Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFM)

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

Shortcuts

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.

  • 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 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

IMDB is seen as a generally unreliable source; see WP:IMDB. This does not seem uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does this "not seem uncontroversial?" Halbared (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where Time Began has been a stable title for 8 years. You're proposing to move it to a completely different title, offering only a 5-word rationale which is shaky at best. How is that uncontroversial? 162 etc. (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asdfjrjjj: Have you considered WP:AFC? 162 etc. (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

We also have Jupiter's Legacy (TV series), so this request needs a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, which might be viable because the comic was first. If neither the comic nor the TV show can be considered the absolute primary topic, then the simple "Jupiter's Legacy" namespace should become a disambig page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comic is the longstanding primary topic and the article was moved without discussion. This should be reverted. @Mornings Made Delicious: Please see WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I note that User:Mornings Made Delicious is a blocked sockpuppet and thus will not respond. 162 etc. (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

The same nominator proposed moving the same article to the same title before. The record can be found at Talk:Television Shin-Hiroshima#Requested move 4 December 2024. The declared conclusion was to not move the article to that title. I don't understand why the nominator now thinks moving it there would be uncontroversial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serbs of Kosovo was moved to Kosovo Serbs - see the history by the StephenMacky1. His rationale was that Ngram reveals that "Kosovo Serbs" is more common?! I find Ngram claim a classic case of cherry-picking flashy metric while ignoring wiki guidelines. WP:TITLES doesn't prioritize raw commonality for descriptive articles like ethnic groups. The "common name" criteria is just one factor, but there is also consistency in article titles. Ngram argument can't override this, wiki guidelines don't favor Ngram title counts over recognizable structures whatsoever, as per WP:CONSISTENCY. For example, Bosnian Serbs or Croatian Serbs are more common as per Ngram but yet articles from the onset have been titled Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Croatia. In my opinion, consistency in article titles should matter more, especially for related topics like ethnic groups within a shared cultural or regional context (Balkans). For articles on Serb populations in Balkan countries, the established format is "Serbs of (Country)" (Serbs of Croatia, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbs of Montenegro). Adopting "Kosovo Serbs" would break this pattern, creating inconsistency across the whole series of articles. Another argument by the user was "Kosovo Albanians" title, that was in my opinion another cherry-picking, taking one example against a dozen examples I provided. Not to mention that consistency isn't about mirroring every ethnic group but maintaining it within related articles for reader navigation, and related articles are those of Serb communities across the Balkans. Most importantly, "Serbs of Kosovo" works better for disputed territories such as Kosovo since it is more neutral and treats Kosovo as a location and ensures the title works regardless of political views, while "Kosovo Serbs" subtly endorse Kosovo's sovereignty and statehood by using it adjectivally. Kosovo's political status remains disputed. International and supranational organizations (such as UN, OSCE, EU, Council of Europe) overwhelmingly use the neutral phrasing "Serbs of Kosovo" or "the Serb community in Kosovo" precisely to avoid any implication about sovereignty. Using the adjectival form "Kosovo Serbs" as the primary title is the formulation more often found in news media. Choosing the adjectival form as the title therefore moves the article toward one side of the political dispute, which violates WP:NPOV. The lead section uses both Serbs of Kosovo and Kosovo Serbs and that should do enough, but title is the place where choice has to be made, and the choice that best satisfies consistency, precision, and long-term stability is Serbs of Kosovo. Klačko (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot to mention that you recently moved the article here without any discussion. So, the burden is on you to discuss it and since this is not an uncontroversial move, the technical request will not work. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to contested, reverting the WP:RMUM has already occurred. CNC (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • BPCE Group → BPCEBPCE (currently a redirect back to BPCE Group) (move · discuss) – The acronym BPCE only applies to this group, which is among the world's most significant banks as designated by the Financial Stability Board {{{sig}}}User:Boubloub (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that neither of these may be the best title as it often goes by Groupe BPCE, which is the official name of the group and how it is referred to in some sources. RM may be a better option here. echidnalives - talk - edits 04:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artificial-Sentence The undiscussed move was not recent. as it took place in 2018, and there are still many sources referring to it as "Cap-Haïtien International Airport". If you wish to pursue this please open an RM discussion and provide sources and more in-depth rational beyond "travellers' account". echidnalives - talk - edits 04:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Destinyokhiria Both of these articles are redirects, we can't swap two redirects. Z E T AC 13:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw it. Destinyokhiria 💬 19:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to request something else? Z E T AC 19:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry i will just nominate it for WP:RFD. Destinyokhiria 💬 09:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kepler-1229b It's been 8 days since this request was placed, I think it's fair to procedurally contest Z E T AC 15:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was always a redirect (just checked), it being formerly an article would make this not uncontroversial since it'd imply the subject isn't solo notable due to losing in an AfD. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something here it was deleted via PROD in 2012 and 2017, not AfD. As for notably, most of the sourcing is from after this. Either way it'd be best to request closure of the split discussion to justify the move, that's the only controversial part I see. Maybe I should close that first. I've closed as no consensus so moved to contested, recommend taking this to AfC. CNC (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to AfC works for me, I'll open a request there. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, 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 1 December 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:

