Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). 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. 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.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion 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

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

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 discussion (especially no recent 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 such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. 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.

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • 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=reason for move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Supported by the IPC usage here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Amakuru: so why in the page History of Islam in Southern Italy, at least until the second paragraph, "Southern" is always written with a capital letter? JackkBrown (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This request is now moot and can be removed. Yung Miami's name was simply redirected to her group, City Girls. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a renaming in 2010 to add the diacritics, with an edit summary about consistency with other Cà Mau renames, so this seems like a WP:PCM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BarrelProof: That's because they were not aware of the fact that almost all of other airport names are still diacriticless. The airport name should be consistent with other airport names, not with other city or town name. This move completely broke the consistency. For example, Buôn Ma Thuột and Buon Ma Thuot Airport, Đồng Hới and Dong Hoi Airport. Why did no one move these two titles to diacritics for consistency with the city names? So the solution here would be: either move all of the others to diacritics, or move these back to diacriticless. I'm fine with either. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a renaming in 2017 to add the diacritics, so this seems like a WP:PCM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator needed

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

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") 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, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. 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 3 December 2023" 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

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
| 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, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

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 3 December 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 3 December 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 3 December 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.
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 3 December 2023

– why Example (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 3 December 2023

– why Example (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

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.


  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 is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 47 discussions have been relisted.

December 3, 2023

  • (Discuss)Clam AntiVirusClamAV – "ClamAV" is the official, trademarked name of the software and to my knowledge has always been its functional name (as in file names and internal documentation) and its common name in plain speech. I can only guess that the motivation for the current expansion in the title is to avoid ambiguity, but I don't believe that should apply here since "ClamAV" is being used as a proper name rather than merely an abbreviation, and I don't see a practical concern that this name is ambiguous - "ClamAV" already redirects here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2, 2023

  • (Discuss)HolywellHolywell (disambiguation) – The Flintshire town has the most commonly visited page from the DAB page, and it's visited more often than the other place articles linked to from the DAB page are in total. I don't know if you can glean any useful information from the ngram page. The Holywell DAB page was only visited 122 times in October, but WikiNav has some statistics for it anyway.[1] 38 visitors went on to the Holywell, Flintshire article, 29 visits were filtered from the results, and none are recorded for any other destination. This does, at least, show that most of links people followed to another article from the DAB page were to the Flintshire town. September's data appears similar, but I don't know how to get a "filtered" total for it. Holywell, Flintshire is more frequently visited than the other Holywell pages, with 20,980 visits over a year compared with 7,923 for the Cornish Holywell[2] and 10,019 in total for the various other places listed on the DAB page.[3] Given how few people visit the DAB page, I don't think a hatnote would need to be more than just {{about|the town in Flintshire}} after this move.


  1. ^ "WikiNav (Holywell)". Retrieved 18 November 2023.
  2. ^ "Pageviews Analysis". Retrieved 18 November 2023.
  3. ^ "Pageviews Analysis". Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Aoeuidhtns (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Birka female Viking warriorBj 581 – I think this page should be moved to Bj 581 because it is more neutral and more academic. There is no consensus that Bj 581 is a warrior. All sides of the academic debate have referred to her as Bj 581. The grave was called that before she was known to be she. It is more unique. If another weapons grave in Birka is found to have a female occupant, then the article would have to be moved anyway. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Stanley Meyer's water fuel cellwater fuel cell – This should be a completely uncontroversial move as the target already redirects here, but as a result of a train-wreck RM over a decade ago we're in an awkward spot here. Titles are not endorsements; by far the most common use of this term is to refer to this particular design. Whether it works or not is irrelevant; the sole concern is how it fits into our naming conventions, and the shorter title is the right one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Gestalt PracticeGestalt practice – Suggestion to bring the article more in line with common usage, other types of practices and other Gestalt concepts. An argument could be made that "Gestalt Practice" is a proper name referring to the process developed and implemented by its author, Dick Price at Esalen. However, it seems clear that there are many practitioners developing it beyond and outside the original source material, and in my view, the project would benefit from an article that covers the concept more broadly. This would make it a common compound noun, styled "Gestalt practice" per "avoid unnecessary capitalization" WP:MOS and WP:CAPITALIZATION. Ngrams history shows "Gestalt practice" has generally been the most common styling [4]. Many publications[5] on the subject and practitioners (and the footnotes of this article) write "Gestalt practice", while practitioners closely tied to Price’s institutions (Esalen[6], for example) tend to write "Gestalt Practice". I believe styling the phrase as a common noun also invites contributions of a broader scope without deemphasizing the practice's basic principles. Wow Mollu (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 1, 2023

