close
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

Welcome to Requested moves/Technical requests

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:..."

BERJAYA

If you are here because you want an experienced editor to approve of your new article or proposed rename, you are in the wrong place.

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection or click the big blue button 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. Do not edit the article's talk page, just click the button below.

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 or click the big blue button 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}}

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.
Administration needed

If your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators).

Request a move requiring an administrator

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

@PeaceGoose The lead sentence of the article is In culinary terminology, squab is an immature domestic pigeon, typically under four weeks old, or its meat., so it isn't exclusively talking about their use as food. In solidarity, Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 16:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Page was moved to its current title in 2017 as the primary topic for its title. Either way it would require another RM discussion but consensus rarely favours adding disambiguators where they were previously removed. In solidarity, Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 16:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Cleaned up the dabpage, which is likely unnecessary. Squab is the primary topic, and Squab as food was merged per consensus, so there is nothing that needs to be moved here. 162 etc. (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
DAB can probably be deleted immediately. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, but the majority of the article talks about the meat. I feel like that statement should be removed entirely as it is unrelated to the main topic, along with all other content of the article relating to the pigeon chicks exclusively being removed as Domestic Pigeon already describes squabs (pigeon chicks). PeaceGoose (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You uncovered some inconsistencies and repeats among multiple articles, but those can almost certainly be fixed via standard editing. If one article would be more viable if it stuck to the bird, and another should stick to the food, just correct the text as needed. Be bold and if anyone objects, the textual changes can be discussed at the Talk pages. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'll note that every other American school at Riverdale High School is disambiguated as Riverdale High School (Placename, Statename). 162 etc. (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I already completed the move. Should it be undone? Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Is there a good reason to use a disambiguation tag which is not consistent with other articles? 162 etc. (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I guess not. Undone. @JonRidinger If you want to pursue this, please open a discussion. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This is in fact supported by WP:PLACEDAB: "Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie. If using the country name would still lead to ambiguity, use the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead." However, given that all the others were using the (Placename, Statename) format, I wonder if there is some more specific local consensus that we need to consider. 162 etc. (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Got it. There were many instances early on with school and district titles where well-meaning editors in the Schools Wikiproject tried a consistent title style using the city and state in disambiguation whether they needed it or not, and for smaller high schools like those called Riverdale, they have simply stayed there due to lack of attention. Like I said, another editor had already moved the school in Georgia to "Riverdale High School (Georgia)" and the one in Quebec was already at "Riverdale High School (Quebec)". The Ohio school in question here had been at "Riverdale Local Schools" since 2020 until I re-separated the article about a week ago. Previously it had been moved from "(Ohio)" to "(Hancock County, Ohio)" in 2009 with no reason given for the move, but that was around the time when there was a general push to have every high school use the "(city, state)" format in disambiguation, and have every school district article include the county ("school district, county, state"). --JonRidinger (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Possibly an RM. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 18:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Either individual RMs for each article, or a huge one for all. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 18:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

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

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 19 August 2026" and sign the post for you.

The reasons for the move can be summarized referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1
  • |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
  • |currentN=Current title of page N
  • |newN=New title for page N|}}
...where N represents more pages to be moved. Place a pipe ( | ) at the end just before the final set of braces ( |}} )

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 19 August 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 19 August 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 19 August 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2026‎ (UTC)reply

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



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

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
    Requested move 19 August 2026

    – why Example (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
    Requested move 19 August 2026

    – why Example (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Commenting on a requested move

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

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

    When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

    Closing a requested move

    Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as per WP:RMEC.

    Alternatively, the opener of a discussion can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the requested move has not had any comments yet, or the request was initiated via block evasion. As per WP:WITHDRAW, an opener of a discussion should use strikethrough on the nomination statement when it is prematurely closed through withdrawal.

    Relisting a requested move

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

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

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

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

    Notes

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

    Current discussions

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

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 110 discussions have been relisted.

    August 19, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Washington Irving Middle School (West Virginia) → Washington Irving High School (West Virginia) – The October 2025 requested move was based on the statement that the school "is now a middle school." That is no longer the case. The West Virginia Board of Education approved the closure of Washington Irving Middle School and Mountaineer Middle School and their consolidation into the new Liberty Middle School at the end of the 2024–25 school year.West Virginia Department of Education Before the 2025 move, this article was titled Washington Irving High School (West Virginia), and much of the article concerns the history of Washington Irving High School, including its alumni and athletics. With Washington Irving Middle School now closed, the principal reason given for the 2025 move no longer applies. I propose restoring the title Washington Irving High School (West Virginia), with the later use of the building as Washington Irving Middle School covered in the article's history. The article makes little sense labeled as the middle school, and really has no historical significance as a middle school like the notable alumni and state championships it has as a high school. Garkeith (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Diplostraca → Cladocera – The move to "Diplostraca" a few years ago was not a good decision. This article has always been about cladocerans/"water fleas", and its contents do not cover clam shrimp, which makes the current state of the article misleading because the lead makes it seem like it covers clam shrimp when it really does not (with apologies to Jts, who was just trying to make the best of a bad situation). There is no doubt that "Cladocera" is a valid clade that does not include the clam shrimp. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Cladocera,_Diplostraca,_water_fleas_and_clam_shrimp, the WORMS position that Cladocera=Diplostraca is not widely accepted in the literature. Diplostraca should be made into its own page or made as a redirect to Branchiopoda where the broader macro-taxonomy can be discussed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 18, 2026