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 1 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2025 (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 1 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2025 (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 1 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2025‎ (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 1 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2025 (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 1 December 2025

– why Example (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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. 78 discussions have been relisted.

December 1, 2025

November 30, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Street storming → Đi bãoĐi bão – 'Street storming' is one way to translate 'đi bão', but I much more commonly hear 'go storm', 'go for a storm', 'go make a storm', 'riding the storm' and all sorts of variants of that. It would be best for the article to treat đi bão as a proper noun for a global audience and refer to it as such within the article, since there is no agreed upon English term that can be attested, especially outside of Vietnam. It is kind of like 'nhậu' - the best way to refer to it in English is also 'nhậu' since there is no agreement on an English translation that can capture its nuance. QUYE7 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Windows Media Player (2022) → Media PlayerMedia Player – Hello everyone. The current title is problematic for a number of reasons: *The name of the software is simply "Media Player", including in all the menus and the about page. The ONLY place where the prefix "Windows" appears is outside in its Microsoft Store page and only in the title, simply for the purpose of indicating to users on the Store that it is Microsoft's own product. Otherwise read the rest of the page and there is never another mention of "Windows" as a prefix:[3] **"Media Player is designed to make listening to and watching your multimedia content more enjoyable." **"We designed the new Media Player to make listening to and watching your multimedia content more enjoyable on Windows 11" **"Media Player replaces Groove Music" And support articles on the Microsoft website also state simply "Media Player".[4] Anything with the prefix refers to the legacy Windows Media Player, not this. Simply put, the product name with the "Windows" in front is not officially correct. *"(2022)" is not an ideal way to distinguish a software product - to me the title sounds like it's a temporary product or an event from the year 2022 - but more importantly it is not exact anyway and misleading because technically Media Player was first publicly available in November 2021![5] Therefore I think it should be renamed to the simple and accurate 'Media Player'. At the moment that article is a redirect to 'Media player' but because it is merely a capital P and there is no other article with the same exact whole word, it shouldn't be an issue I think.

References

  1. ^ "Al-Qaida in Yemen driven from 2 major strongholds". Deseret News. Associated Press. 2012-06-12. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
  2. ^ Coombs, Casey L. (2013-02-20). "Yemen's Use of Militias to Maintain Stability in Abyan Province". Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
  3. ^ https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9wzdncrfj3pt?hl=en-US&gl=US
  4. ^ https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/codecs-in-media-player-d5c2cdcd-83a2-4805-abb0-c6888138e456
  5. ^ https://www.ghacks.net/2021/11/18/media-player-windows-11/
~2025-37524-73 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kirk (disambiguation) → Kirk – It seems fairly clear that the term meaning 'church' doesn't have a clear primary topic over the surname or the given name. Further, there are numerous (some very relevant) people with the surname, which further prevents a clear primary topic for the term. It should be noted, though, that according to Wikinav, people who end up on the term's page are, to a decent extent (although not in large amounts), going to the disambiguation page and from there often to people with either the given name or surname. [4]. However, people strictly coming to the disambiguation page are overwhelmingly looking for the surname or the given name. [5] GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 05:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – King Buppan Peak → Cerro Mudugndoe – According to the article's description, the references don't clearly show a map or visual aid for its location; however, a map from 1889 helps pinpoint the peak's exact position. Observing nearby geographical features and analyzing them through GeoNames, the peak in question is now called Cerro Mudugndoe, with an altitude of 754 meters. No other peaks in the area reach this height, so there is 100% certainty that it is the ancient King Buppan, but with a Ngäbe name, the indigenous group currently residing in the area. The name appears in Panamanian legal documents (Law 33 of 2012, page 40 of the PDF in "3. Corregimiento San Pedrito (Jiküi)". Taichi (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – NHK Party → Collaborative Party – The party was officially renamed in Nov 2023, over two years ago. The leadership dispute keeping the old name alive appears to be effectively ended now that the NHK Party parliamentary group is no more and Tachibana has been arrested, so it's past time we moved this to the actual name, as ja-wiki did quite some time go. Asamboi (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29, 2025

