Remove "the". Remove "the" from universities names that start with "the". YY ==== Additional policy notes ==== Per discussions below, there will be some exceptions to policy changes: * Dutch articles will not have dates removed if 4A/4B is voted upon due to discrepant organization practices for these articles * Gaza war protests at Ohio State University: "the" will not be added to this article if policy 5A is voted upon due to Ohio State University being the university's more commonly used name === How to participate === * To keep titles as they are now, support: 1A + 2A + 3A + 4A. Please state which policies you support (e.g., “Support: 1B, 2B, 3B, 4C”), and feel free to propose additional policies or refinements.You can vote for multiple of the same policy options, e.g. 3B and 3C, if you are agnostic with two but oppose the other. === Consensus & tracking === A check mark will be placed in real time after each policy to reflect the current amount of endorsements it has received. If you leave a comment endorsing specific policies, feel free to add a new check mark yourself. Otherwise, I will do so for you as soon as I can. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.– robertsky (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Dev Adhikari → Dev (actor)Dev (actor) – The actor doesn't use his surname "Adhikari" after his professional name "Dev". This article should be titled Dev (actor), as every articles about any actors or any other celebrities on wikipedia is titled after their mononymous name, not by their real name. Tiger Shankar (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Grand Prix of Markham → ? – "Grand Prix of Markham" is neither a) a descriptive-enough title so as to fit the WP:CRITERIA, b) a name used in sources, nor c) the official name of the event. Two main titles exist as alternatives to move to: *IndyCar Series at Markham Centre *Ontario Honda Dealers Indy at MarkhamOntario Honda Dealers Indy at Markham is the official name of the event, used in primary and secondary sources. However, I believe the corporate sponsorship in the name runs afoul of Wikipedia's WP:NOT policy, specifically, WP:PROMO which says that Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for ... advertising....IndyCar Series at Markham Centre is a descriptive title, meeting WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE and being WP:CONSISTENT with similar motorsports articles that follow a [Series] at [Track] format, including IndyCar Series at Texas Motor Speedway, etc. However, unlike other such descriptive titles which usually have secondary sources using a similar naming format in lieu of corporate sponsors to support such a move, the newness of this event (which was announced yesterday, September 3) leads there to be no such sourcing at this time. I no less support IndyCar Series at Markham Centre as a title which avoids the issues with WP:NOT that come from including corporate sponsors which can change year-by-year (another issue with CONSISTENT for non-descriptive titles) ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)18:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – House of Mathrafal → LleisionLleision – The name of the dynasty is properly 'Lleision', i.e. the descendants of Lles Llawddeog, a legendary ancestor of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, and was the name of the dynasty in the Middle Ages. See David Stephenson, Medieval Powys: Kingdom, Principality, and Lordships 1132-1293, p. 24, and note 8 on that page. While the chief court of the kingdom of Powys was Mathrafal, the dynasty was not named after it. Naming dynasties after courts is an Anglo-Norman tradition, and furthermore the "House of Mathrafal" is not used in any scholarly source. Tipcake (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – August 2025 Indonesian protests → ? – The protest has gone beyond August - even though it's mostly minor, but having an article title this long (August-September 2025 Indonesian protests) is quite unwieldy. (Plus the possibility that it might go far beyond September). I suggest having a discussion before moving the title, since the article is displayed in the frontpage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael14:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gojoseon → Old Chosŏn – Per WP:COMMONNAME research below in major Korean history books. Note that Gojoseon is not a significant topic in South Korean pop culture, which tends to use RR. "Kojosŏn": * Everlasting Flower: A History of Korea by Keith Pratt (2007) * Korea: A History by Eugene Y. Park (2022) "Old Chosŏn": * Korea: A Religious History by James H. Grayson (2002) * Historical Origins of Korean Politics by Duk-kyu Jin (2005) * A Brief History Of Korea by Mark Peterson and Phillip Marguiles (2009; note doesn't use diacritic) * A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present by Michael J. Seth (2010) * A History of Korea by Jinwung Kim (2012) * Korea: Outline of a Civilisation by Kenneth Wells (2015) * The Ancient State of Puyŏ in Northeast Asia by Mark E. Byington (2016) * The Three Kingdoms of Korea by Richard D. McBride II (2024) "Old Joseon": * A History of Korea by Kyung Moon Hwang (2022) "Gojoseon" * The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism by Jae-eun Kang (2006) * Korea: A Cartographic History (2012) by John Rennie Short Also, note that McCune–Reischauer works out well per WP:NCKO and WP:COMMONNAME. Significant majority of academic books on Korean history use MR. See WP:ROMANKO#Romanizations used in books for some proof of this; I've been tallying up what various books use. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Too soon to delete → User:-insert valid name here-/Too soon to deleteUser:-insert valid name here-/Too soon to delete – This essay is being readily used in deletion discussions despite contradicting Wikipedia policy. It argues that new pages should have a moratorium on deletion, when, in reality, WP:SUSTAINED has not been changed and no such moratorium has been decided upon by the community. It argues that assuming an article won't have coverage is WP:CRYSTAL when it is the default assumption that a page isn't notable, proof is necessary to demonstrate that notability, not to *disprove* it. It's a clear attempt to make a user's opinion seem like a policy, and should be moved into userspace per WP:USERESSAY, which states that "Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.ASUKITE18:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Chinese Singaporeans → Singaporean Chinese – The latter is commoner: on Google Scholar, there’re 3,450 results for ‘Chinese Singaporean’ but 11,000 for ‘Singaporean Chinese’, and there’s a similar ratio on Ngrams. (Singaporeans in China are rarely called ‘Chinese Singaporean’ or ‘Singaporean Chinese’, so these results generally refer to the same people.) Docentation (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). TiggerJay(talk) 17:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.CNC (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign → Odaenathus' Sasanian CampaignsOdaenathus' Sasanian Campaigns – We have been going into a discussion regarding Odaenathus' campaigns against the sasanians, Numerous sources mentioned that Odaenathus conducted more than a campaign: # The Abridged history of Arabs before Islam (in Arabic) Second Volume, page: 634-635,by Jawad Ali: :he gathered whatever forces he had and swiftly surprised the Sasanians with an attack that terrified them, striking such fear into them that they abandoned to him most of what they had obtained as spoils from their war with the Romans. They also lost some of the king's wives, who fell captive into the hands of Odaenathus' forces. The king of Palmyra was not satisfied with this revenge alone, but hastened in the year 263 CE to attack Mesopotamia, where he defeated Shapur, then besieged his capital, Ctesiphon The Sassanians continued to fight against Odaenathus in hopes of defeating him and taking revenge upon him until the year 265 CE, but they were not successful, as Odaenathus was murdered. Shapur was never being able to take his revenge against him. :as well as the same book but volume 3 page 94: :Perhaps Odaenathus' increasing pressure on the Persians, which compelled them to abandon Dura, thereby cleared the way for the Roman garrison to return to this city, Odaenathus managed to liberate Mesopotamia from the Persians and conquered Nisibis and Harran. # Syvänne, Ilkka (2019). The Reign of Emperor Gallienus: The Apogee of Roman Cavalry, Pen & Sword Military. ISBN978-1-526-74521-7 page 151-152: he retook Nisibis, Carrhae and Mesopotamia almost immediately, then defeated Shapur himself and pursued Shapur and Shapur’s children as far as Ctesiphon, capturing Shapur’s concubines and a great amount of booty. However, on the basis of the HA ( Gall .10.1ff.) it is possible that the re-conquest of Carrhae and Nisibis took place later in 264. If this is true then,Odaenathus would actually have conducted three campaigns against the Persians: the first in 259–261, in the course of which he pursued Shapur up to Ctesiphon and from where he then returned to fight the Macriani; the second in 264, when he re-conquered Nisibis and Carrhae; and the third in 266–267 against Ctesiphon, after which he turned back to face the Goths Whatever the truth, Odaenathus appears to have received Gallienus’ order to return to crush Macrianus when Odaenathus was fighting in the neighbourhood of Ctesiphon in 261. The other reason for his readiness to retreat back to Roman territory was of course the fact that the Persian satraps were harassing his forces that were besieging Ctesiphon. Consequently, he was quite ready to obey. There also exists a dedication which praises Septimius Herodianus (likely to be Odaenathus’s eldest son Herodes) for his victory over the Persians near the Orontes River. This dedication has been used as evidence that Herodes inflicted a serious defeat on the Persians and forced them to retreat from Antioch. One may make the educated guess that this defeat together with the successes of Odaenathus forced Shapur to start his retreat that then led to the battle in which Shapur was defeated and forced to flee to Ctesiphon # Drinkwater, John (2005).Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'Crisis'. In Bowman, Alan K.; Garnsey, Peter; Cameron, Averil (eds.).The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–66. ISBN 978-0-521-30199-2, p. 45: "Emboldened by his success, in 262 he campaigned against the Persians in Mesopotamia, recovered Nisibis and Carrhae, and may also (possibly also in 262) have reached Ctesiphon. A further deep invasion of Persian territory may have occurred around 266. # Watson, Alaric (2004).Aurelian and the Third Century. London: Psychology Press. ISBN 0-415-30187-4, p. 32: "In 262 he managed to wrest northern Mesopotamia from Persian control, recapturing the vital stronghold of Nisibis, and launched a counter-invasion into the Persian empire. ... A few years later, in 266 or 267, he returned to the offensive and met with still greater success. This time he even reached the capital, Ctesiphon, # The Collins Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 B.C. to the Present by Dupuy, R. E. and Dupuy, T. N.: on page 153 states: 259-261. The Rise of Odaenathus of Palmyra. Septimus Odaenathus, "prince of Palmyra, was a Romanized Arab. Apparently he preferred to accept Roman authority rather than Persian. He may have tried to obtain Shapur's good will after the capture of Valerian; either his efforts were rebuffed or he was merely gaining time while raising a new Roman-Arab army to dispute Shapur's control of the Roman dominions of the East. The threat of Odaenathus small army seems to have caused Shapur to withdraw eastward from Cappadocia (261). West of the Euphrates River, Odaenathus and his small army surprised and routed the Persians, who were carrying great quantities of booty from Antioch and Asia Minor. Abandoning most of their loot. the Persians fled across the river, harassed by Odaenathus' light cavalry." a splitted part mentioned his other series of campaigns (Which proves that he conducted more than one campaign): 262-264. Odaenathus Invades Persia. "Having been substantially reinforced by Gallienus. Odaenathus invaded the lost Roman provinces east of the Euphrates with a small army composed mainly of light foot archers, heavy cataphracts and lancers, and irregular light Arabian cavalry. He drove off a Persian army investing Edessa, and recaptured Nisibis and Carrhae (262). In the two following years he harassed Armenia and raided deep into Mesopotamia. consistently defeating Shapur and his lieutenants, and twice capturing Ctesiphon, the Sassanid capital. Apparently Odaenathus was accompanied and assisted on his campaigns by his beautiful and able wife, Zenobia. Shapur sued for peace (264)." on page 174 of the same book, a full page discussing shapur's campaigns and other wars he fought in.... ::::where it was mentioned "261-266. Shapur's Wars with Odaenathus of Palmyra.": The Persians were driven from Rome's Asiatic provinces (see p. 153).R3YBOl (🌲) 08:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russia–Ukraine warRussia–Ukraine war – Sources almost universally describe the current conflict as a war. The word "invasion" is used only in reference to Russia's initial 24 February act of invasion, and is not used to describe the current war, three years long. [50][51][52][53] are all from just today; all describe the current conflict as a war. To those sources that call it a three-year-long invasion, we must consider Wikipedia's influence on the matter, which artificially inflates the percentage of sources using such framework. This article calls the conflict a war consistently (e.g. The direct cost of the war for Russia has been over US$450 billion.) This distinction between an invasion and a war has historical precedent. German invasion of the Soviet Union redirects to Operation Barbarossa, not to Eastern Front (World War II), even though Germany was still advancing for almost a year after the German invasion of Russia occurred. The main obstacle in moving this article to a page with "war" in it is the existence of the article Russo-Ukrainian War. However, it is hardly community consensus that keeps the page at that title. The article remained at the title Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) for six years before an RM, opened by a blocked sock and with low participation, found consensus to move in June 2020. Immediately after it was closed, a large number of editors voiced salient concerns about the new title that, had they commented in the discussion, would have resulted in the page not being moved. These include I suppose this (and even previous) title is wrong. If to refer to Google search, then Russo-Ukrainian conflict has 100x more hits than both. from Infovarius, followed by agreement below from other editors. Sources almost universally refer to the state of affairs since 2014 as a conflict – even many that describe a three-year invasion. The archives of Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War are full of editors complaining about how the title is wrong, and though the ECR means they have no voice on this topic, the complaint should be heard. We have spent three years ignoring sources and misleading readers. Let's get back on track with our policies. On "Russo-Ukrainian" vs. "Russia–Ukraine", the former is consistent with names entrenched in historical literature (e.g. Franco-Prussian War) while the second is consistent with contemporary names for conflicts (e.g. Iran–Israel war). The absolute common name is "Ukraine war" or "war in Ukraine", but both are ambiguous, and per WP:NATDIS, this still-common name (used in the Al Jazeera header among other news outlets) should prevail, outnumbering "Russo-Ukrainian war" by upwards of an order of magnitude. On "War" vs. "war", the word is not consistently capitalized in sources, per NCCAPS. It is not usually capitalized in sources, per MILTERMS. It is, in fact, very rarely capitalized in sources, as it doesn't yet represent a proper name, but a descriptive name for the conflict. TL;DR: Let's do what Wikipedia does best and choose the common name for these two articles. -- 🐔ChicdatBawk to me! 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