    • (Discuss) – OutRun → OutRun (series) – I can't really think of many disambiguation methods that are more confusing this. I don't really care whether either the game or the series should have a space or not, either way Out Run and OutRun should both redirect to the video game, and Out Run (series) and OutRun (series) should both redirect to the series. Anything else is madness. I'm gonna posit that since the video game has had a GA article for a long time and this article was created only a few days ago that more people are probably looking for the video game article. This is also bolstered by the fact that most of the other game articles here are incomplete in some way. Whipmywillows (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Muḥammad ibn 'Abdallāh Hassan → Mohammed Abdullah (Rer-Amar) – On google scholar, the current variation of his name has literally 1 hit, and even that search return is likely plagiarized from Wikipedia since it publishing postdates the rendering of the current article title. The variation Mohammed Abdullah gets the most search returns at in the triple digits, versus handful for Mohammed Abdallah; perhaps a dozen for Muhammad Abdallah and figures in between for other variations. MOS:IDENTITY advices that wikipedia articles uses titles in line with how a person describes themselves. Since the subject of this article has never identified in a 3-pronged patronymic naming style, it should not be on wikipedia to force-feed this 3-pronged patronymic naming system upon the article title. His signatue is signed in Arabic with only his first two names: File:The Seal of the Mad Mullah.png without Hassan embedded in his name. Likewise for valedictions either by himself or sent to him in letters likewise typically lack the Hassan patronymic line. You see this in this 1902 valediction where he is in correspondance with British colonial forces. You see the same in this valediction in his correspondance with Italian colonial forces. Even in treaties, which are the most important documents at hand uses "followers of the sayid mohammed bin abdillah", without the patronym Hassan. In this entry we have the British colonial office calling him sheekh "Mohammad Abdulla", again without the superfluous suffix. One of the most important naming conventions consitute the subject and his relationship with his Salihiya teacher who calls him Mohamed Abdulla, notable since they formed an overseer and subordinate relationship. Likewise the policy WP:CRITERIA has a header for WP:PRECISION and being WP:CONSISTENT. For consistency in article titles, if we look at similar articles, namely other dervish leaders such as Ismail Mire, and Haji Sudi, they are titled with their nisbas, rather than the patronymic "Elmi" and "Ahmed Warsame". For being WP:CONCISE, it also works since patronymic names can be notoriously endless since it follows the patrilineal line. For WP:PRECISION, the disambiguation page Mohamed Abdullah Hassan has 7 entries as of now, whilst iterations commonly used to interlink to the subset of this page on wikipedia as of now such as Mohammed Hassan has entries in the dozens. As such the nisba "Rer-Amar" sufficiently identifies and distinguishes the scope of this article and is verifiably used by both colonial era sources and more contemporary sources: such as this page 266 of Jaamac Cumar Ciise's book and page 259 of Francesco Saverio Caroselli's book. The nisba "Rer Amar" in the last wikilink is also used for all mentioned relatives of Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, once again, satisfying Wikipedia's WP:CONSISTENT guideline. In summary, the current title is an example of an ambiguous, superfluous, and exonymic anachronism, whereas the proposed title conforms with wkipedia guidelines requiring a disambiguated, concise, self-identifing name thats consistent with similar articles. ~2026-44887-24 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Mary → Mary (disambiguation) – The strongest basis to move Mary, mother of Jesus to Mary is the second critreion at WP:PTOPIC. Mary has substantially greater long-term significance than any other topic listed at Mary, spanning across Christianity, Islam, art, literature, music, and wider culture over roughly 2 millennia.[1][2][3]
      This also answers the argument raised in previous RMs that the given name itself prevents any primary topic from being made. The widespread use of Mary in Christian societies was itself substantially influenced by veneration of Mary, Mother of Jesus.[4][5] the article Mary (name) states that reverence for her is "in large part responsible" for use of the name and its variants.[4][5] This is not itself determinative of WP:PTOPIC but it weakens treating the cultural significance of the given name as truly independent of this Mary.
      The pageview objection raised in the 2022 RM is less persuasive. Pure raw views for Mary, Queen of Scots, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Teck, etc. dont show what readers mean when they search for the unqualified term Mary. Readers searching for these articles may simply have searched for their full names. Most competing figures raised in previous RMs such as those listed above are normally distinguehed by another title, qualifier, or name. But the mother of Jesus is very commonly referred to simply as Mary.[6][7][8]The WikiNav objection raised in the 2022 RM is likewise not conclusive as WP:PTOPIC treats WikiNav only as a supporting tool and cautions that it shows a single month of traffic, filters scarce data and may produce inaccurate figures where redirects are not fully accounted for. at most, this makes usage inconclusive, not long-term significance
      WP:PTOPIC doesnt require the same topic to prevail under both usage and long-term significance. Even if the usage is inconclusive, the long term significance is unusally strong here. None of the other meanings of Mary have any comparable enduring significance across cultures, fields, and two millennia.[1][2][3]