  • (Discuss)AvAv (month) – (and redirect Av to AV) No primary topic for this digram regardless of whether the second letter is lowercase; for most two-letter combinations, readers are not expected to capitalize their search to find the disambiguation page unless the topic has extremely high significance (Ra, pi, qi, Ur) or there are very few alternative meanings (Hy, Vy?). No evidence that the month's significance is this high; more pageviews go to the disambiguation page than this one most months. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Right-bank UkraineRight-Bank UkraineWP:COMMONNAME. The names are fully capitalized in most sources according to Google Ngram.[12][13] Surveying the standard histories, we see the following in their index: * Orest Subtelny 2009 [1988], Ukraine: A History, 4th ed.: Left Bank (758), Right Bank (770). * Paul R. Magocsi 1996, A History of Ukraine, 1st ed.: Left Bank (752), Right Bank (767). * Serhy Yekelchyk 2007, Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation: Left-Bank Ukraine, Left Bank (272), Right-Bank Ukraine, Right Bank (275). * Andrew Wilson 2015, The Ukrainians, Unexpected Nation, 4th ed.: Left Bank (404), Right Bank (406). * Serhii Plokhy 2021, The Frontline: Essays on Ukraine’s Past and Present: Left Bank Ukraine (393), Right-Bank Ukraine (396) [I used this book because the terms don’t appear in the index of Plokhy’s Gates of Europe; yes, only one is hyphenated in the index].  —Michael Z. 18:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)HoyHoy, Orkney – No primary topic. By usage, the island doesn't get more pageviews than all others combined. By signifiance, Google Scholar and Books results for hoy -author:hoy are split between Hoy as a name and Spanish for today. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Vivi (text editor) – (and redirect Vi to VI) Even with the second letter lowercase, this is a simple two-letter combination for which there is no primary topic. This subject's long-term significance not at the same height as primary topics Ra, Ur, qi, or pi. Google Search's first results are for the text editor, but this may be inauthentic – Google also jokingly displays Did you mean: EMACS. A Google Scholar search for "vi" -author:vi shows results almost entirely for "vi" as the Roman numeral (capitalized of course). Lastly, this topic doesn't significantly clear Vi (League of Legends) in terms of pageviews. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)OaOa (comics) – (and redirect Oa to OA) This title is a simple two-letter combination, lowercase second letter notwithstanding. There would be need to be a strong significance argument to keep this here, which I'm not seeing. A search for oa -"the oa" does not indicate there's a primary topic for this digram. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Doctor Who (series 14) → ? Per WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology, the previous seasons/series of Doctor Who have been titled "Season #" for the classic era, and "Series #" for the revived era, noting the difference from when the programme moved from Season 26 to Series 1 upon the 2005 revival. This had lead up to Series 13 in 2021. According to interviews with the showrunner, as well as entries on the official Doctor Who websites, the numbering system is to be reset, to define a new "era". That is, what has previous been referred to as Series 14, will now be referred to as Season 1. The questions are: # Should this article be retitled to reflect this change to "Season 1", or should it remain at its "Series 14" title? # If the article should be renamed, what should it be renamed to? (This is given that Doctor Who (season 1) already exists, representing the 1963–64 season, and Doctor Who (series 1) exists, representing the 2005 series.) # Upon this renaming, should (and thus, what) should the previous seasons be renamed to? Note that if this article title is changed, this should reflect upon the following entries within the programme. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Gregory DespresMurders of Fred Fulton and Veronica "Verna" Decarie – I feel like this article's focal point should be shifted to the murders themselves, and the information surrounding the perpetrator can be moved further down in the article. Fundamentally, this person is only notable for this murder case, so I feel as if it would be more appropriate to have the article named after the murder case itself B3251 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 30, 2023