November 28, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Nazi concentration camps → Nazi German concentration campsNazi German concentration camps – Stop whitewashing and German propaganda #Nazi is a party. National Socialist German Workers' Party. Camp weren't NSDAP party camps, they been German county camps, build on German and occupied by Germans soil, organized by Germans country, not on party plot of land #Nazism was just a tool. Knife don't kill, knifeman does. Nazism was just a tool, tool used by Germans and the Germans do the killing. #What Nazis? NeoNazis? Aryan Brotherhood? Nazis from space? Before 60s nobody heard of Nazis, is was just a crimes of Germans. #This is whitewashing and propaganda removing responsibility from Germans and putting it on some mythical Nazis from Naziland. Why "Germany" is removed from title? Those where German camps and created by Germans, operated by Germans, where they wrote documents and speak in German. Actually it should be even moved to German concentration camps Amily6 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – OKD → OKD (company)OKD (company) – This is a three-letter acronym also used in a wide variety of fields of endeavor, and this mining company does not appear to be the primary topic for it. Per WP:DPT, we can for example look at: * All-time monthly page views comparison between the top two meanings shows that it's unlikely that the average English reader strongly associates this term with the company, when the readership of the article about this and other software is 50 times larger (!) than the readership of the article about the latter * Google Books Ngrams for this and related terms indicate the company is occasionally mentioned, but there's no clear indication that it's the most commonly known topic, let alone more common than all others combined * With a Google Books search for OKD, in the first 10 results I only get 1 that mentions the company, 2 that mention the software, and 7 others I already disambiguated a handful of incoming links and disambiguated it, but the move was then reverted as "potentially controversial". I don't quite see the controversy, but let's have a formal discussion just in case. The other 'issue' was that the OKD software doesn't have a standalone article, but that's not relevant as it meets the standard of WP:DABMENTION. All in all, when even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic, I don't think there can be a genuine discussion about there being a primary topic by usage. With regard to long-term significance, I don't think there can be any substantial advantage for a nationally-known company that is not active in the English-speaking parts of the world, when compared to internationally-known software in English usage. Even if it is technically 10 times older, both are generally recent. Plus the language and the airport in other parts of the world, too. This acronym is simply ambiguous, and we should not risk surprising English readers by presenting them a false lack of ambiguity. Joy (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dana Rosemary Scallon → Dana (singer)Dana (singer) – She is far better known as a singer than anything else. Per WP:COMMONNAME, absolutely nobody refers to her as Dana Rosemary Scallon (or even Dana Scallon) except in official documents. Even her own website calls her Dana throughout. Her five-year stint as an MEP and her failed bid to become president in no way trump her success and notability as a singer. WP:NATURAL does not trump common name here, as the current title is not common and is actually pretty obscure. Most people (and sources) continued to refer to her as Dana even during her foray into politics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 04:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 27, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Canadian Baseball League → ? – Using "2026" as a disambiguator creates unnecessary confusion over what is simply a rebrand. Removing disambiguation entirely would be my ideal solution here. With consideration for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I can't conceive of Canadian Baseball League (2003), a very brief league from two decades ago, being considered of equivalent importance as a century-old league with a fair amount of annual coverage in numerous sources. — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 25 Words or Less → 25 Words or Less (board game) – The game show has been on TV for six years now and has substantially more page views and inbound links than the board game it's based on. Extensive searching on Google, GBooks, GNews, etc. turned up almost exclusively information about the game show. The board game's article is a one-paragraph stub, while there is far more to say about the game show. This seems a prime example of an adaptation being more notable than its source material, in the same vein that The Fox and the Hound is widely understood to reference the Disney film above the book on which it was based. I think it's abundantly clear that almost everyone looking for something called "25 Words or Less" is looking for the game show. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Konstanty Ostrogski → Konstiantyn Ostrozky – Discussion from this page from several years ago seemingly came to a consensus for moving to the modern Ukrainian spelling of his name (using the national romanization). While the argument could be made that the family itself should be primarily referred to by Ostrogski instead of Ostrogsky due to its role during the period of Polish rule over Ruthenia, I don't see any reason why an ethnic Ruthenian who served the Grand Duchy Lithuania before its union with the Kingdom of Poland should be referred in Polish. He did not serve the Kingdom of Poland, did not live in the Kingdom of Poland, and was not an ethnic Pole. Konstiantyn Ostrozky is also the spelling name used by major reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine [10] and Encyclopedia Britannica[11] Azixw (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Artificial Solutions → Teneo.ai – The company officially rebranded from "Artificial Solutions" to "Teneo.ai" in August 2024, as documented by multiple reliable sources in the article (references 2, 3, and 18). The new name has been in use for over 15 months and is now the primary name used by the company in all official communications, stock exchange listings (Nasdaq ticker: TENEO), and its website (www.teneo.ai). Per Wikipedia's naming conventions, particularly the "most common name" principle, article titles should reflect the most commonly used name. In this case, the rebranded name "Teneo.ai" is now the established and common name for this company. Marangse (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 26, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Jeffrey Epstein client list → Epstein filesEpstein files – The last time I proposed this discussion, a lot of respondents said that this article was then mostly about a hypothetical list and not the files in general. The article has since then been changed to being moreso about the files than just the list. Therefore I believe that the circumstances of both this article, and the topic in general, has changed substantially enough that the slim consensus not to move the article to the more general "Epstein files" can be changed. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of Armenia → Arab invasion of Armenia – The current title doesn't follow WP:NPOV with respect to scholarship on the topic, which eschews the language of "Muslim conquest" in favour of "Arab invasion/conquest". This is clear from the Ngram, which producss nothing for the current title, and from the RS that support the page, which reference in turn: "The Arab Period in Arminiyah" (Dadoyan), "The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni" (Nina), and "The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia" (Ter-Ghewondyan). The sourcing (and WP:NPOV) doesn't really support an alternative to "Arab invasion/conquest", with "invasion" seemingly having the slightly greater RS profile of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Heterochromia iridum → HeterochromiaHeterochromia – The article states that "heterochromia iridum" is specifically when one has one eye of one color, and another eye of another color, while "heterochromia iridis" is when one eye has two colors (also called "partial heterochromia"). While the former seemingly takes up a lot of the article, it also seems to cover the latter, as well as mentioning that "heterochromia" can also affect the skin and eyes. ★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 25, 2025