      Following this, the disambiguation page should therefore be moved to Mary (disambiguation), with Mary occupied this (Mary, mother of Jesus) present article 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Battle of Ctesiphon (263) → Odaenathus' Persian campaigns – The current title implies that the subject was a distinct battle fought at Ctesiphon in 263. The surviving evidence instead concerns a broader series of military operations by Odaenathus against the Sasanian Empire, culminating in his advance to and siege of Ctesiphon. The proposed title more accurately reflects the scope of the article and avoids presenting a disputed reconstruction as an established battle. Zosimus describes Odaenathus attacking the Persians, recovering Nisibis, and advancing to Ctesiphon, where the Persians were confined within their fortifications while Odaenathus devastated the surrounding territory. He does not identify Shapur I as the commander of the forces at Ctesiphon. Eutropius likewise describes Odaenathus as advancing as far as Ctesiphon without describing a distinct battle there. The Historia Augusta gives a more detailed and rhetorical account of fighting around the Persian position at Ctesiphon, but its account does not establish the modern infobox's characterization of a battle between Odaenathus and Shapur I. Modern scholarship also treats the event in the context of Odaenathus' wider Persian campaigns. Hartmann reconstructs a campaign beginning in 262, in which Odaenathus recovered Roman territory in northern Mesopotamia, advanced through Babylonia to Ctesiphon, and returned to Syria in 263. Hartmann further reconstructs a second Persian campaign in 266/267. He states that there was apparently no direct military confrontation between Odaenathus and Shapur I during the first campaign. The proposed title therefore treats the Ctesiphon operation as part of Odaenathus' wider Persian campaigns rather than as an independently established battle. It also accommodates the evidence for a second campaign toward Ctesiphon. Sources: Hartmann, Udo. "Palmyra and the Third-Century Crisis." In The Oxford Handbook of Palmyra. Oxford University Press, 2024. Zosimus, New History, 1.39. Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, 9.10. Historia Augusta, "The Two Gallieni", 10–12. Requested outcome: Move the article from Battle of Ctesiphon (263) to Odaenathus' Persian campaigns or Odaenathus' Ctesiphon campaigns or Sieges of Ctesiphon or whatever you find appropriate and historically accurate. ~2026-45181-18 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – NGC 6164 → ? – While NGC 6164 and 6165 are catalogued as seperate objects, they are both part of the same emission nebula (the Dragon's Egg). I think this article should be moved to something like NGC 6164/5 (or whatever appropriate formatting to incl. both) and the lead could say something like The Dragon's Egg nebula, comprised of NGC 6164 and NGC 6165, is an emission nebula... Washcarso0708 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Habibti → Habibti (racehorse) – Habibti (album) has been getting much more views than the racehorse, you can see here that it spiked to 700 pageviews when the album released; whilst averaging just a few page views daily before. This comparison shows that even in logarithmic scale, Habibti (album) still gets way more page views than Habibti (racehorse). Pageviews alone do not decide which article is the primary topic, but I think they do a great job representing the relevancy per article here. Cheromaniii (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 17, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Italian settlers in Libya → Italian Libyans – Consistency with most other similar articles (especially Italian Eritreans, Italian Somalis), plus greater precision, as the article covers, or should strive to cover, not only Italian settlers in Libya, but also the development of Italian Libyans as a distinct community. Article was changed to current title after a rather irregular vote (one comment against, one vote in favour, move went through) 17 years ago. Reasoning behind current title was largely based on an apparent lack of sources using the term "Italian Libyans", which is simply not the case, at least not now. See, for instance, the following examples: *"Only the advent of the new nationalistic regimes would violently destroy all traces of the ancien régime, definitely breaking up the compromise with the ex-colonists, even though many of them by now considered themselves more as Italian Libyans and Italian Eritreans than just Italians." Gian-Luca Podesta, Colonists and “Demographic” Colonists. Family and Society in Italian Africa, Annales de démographie historique, 2 (122), 2011: 225. *"In contrast to their silence regarding Libyan victims of colonialism, the Italian press devoted significant attention to the 20,000 Italian-Libyans expropriated and exiled by Qadhafi in the 1970s, who were mostly critical of the Treaty." Chiara De Cesari, "The paradoxes of colonial reparation: Foreclosing memory and the 2008 Italy–Libya Friendship Treaty", Memory Studies 5 (3), 2012: 321. *Oliviero Casacchia & Luisa Natale, "Residential segregation of the Italian Libyan population in Rome half a century after repatriation", Studi Emigrazione LV 209, 2018. [NB: the term is used throughout the article] *"Accordingly, the new government pledged to expel the Italian Libyans, evacuate the foreign military bases, maintain its neutrality between the superpowers, and achieve national unity and Arab unity." Narasingha P. Sil, "Muammar al-Qaddafi", EBSCO Research Starters, 2024. I believe the move is entirely uncontroversial, but apparently protocol dictates that, with a requested move having been performed earlier, and the proposed new title being a current redirect, this is the procedure to follow. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – EMI (disambiguation) → EMI – Navigating to this disambiguation page is currently more difficult than it needs to be for readers who may want some variation of this initialism like the EMI Group, when you search "emi", you should land on this page with its variety of options, not the name. The musical publishing group is what appears most from a web search per WP:DPT so would be the most popular item on this list, not the name. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. — Raihanur (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Kurnool Airport → Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy Airport – Like how Delhi airport is IGI Airport, Hyderabad Airport in Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, like how Visakhapatnam Bhogapuram Airport is Alluri Sitarama Raju Airport and how Bangalore airport is Kempegowda airport. This airport is also Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy Airport, named after a freedom fighter, I believe this is an uncontroversial move, its named after the freedomfighter like Alluri Sitarama Raju after whom Bhogapuram airport is named. Now if you guys say people commonly call hyderabad airport as Rajiv Gandhi International airport and Delhi airport as IGI airport, generally people call them delhi and hyd airport, but wikipedia name is IGI and RGIA, in same way maintain consistency here too. Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 07:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Macau Giant Pandas → Macau Black Bears – This is not your standard issue. The team is known by three names. In its home league in Macau, the team is still known as the Macau Black Bears despite the rebrand to the Macau Black Knights in February 2026 for international tournaments. Then in June 2026, the team go on to become the Macau Giant Pandas which is their identity in the Philippine Basketball Association where they play as the guest team. The organization is still legally named as the Macau Black Bears as May 2026 according to the Legal Affairs Bureau of Macau. While the Giant Pandas' participation in the PBA is the most visible. Its odd that we are giving due prominence to their iteration participating in a foreign league as a guest team. Therefore the "Macau Black Bears" is the most "neutral" descriptor for the team for the lack of the better word. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Darja Vidmanova → Darja Viďmanova – The present title omits the caron (ď) in the subject’s surname. Although the WTA, ITF and her English-facing profiles use the ASCII form ‘Vidmanova’, more precise official and biographical sources support ‘Viďmanova’. Most importantly, a 2016 Czech Ministry of the Interior document concerning her grant of Czech citizenship records her name as ‘Darja Viďmanova’. A substantially more recent exclusive interview, published by Livesport Zprávy on 25 September 2025, likewise uses ‘Viďmanova’ consistently and expressly explains that, because she was born in Russia, her surname is written with a short final “a”. This is unusually specific evidence that ‘Viďmanova’, rather than the fully Czechised ‘Viďmanová’, represents the appropriate diacritic spelling of her surname.[9][10] There is also substantial current usage of the closely related form ‘Viďmanová’. The Czech Tennis Federation’s official lists of national representatives for both 2025 and 2026 give her name as ‘Viďmanová’, as does its current news coverage. The English-language specialist publication Tennis.com also uses ‘Darja Viďmanová’. These sources demonstrate that preserving the Czech consonantal diacritic is not an obsolete, speculative or editor-created spelling; it is current usage by her national federation and by an English-language tennis publication.[11][12][13] Under MOS:DIACRITICS, proper names written in the Latin alphabet normally retain their special characters unless a well-established English replacement exists. ‘Vidmanova’ does not appear to be an English exonym or translated name; it is the diacritic-free form used in international tennis databases. English Wikipedia ordinarily retains Czech diacritics in the names of tennis players even where the WTA and ITF suppress them. The evidence concerning the final vowel should nevertheless be distinguished from the evidence concerning the caron. The federation and many Czech publications regularise the surname to the conventionally Czech feminine form ‘Viďmanová’, but both the official citizenship document and the 2025 biographical interview support the short-final-’‘a’’ form ‘Viďmanova’. The proposed title therefore restores the demonstrably supported consonantal diacritic without imposing the Czech feminine ending that the more name-specific sources indicate she does not use. The previous requested move relied heavily on the unaccented forms displayed by the WTA, ITF, the University of Georgia and the subject’s English-facing accounts. Those remain relevant evidence, and ‘Darja Vidmanova’ should of course remain a redirect. However, the Ministry record and especially the September 2025 interview provide more specific evidence concerning the surname’s actual spelling than a database or social-media form that may omit diacritics for international accessibility. The subsequent 2025 and 2026 federation rosters further demonstrate continuing official use of the diacritic. Accordingly, ‘Darja Viďmanova’ best reconciles the subject-specific evidence, current institutional usage and Wikipedia’s normal retention of Latin-script diacritics. ‘Darja Viďmanová’ should also remain a redirect and may be mentioned in the lead as the form commonly used in Czech sources. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 04:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 16, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Hildebrando Pompeu Pinto Accioli → Hildebrando Accioly – This form is almost exclusively used in reliable English-language sources (see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCP). The Ngram Viewer shows zero English-language use of the forms ending in 'i' and a preference for the form without middle names. Contemporary English-language international-law literature consistently uses this form (e.g. author references in the American Journal of International Law from 1934", "1944", "1949" and "1956") as does the Journal of the International Commission of Jurists in 1961 and the European Journal of International Law in 2024. His works were published under this name, which is also retained in modern editions of his Manual de Direito Internacional Público (see here). The forms Accioli and Acióli occur in Portuguese-language sources as orthographically normalized variants, as Brazil’s 1943 Portuguese Orthographic Form provided that proper nouns are subject to the same rules as common nouns. The Portuguese Wikipedia article is accordingly titled ; but WP:CONSISTENT: “It is not considered important for article titles on the English Wikipedia to be consistent with the titles of corresponding articles on Wikipedia in other languages.” Redirects should be created from the forms with Accioli and Acióli and/or middle names. Joriki (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 10:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 15, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Trolley Square shooting → 2007 Trolley Square shooting – Alt: Trolley Square massacre. The current name follows the typical naming convention of where and what, and per WP:NCWWW and it failing WP:NOYEAR, the year should be included in the title as the