  • (Discuss)Copa LibertadoresCONMEBOL Libertadores – A user moved this page to CONMEBOL Libertadores with the rationale "For some years now, CONMEBOL, which is the organizer of the event, has been advertising the expression “CONMEBOL Libertadores” as the new name of the competition. So it is only fair that this article recognizes the new official name of the competition." The article was then moved back to Copa Libertadores with the rationale WP:RMUM. The page was again moved to CONMEBOL Libertadores with the same rationale. I moved it back here to maintain status quo and to start a move discussion to avert a move war. I don't have a preference one way or the other myself TartarTorte 18:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 29, 2023

  • (Discuss)GIGA ConnectGiga (United Nations) – Per the website at, the UN itself does not consistently use all-caps "GIGA", and the Giga initiative includes Giga Map, Giga Finance and Giga Connect. Some of the content of the article is already outside of the scope of Giga Connect, as in the places that refer to schools being "mapped" rather than "connected". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)ALA Best Fiction for Young AdultsBest Fiction for Young Adults – As far as I know, the title of a published work is ordinarily used directly as the title of a Wikipedia article about the published work, without prefixing it with the name of the author or publisher. The suggested target title already redirects here (and always has since the day the article was created more than a decade ago), so adding "ALA" does not seem necessary for disambiguation purposes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Russell Norman (restaurateur)Russell NormanRussell Norman (restaurateur) (Russell with two l's), who recently died, is newly created. Russel Norman (Russel with one l) was the long-standing page. At worst, no disambiguator should be needed per the policy WP:SMALLDETAILS. But this isn't just the same term with different styling, these are actually spelled differently. Moreover, the pageviews show that single-l Russel Norman only got 20 views per day before double-l Russell Norman died (and his page created); hardly enough to justify the disambiguator (restaurateur) when the people already have differently spelled names. The disambiguation page is probably not needed. Hatnotes are sufficient, and there's otherwise only the swapped name Norman Russell on the dab (debatable if its a plausible error and a useful entry); however deletion can only be discussed at WP:AFD, not RMs. Move it to (disambiguation) for now. —Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ram Rebel TRXRam 1500 TRX – Reopening this name change discussion. Strides have been made in making this an article about both the prototype and the production version of this truck. The various variants of the Ram 1500 do have their own pages. Likewise, Ford’s high performance trim also has its own page. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Johnny & AssociatesSmile-Up! – The company was renamed to Smile-Up! on October 17, 2023 in the wake of the sexual harassment scandal revolving around the former founder Johnny Kitagawa who passed away in 2019. The company even received a new logo. The company will be abolished once every victim of the harassment has received compensation. Goroth (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 28, 2023

  • (Discuss)Jesus LivesJezus Leeft – Per the, admittedly, old discussion above. Furthermore, almost all sources in this article, and those that I can see when searching for the party, and the party's own website, refer to itself as "Jezus Leeft", or w/ some various combination. Jezus Leeft is the one I've seen most regularly - so I listed it here - if there's another more used alternative, I'd support it being renamed to that. The current title can be transformed into a redirect if there isn't any other notable thing by this name. It doesn't seem logical to keep this page as the title esp. when it's not being referred to by this name. Would appreciate feedback, Moshe Moshe1022 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Blue ballsEpididymal hypertension – Hello. I've recently restructured and added information on how the phenomenon manifests in women. As such I think that it is appropriate to rename the article to the official name, "Epididymal hypertension", as it is gender-neutral. Normally I don't really mind "gender neutrality", but since epididymal hypertension occurs for both women and men it seems more logical to use the gender-neutral name for it. Sprucecopse (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Second Matabele WarFirst Chimurenga – The discussion of renaming this page has not been touched in 15 years, but since the Second Chimurenga/Rhodesian Bush War page is having a similar discussion, I believe now is the time to revisit it. Per WP:COMMONNAME, here is a Google Ngram for a few common names for the conflict. While "Second Matabele War" is certainly the oldest common name for the war, it has clearly not been the common term in over 40 years. I suggest using the term Chimurenga as it appears to be the most common, and I suggest First Chimurenga as the article title as it is both common and unambiguous. Chimurenga is also more accurate, referring to the conflicts fought by both the "Matabele" (Northern Ndebele people) in the north and "Mashona" (Shona people) in the south. While the article includes a section on both conflicts, the article title only refers to the former. Sophie (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 27, 2023