References

  1. ^ "Optus blames 'significant' outage in Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula on vandalism". ABC News. 26 November 2025. Archived from the original on 26 November 2025. Retrieved 26 November 2025.
  2. ^ "Car review: BYD Atto 2 a new and improved subcompact crossover". The Straits Times. 2025-08-29. ISSN 0585-3923. Retrieved 2025-11-25.
  3. ^ Welford, Ted (2025-11-20). "We drive what is set to become the UK's cheapest plug-in hybrid car". Car. Retrieved 2025-11-25.
  4. ^ "BYD Atto 2 Review 2025". Carwow. Retrieved 2025-11-25.
  5. ^ Campbell, Matt (2025-11-21). "BYD Atto 2 - the perfect first electric SUV for Aussie families?". News.com.au.
  6. ^ "2026 BYD Atto 2 review". CarExpert. 2025-11-20. Retrieved 2025-11-25.
  7. ^ Srinet, Amulya Raj (2025-07-29). "BYD Atto 2 Spied Testing In India - New Affordable Model to Launch Soon?". NDTV.
  8. ^ Leung, Adrian (2025-11-24). "BYD Atto 2 PHEV made global launch in Barcelona with 1,000 km range". CarNewsChina.com. Retrieved 2025-11-25.
  9. ^ "BYD Atto 2 review – best affordable EV in Malaysia? - paultan.org". Paul Tan's Automotive News. 2025-08-29. Retrieved 2025-11-25.
S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 03:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 24, 2025

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.