majority of articles should say when as well. The current title fails NOYEAR because the event does not have a unique common name, it is not one of the most well-known or impactful shootings in the United States. However, if the "Trolley Square massacre" naming is deemed to be a sufficiently WP:COMMONNAME, it can go without a year as it no longer follows the typical naming scheme of shootings and instead uses an unusual descriptor that should only be applied through sufficient common name usage. I see a lot of usage of both the term "massacre" and "shooting". I provided some comparison below of "massacre" vs. "shooting" in sources (even by the same outlets using both), but please compare with your own searches. I'm not sure how valuable Google search trends are in this instance, but here is a comparison of state () national () and worldwide (). "massacre" usage: "shooting" usage: Raskuly 🐰 07:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Somaliland campaign → Dervish War – The current title "Somaliland campaign" is both inaccurate and non-neutral per WP:NPOV. "Somaliland" was not an official political entity at the time, the territory was British Somaliland, and the fighting extended well beyond it into the Ogaden and Italian Somaliland, making the title geographically misleading. More fundamentally it frames the conflict as a British military operation rather than a war between recognised parties, which misrepresents its nature and scale. "Dervish War" is the most accurate replacement because Hassan formally constituted the Dervish State as a political entity, this was its official name, not a nickname or external label. Wikipedia convention names wars after their belligerents, and the Dervish State was the primary and consistent belligerent throughout the entire 20 year conflict regardless of which colonial powers were involved at any given time. The proposed alternative of "Dervish War (Mad Mullah)" is rejected on the grounds that "Mad Mullah" was a deliberate British propaganda label designed to delegitimise Hassan's movement and should not be perpetuated in any form per WP:NPOV. The Sudan ambiguity concern is overstated, the Mahdist War has a well established independent name universally used in the literature, and a simple disambiguation page resolves any remaining overlap. Slowsilversoldier (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Battle of Philippeville → Philippeville massacre – Per Ngrams, "Battle of Philippeville" has no results, while "Philippeville massacre" is widely used. Looking at standard search results, "Battle of Philippeville" appears to be a Wikipedia invention. As a neutral descriptive title, "Battle of Philippeville" is less than ideal, considering that what happened in Philippeville and nearby settlements was that Algerian rebels massacred over a hundred European and pro-French Algerian civilians, which the French responded to by upping the stakes and massacring thousands of Algerian civilians. Some sources use "Philippeville Massacre", capital "M", but most use "Philippeville massacre". –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 21:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Steve Miller (author, born 1957) → Steve Miller (journalist) – The current disambiguator "(author, born 1957)" includes a birth year that does not appear anywhere in the article body itself — it is used solely in the page title and infobox. Since the year is not discussed, sourced in-text, or relevant to the content of the article, it serves no disambiguation purpose that a more standard descriptor couldn't accomplish. "Steve Miller (journalist)" would still clearly distinguish this article from Steve Miller (musician) and other articles under Steve Miller (disambiguation), using the subject's primary occupation rather than a birth year, consistent with how most other disambiguated biography titles on Wikipedia are formatted (e.g., by occupation rather than by birth year, per WP:NCP). This also aligns with WP:DOB, which counsels against including a birth date/year for subjects who are not high-profile public figures when it is not necessary for disambiguation or encyclopedic value and the subject has raised privacy concerns. Erichewitt (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Cinnamomum cassia → Cinnamomum aromaticum – Plants of the World Online currently accepts Cinnamomum aromaticum Nees for the taxon treated in this article. The name Cinnamomum cassia (L.) J.Presl is nomenclaturally based on Laurus cassia L. and is currently treated by POWO as a synonym of Neolitsea cassia, while C. cassia Nees ex Blume is an illegitimate later homonym treated as a synonym of Cinnamomum burmanni. I therefore propose moving the article to Cinnamomum aromaticum, while retaining C. cassia prominently as a widely used alternative taxonomic treatment. Eri0n0ire (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Saba Lobzhanidze → Saba Lobjanidze – Per WP:COMMONNAME. UEFA, MLS and the player's own official accounts all render the name "Lobjanidze"; these were raised on this talk page in December 2024 and went unanswered. The article has since been written almost entirely under that spelling. "Lobjanidze" appears 24 times in the body against 4 for "Lobzhanidze", and the lead sentence bolds Saba Lobjanidze, contradicting the current title per MOS:BOLDTITLE. The four remaining instances are the DEFAULTSORT, two goal-table captions and one source title. The title is now the outlier rather than the standard. Note that raw search counts for "Lobzhanidze" across Wikipedia are not evidence here, as it is a common Georgian surname borne by unrelated subjects. Kupo00 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Joe Hill (activist) → Joe Hill – Clear primary topic under PT2. Searching Google Scholar, all results within the first few pages are about the labor organizer, as opposed to the author (the other most prominent topic under the name). Even searching "Joe Hill" "writer" on Google Scholar and Google Books brings up almost exclusively mentions of the organizer's writings. Out of the other topics on the disambiguation page, five are named directly after him, including a museum, charity, film, song, award, and opera in his honor (the writer himself also seems to be named for him, but that is neither here nor there), while the remaining entries are all pseudonyms or names which could be reasonably be confused with Joe Hill. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 14, 2026