  • (Discuss)Alpine foothillsPrealps – "Prealps" is the term commonly used to refer to them (by official classifications such as SOIUSA/Partizione delle Alpi etc, as well as by mountaineers and the people in the countries were these mountains are located). "Foothills", besides being almost never used to refer to them, seems hardly suitable for mountains that are usually taller than 1,000 meters and in many cases than 2,000, with some exceeding 2,600 meters.--Potionkin (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Acclaim Studios AustinIguana Entertainment – The name of the defunct studio for most of its existence. It was already established and respected as the developer before Acclaim bought the studio, Acclaim originally kept ten Iguana name for the first half of their ownership period, and as it was only named under the Acclaim banner for the last few years. Over 2/3 of the studio's history was under the Iguana name. oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Inter-Korean Peace HousePeace House – Using Google, I cannot find anywhere (other than Wikipedia or mirrors) that refers to this building as the "Inter-Korean Peace House". Furthermore, this name is misleading. The building is near the line dividing the two Koreas, but not on the line, and it is not jointly owned nor operated by the two Koreas. Where is Matt? (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)SakhaSakha Republic – The word Sakha by itself refers to the "Sakha language". The word individually is used in the sense of "Sakha language" in recent linguistic scholarship, which tends to favor the endonym "Sakha" instead of the term "Yakut" (an exonym). So it is more proper to rename the article to "Sakha Republic". Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 26, 2023