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Libyan civil war (2014–2020) → Second Libyan Civil WarSecond Libyan Civil War – Multiple high-quality academic, policy, and journalistic sources already refer to this conflict as the Second Libyan Civil War, using the same retrospective naming conventions that Wikipedia applies to older multi-phase civil wars (e.g., First/Second Boer War, First/Second Sudanese Civil War, First/Second Congo War, First/Second English Civil War). Numbering civil wars after the fact is a standard historical practice once multiple related conflicts have occurred, and this conflict has fully concluded. At this point, reliable sources such as Brookings, Chatham House, International Crisis Group, RAND, various peer-reviewed journals, and major international newspapers routinely use the “Second Libyan Civil War” terminology. Wikipedia’s current naming (“Libyan civil war (2014–2020)”) is an internally-created date-based disambiguation that was appropriate during the conflict but is no longer consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of comparable cases. Once a sequence of civil wars exists and widely-used retrospective names appear in the literature, Wikipedia typically adopts the standardized proper-noun naming format. Renaming to Second Libyan Civil War improves clarity, aligns with reliable sources, and brings Libya into consistency with Wikipedia’s established naming conventions for multi-phase civil wars. Prestdobmei (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)|2=LLM content}}[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Killing off → Character death – "Killing off" is an overly vague term that can apply to real life (like "coral are being killed off by global warming"), and also implies a specific form of fictional death in which a character in an ongoing television series that was previously not planned to die was "killed off" due to extenuating circumstances such as an actor's real-life death. This article is about essentially all forms of fictional character death. If moved, "killing off" may have to be deleted entirely due to vagueness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Disc cutter → Diamond disc cutterDiamond disc cutter – I have proposed renaming article so that the community can decide whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with redundant content—or prefer the updated version, which I have restructured and referenced. The main reason for the change is that disc cutters differ from abrasive saws essentially in the type of blade they use. Although both tools may seem similar, the disc cutter uses segmented diamond blades, designed for cooling and precise cutting, while the abrasive saw uses non-metallic abrasive-type blades, which are more prone to thermal wear. Previously, there were two articles that dealt with virtually the same topic, without a clear distinction between the two technologies. I have modified the disc cutter article because most current manufacturers produce motorized machines with diamond blades, which better reflects contemporary industrial reality. Furthermore, this distinction has practical and documentary relevance. For example, in the Louvre robbery (October 2025), a portable gasoline-powered saw with a segmented diamond blade was used, not an abrasive saw. To avoid duplication and confusion, I have excluded all information on abrasive blades from the updated article, which already has its own specific article. Therefore, this renaming proposal seeks a vote on whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with ambiguities—or consolidate the updated version, with clear technical differentiation and multiple inline references.--Mcapdevila (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. mwwv converse∫edits 14:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shetland dialect → ShaetlanShaetlan – As of yesterday, Shaetlan has received an ISO 639:3 code (scz) with the name spelled Shaetlan, which is the autonym of the language. "Shetland Dialect" is now inappropriate for the title of this article when it is considered a language in its own right. The term "Shetland Dialect", while widely used locally, is an exonym, and is now inaccurate. The reason for the spelling "Shaetlan" over "Shetland" is two three-fold - 1) it accurately portrays a large portion of speakers' tendency to pronounce the word with a voiceless /d/, 2) the <ae> reflects the intuitive community spelling convention of primary stress short intercononantal vowel, cf. maet, paet, etc. which haes the same vowel as the first syllable of Shaetlan, & 3) it keeps the language name and place name easily distinguishable when written. This is the style I Hear Dee has adopted while trying to create a standardised orthography for the language. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), because of the use of Shaetlan being exclusive to the language, it would qualify as "unquestionably the primary topic for the name", so "Shaetlan language" seems unnecessary. As per Wikipedia:Article titles, Shaetlan is more precise and more concise, and it is more natural to native Shaetlan speakers as an autonym vs an exonym. This admittedly at the cost of being slightly less recognisable outside of Shetland, however Shaetlan is slowly becoming the new standard name for this language in linguistics circles. I think this is the best compromise here. After this name change, I intend to do a bit of an overhaul of this article to set the record straight on languagehood and a number of other inaccuracies. For full disclosure, I am one of the first few signatories to the ISO code change request application. I am a project co-investigator at I Hear Dee. I am also the person who requested this article be renamed last time! A lot has changed in the last 5 years in the Shetland linguistic scene - at the time I made the last request, the name change was a vast improvement over the previous name, but now is an appropriate time to move on. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Manukau → Manukau CentralManukau Central – I don't believe this area is primary for the term 'Manukau', it gets about equal page views as Manukau City and 4% of readers click through to Manukau City (most readers get here via external Google search I suggest that a disambiguation page be created at Manukau as I do not believe there is a primary topic. The area is often referred to as Manukau Central or Manukau City Centre instead of simply 'Manukau', which is often used for the former Manukau City area. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
06:21, Monday, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1322120788"