    • (Discuss) – NFL Kickoff → NFL Kickoff Game – I believe that the recent decision to cut down the title to just "NFL Kickoff" was done with very weak consensus, and in fact, it wasn't even the original intent of that discussion. I feel this is has created confusion between the NFL Kickoff Game and the actual kickoff at the beginning of a game, and additionally, I feel we are too overly relying on what official NFL branding is, when in reality it is our job to look to what independent, reliable sources say. In this case, I see several newspapers from Newspapers.com that still refer to it as the "NFL Kickoff Game". The previous title, in my opinion, was a perfectly fine natural disambiguation. Red0ctober22 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 03:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 13, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Initial sound rule → Word-initial /l/ and /n/ in Korean – Initial sound rule → Word-initial /l/ and /n/ in Korean This phrasing "initial sound rule" is not something I've ever encountered in academic literature. It's likely an ad-hoc translation of the term 두음법칙 by the creator of this Wikipedia article. I propose change per WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, I've seen: * "Word-initial /l/ and /n/" in The Languages of Korea (2012) p. 171 * "Word-initial /l/ and /n/" in The Korean Language (2001) p. 65 * "Word-initial /l/ and /n/" in The Korean Langauge (2000) p. 27 * "Word-initial /l/ and /n/" in The Korean Language (2006) p. 171 * "Word-initial /l/ and /n/" in The Sounds of Korean (2012) p. 212 I'm reluctant to use "/l/" and "/n/" on Wikipedia because that notation only makes sense with context of language, but I can be convinced otherwise grapesurgeon (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC) (edited: see below) grapesurgeon (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Vyzas F.C. → Vyzas Megara F.C. – The club's official name is A.G.S. Vyzas Megara (Αθλητικός Γυμναστικός Σύλλογος Βύζας Μεγάρων), as "Megara" is the English name of the city in which they are based. Therefore, the proposed title reflects more accurately the club's official name than the current title. BEN917 10:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Port Hamilton → Geomundo – After many years without discussion, it is worth considering bringing the name of the article in line with both, the internationally recognized name of the island as well as the official government designation. Likewise, "Kŏmundo" (the McCune-Reischauer romanization of the island's name) has been used in English language scholarship since at least 1982. Hsanct (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Fuchs Group → Fuchs Gruppe – Fuchs Group is the established English designation of Fuchs SE, the MDAX-listed lubricants manufacturer in Mannheim, which brands itself as Fuchs Group throughout its English-language communications and is several times larger by revenue and English-language coverage. The current title is therefore ambiguous and points readers to the wrong company. English-language sources refer to the subject of this article as Fuchs Gruppe, including its own English-language site at fuchsgruppe.com/en and independent coverage such as Grant Thornton UK; the name is a proper noun left untranslated in English, comparable to Deutsche Bahn. The proposed title is more precise (WP:PRECISION) and provides natural disambiguation without a parenthetical qualifier. "Fuchs Group" should be retargeted to Fuchs SE after the move, with a hatnote there pointing here. MB at Fuchs (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 12:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    August 12, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Kalfa → Kalfa (harem title) – Per the only other source in the article, kalfa is a more general term for a second-level craftsman, between apprentice and master. Having the whole article except for one line be about a particular kind of kalfa doesn't seem correct. Disambiguating the title makes it clearer, although there isn't a more-general article at the base title. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Hristo Kyuchukov → Huseyin Kyuchuk – Proposing a move to Huseyin Kyuchuk. He got his birth name back in 2024, and recent sources and academic publications have started using it. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should reflect what he's being published as now. A few sources showing the change: * March 2025 University of Białystok press release lists him as "Prof. Dr. Huseyin S. Kyuchuk (Hristo Kyuchukov)". * 2025 papers in Romani Studies credit him under Huseyin Kyuchuk. * His ORCID profile lists Huseyin S. Kyuchuk as his primary name. * December 2024 interview with Yaron Matras and Anastasia Tambovtseva explains the name restoration. Since current sources use Huseyin Kyuchuk, moving the page here matches the exact spelling in his publications. ~2026-44404-55 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Elapsed listings