  • (Discuss)Rostov, Yaroslavl OblastRostov – The previous move mightily screwed upo Wikipedia. Rostov-on-Don and Rostov are completely different names and should not be confused. For starters, Rostov is 500 years older than Rostov-on-Don and the move disruptedd a huge number of historical articles: Rostov has half-ythousand of incoming links. The move also introduced confusion it lots of bio articles. Rostov the Great and similar (screwed-up by renaming bot) is a nickname to historically great Rostov, not Rostov-on-Don. etc. This is a huge mistake to muve page with long-established usage and with huge number of links. - Altenmann >talk 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)HabiruʿApiru – or Apiru, if the "ʿ" is problematic; This is the original term, without the disruption of the Akkadian transliteration (due to the lack of the consonant ʿ and the ambiguity of the bi-pi letters), it is more accurate and it becomes more and more common in the academic literature. פעמי-עליון (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • (Discuss)Doubtful Sound / PateaDoubtful Sound – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:SLASH. Searching Google News, we see that in the past year there have been seven articles using some form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea", but there has been almost 100 using "Doubtful Sound". Google Scholar shows a similar result, with two results for any form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea" and hundreds for "Doubtful Sound". While not all the results here are relevant - for example, one goes The doubtful sound which is used to construct the uncanny island of The Tempest... - the vast majority are, and given the paucity of results for any form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea" leave the COMMONNAME clear. BilledMammal (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Gay bishopsLGBT bishops – The lead of this page starts off with: "This article largely discusses presence of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and queer bishops in churches governed under episcopal polities. The existence of LGBTQ bishops in the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and other traditions is a matter of historical record, though never, until recently, were LGBTQ clergy and bishops ordained by any of the main Christian denominations." It is therefore clear that the article encompasses more than simply gay bishops and that this is not the sole or even necessarily the primary focus of the page, as lesbian, bisexual and transgender are also primary points of focus. Helper201 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Fascist Italy (1922–1943)Fascist Italy – The name "Fascist Italy" is only used in two pages, this and the disambiguation page. Except the disambiguation page only has two (three if you count Italian Fascism at the bottom) links, and the second one doesn't even have "Fascist Italy" in the name. Since "Fascist Italy" is a much simpler title, I request that, potentially under WP:COMMONNAME, this page be moved to "Fascist Italy", and the disambiguation page be moved to "Fascist Italy (disambiguation)" or even deleted altogether, as it seems pretty redundant since the links "Italian Social Republic" and "Italian Fascism" can simply be placed at the top of the page like: "This article is about the Italian state from 1922 to 1943. For the puppet state of Nazi Germany, see Italian Social Republic. For Italian fascism in general, see Italian Fascism." This move is different from the two moves before requesting to move this page back to "Kingdom of Italy under Fascism", so the reasons for opposing those requests should probably not be used here, since this move is to a different name. Altendo 13:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Alleged Saudi role in the September 11 attacksAlleged role of Saudi officials in the September 11 attacks – The current title is inaccurate, obviously biased & partisan, but also a stereotypical generalisation. When did citizens and/or officials (alleged or not) acting in a private or unofficial capacity become tantamount to an entire state or a nation? The phrasing "Saudi role" in the current title, implies directly that the Saudi Arabian state or the Saudi Arabian nation allegedly conspired with al-Qaeda hijackers in facilitating the September 11 attacks. This is a REDFLAG claim, since AQ was banned by Saudis in 1990s and Bin Laden had declared war to overthrow Saudi government in 1996 and his organization had launched attacks against Saudi targets. By May 2003, AQ had been waging a full-fledged armed insurgency against the Saudi government. When somebody says "German invasion": it implies that German state or German nation attacked another country. If non-state militias based in Germany attack another country, the event is not described as "German invasion" (This is simply a hypothetical example). Also, the German intelligence had contacts with Al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell before 9/11 (source) and members of this cell were key operatives in 9/11 attacks. Does this translate to an "alleged German role in 9/11 attacks"? None of the allegations have acccused the Saudi King Fahd or his inner circle of any role or contacts with the hijackers. Therefore, there is no "Saudi role" and the current title is incorrect and original research.
    "article title precisely identifies the subject" WP:AT
    Even though 3rd level or 4th level officials were accused, it doesnt mean accusing the government of some role, since they were acting in their private capacities. There is a casual display of American centrism throughout this article as well, giving undue weight to accusations by US politicians who have their own issues and Anglo-centric conspiracy theories. The one who is mentioned throughout this page, Omar al-Bayoumi, is not even a confirmed Saudi official which means that all these accusations are against an "alleged Saudi official". In summary, its clear that the current descriptive title is strongly biased. WP:POVNAME
    The only reason why it remained for a few years since 2016 is due to the systemic bias prevelant in this encyclopaedia. Similar accusations against a Western country have never been inserted as a title in any wikipedia page. Arguments of concision cant be used in favour of the current title.
    "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" WP:CONCISE
    The current title with the phrase "Saudi role", as has been demonstrated above, is inaccurate and misleading to readers. Also, the current title is not consistent with other allegations pages. For example, the pages "Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal" and "Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden" are not titled "Alleged US involvement in the Whitlam dismissal", or "Allegations of US assistance to Osama bin Laden"; despite CIA being a branch of US government. Additionally, the title of the page is a descriptive title. "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles." WP:TITLEDAB The current descriptive title in the page is not non-judgmental.
    "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." WP:NDESC It is obvious that the phrase "Alleged Saudi role" is judgmental as well as biased and conspiratorial. The phrase "Alleged role of Saudi officials" is precise, consistent as well as non-judgmental. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)StepanakertKhankendi – Due to recent events, control of the city and region has shifted. Reflecting this, English-language sources have now started using Khankendi as the WP:COMMONNAME for the city instead of Stepanakert. This is demonstrated in sources like the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, the BBC, France 24, and more. Remember that due to WP:NAMECHANGES, extra weight is given here. Also at times, English-language sources use both names of the city at the same time, but very rarely is the city only referred to as Stepanakert since Azerbaijan has taken control. After all, it is fully integrated into the country today, and I think that sources have reflected this change in the way they refer to the city. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests


See also