    Shortcut
    The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
    • (Discuss) – Resumption of meiosis → Resumption of meiosis in oocytes – Or "in oogenesis", per MOS:PRECISION. On one hand the term "resumption of meiosis" is in fact exclusively used in reproductive biology in meaning described in the article, however, from a Scholar search it seems like it's rarely used explicite, but often it's precised that this resumption specifically concerns oocytes. As much as this would be my original research, I really belive this might be confusing to non-experts like graduate students, and the preference to add mention of oocytes or oogenesis can beeasily demonstrated by searching science papers databases. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Ibai → Ibai (given name)Ibai (given name) – the internet celebrity, known mononymously as Ibai, is the primary topic for Ibai. Forbes named him the most influential Spanish influencer, he hosts the most viewed internet broadcast, which garnered over nine million concurrent viewers last year, and his social media accounts have tens of million followers. The other holders of the name are cyclists and footballers not known mononymously and less notable. Over the last 5 years, the internet celebrity has received 80% of the views. A majority of clicks on this disambig go to the internet celebrity. I am not familiar with the protocol for moving to mononyms (e.g., Beyonce), but the internet celebrity definitely merits a primary redirect 1brianm7 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
    • (Discuss) – Two-tier policing → Two-tier policing theory – Per WP:POVNAMING the current title is not neutral as it presents "Two-tier policing" as fact, which is far from the case. The title should clearly identify that it is a theory (in common usage of the term, not the scientific usage) and not fact. While a lot of sources do use the term "two-tier policing" it is mostly attributed with quotation marks, therefore any WP:COMMONNAME argument for it is weak as reliable sources usually don't use it in their own words. Per the naturalness criteria of WP:AT we ought to use a title that best describes what the article is about. TarnishedPathtalk 12:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Europeans in Medieval China → Medieval Europeans in Imperial China – As per @Donald Trung in The bad title is spilling over:

      The problem with this title is that it makes little sense in Chinese historiography which generally uses "Ancient" (Pre-Qin), "Imperial" (Qin-Qing), and "Modern" (1912 onwards) the term "Medieval" is an oddball. Medieval in European historiography begins with the fall of the Western Roman Empire which isn't exactly an event directly relevant to Chinese history. In earlier conversations there seemed to be some consensus regarding changing the title but this wasn't implemented. I suggest changing it to something like "Medieval Europeans in China" or "Medieval Europeans in Imperial China" as this article still covers the early Ming dynasty but later contacts between Europe and the Ming are not mentioned here. This change would make more sense as "Medieval Europeans" would be historiographic consistent as "Medieval" mostly refers to Western European history and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Europeans from Medieval Europe are "Medieval Europeans".

      — User:Donald Trung

      See also discussion under heading Talk:Europeans in Medieval China#Title. I will add an additional criticism that this framing of the article seems, to some degree, to be inherently POV (see: WP:NPOV), but perhaps this is an issue with my lack of knowledge of the Historiography of the Middle Ages and/or Historiography of China (why would we be concerned specifically with the discussion of Europeans in China during the middle ages?). Thus, I ask anyone reviewing this request whether they see the term "Medieval China" used extensively enough in academic analysis to justify the orientation of an article around it—and whether, if that is the case, the periodization of the said "Medieval China" similar enough to that of Medieval Europe that it is reasonable to bind an article invoking both concepts to the same temporal period. I suppose the interest potential in this subject from general audiences, and the reasonable want to separate out medieval contacts from those of the Modern era, would justify the topical scope of this article in spite of any concerns related to POV, valid or not. After all, one might treat this as a distinct subject from other topics relating to Europeans in China—though one wonders why we might not make this article something like "Europeans in China prior to the Modern Era", or "Europeans in Africa prior to the Age of Exploration", or something shorter than that, if we want to follow naming guidelines. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Project 596 → 596 (nuclear test)596 (nuclear test) – Scholars do not use this wording, and any online mention along the lines of WP:COMMONNAME of "Project 596" is likely to stem from this page seemingly inventing it. Each article should also make it clearer that these are the codenames of the devices and designs, the test events themselves were codenamed (Operation) 21-41, 21-72, and 21-73 respectively. See Zhang: China conducted twenty-three atmospheric nuclear tests, including seventeen airburst tests—sixteen air-dropped (codenamed 21-7x) by aircrafts over an airburst center, and one by DF-2A missile (21-2) over twenty kilometers away from the airburst center. It also conducted six surface nuclear tests (codenames 21-4x), twenty-three underground nuclear tests including eight tunnel tests (codenamed 21-9 x), and fifteen vertical shaft tests (codenamed 21-8x). See Reed, 2008, The Chinese nuclear tests, 1964–1996 and Zhang, 2025, The Untold Story of China's Nuclear Weapon Development and Testing. Doeze (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 09:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Novopavlivka offensive → Dnipropetrovsk Oblast offensive (2025–present) – I had already expressed concerns over this article's scope at Talk:Novopavlivka offensive#Scope (I'll be pinging some users from that discussion). Essentially I expressed some doubt over the decision to focus this article on the settlement of Novopavlivka. To me it seemed back then, and still does, that this article focused more simply on Russian advances into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast than on this little settlement. The article itself currently states the following: The locality itself [Novopavlivka] is not particularly strategic, though its location just over the border of the Dnipropetrovsk region makes it significant as Russia has not entered this oblast in the first three years of their full-scale invasion. Therefore, it would mainly mark a moral blow for Ukraine, should Russia cross into the Dnipropetrovsk region and seize Novopavlivka. It puts more weight on the simple fact that Russia has reentered this oblast than on the advances towards this particular settlement, and I would argue WP:RS coverage has focused more on this too. Novopavlivka is a small settlement of 3,439 people (2001). Typically we've had articles on offensives on specific settlements for small towns, larger than this one. I Know I'm Not Alone, the author of much of this article, did make some fair defense on the use of Novopavlivka as the article's focus at the aforementioned discussion. Nonetheless, as you can see on the map (outdated by the way), most of the territory taken during the offensive covered in this article is located in a different part of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, near Velykomykhailivka. IiSmxyzXX also made some argumentation on this point and on the notion that this offensive being focused on Novopavlivka specifically might be WP:OR. I believe sources have focused more on the simple fact that Russia has achieved advances in a different oblast beyond Donetsk Oblast. This article is notable in my opinion largely due to this psychological and PR effect. Sources cited in this article seem to struggle giving this offensive a particular strategic sense, and I don't think there's many capable of doing this among the sources not already cited. Thus, I would like to propose renaming this article to better reflect its focus on, simply, Russian advances into this oblast beyond the Donbas region. It is necessary to differentiate these advances from the ones that took place in 2022 (see more at Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast#2022) and also to note the fact that this offensive is apparently still ongoing (though this article should be updated after the events of the 2026 Southern Ukraine counteroffensive). Such a format title is already employed in this topic area (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), Dnieper campaign (2022–present)) and it suggests treating the topic in a similar fashion to other in my opinion comparable cases, such as the 2025 Sumy offensive. We could still mention Novopavlivka in some section header, it would be completely fair in my view to divide this article into two axes, one for Novopavlivka and another for Velykomykhailivka (we've already done stuff like this, see the sections at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive). "Dnipropetrovsk offensive (2025–present)" could also be an alternative WP:CONSISTENT with the aforementioned Sumy offensive that has taken place in the oblast and not the city, and in this particular case it would be unambiguous as the capital is not called Dnipropetrovsk but Dnipro. But then we also have Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign for example. And given the apparent lack of a strategic single focus, with this article focusing more on military engagements taking place on a specific defined area, "campaign" might be a better choice over "offensive". I invite editors to discuss all possible options. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 00:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 11:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

    References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
    1. 1 2 Pelikan, Jaroslav (10 September 1998). "Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture". Yale University Press. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
    2. 1 2 Rubin, Miri (16 March 2010). "Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary". Yale University Press. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
    3. 1 2 "The Cult of the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages". The Metropolitan Museum of Art. October 2001. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
    4. 1 2 Hanks, Patrick; Hodges, Flavia (1990). A Dictionary of First Names. Oxford University Press. p. 228.
    5. 1 2 "Meaning, origin and history of the name Mary". Behind the Name. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
    6. ↑ "Mary". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
    7. ↑ "Mary Definition & Meaning". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
    8. ↑ "Mary definition and meaning". Collins English Dictionary. HarperCollins. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
    9. ↑ "Č. j. MV-128506-2/VS-2016" [File no. MV-128506-2/VS-2016] (in Czech). Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky. 22 September 2016. p. 2. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    10. ↑ Teruzzi, Kateřina (25 September 2025). "Češka s ruskými kořeny: Chci v Americe žít i hrát, má jasno Viďmanova" [Czech player with Russian roots: I want to live and play in America, Viďmanova is clear]. TenisPortal.cz (in Czech). Livesport. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    11. ↑ "Seznam reprezentantů 2025" [List of national representatives 2025] (PDF) (in Czech). Český tenisový svaz. p. 3. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    12. ↑ "Seznam reprezentantů 2026" [List of national representatives 2026] (PDF) (in Czech). Český tenisový svaz. p. 3. Retrieved 6 August 2026.
    13. ↑ "Kristina Liutova vs Darja Viďmanová · Final · WTA Memphis". Tennis.com. 2 August 2026. Retrieved 6 August 2026.

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1369205601"