Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: 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 users 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.

Requesting technical 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, and you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:".

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the top of the list, filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page 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

Administrator needed

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|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 NewName 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 17 October 2021" 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 article:

Note: 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)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that 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 articles, 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.

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 17 October 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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 17 October 2021

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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 17 October 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2021‎ (UTC)[]

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 17 October 2021

– why Example (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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 17 October 2021

– why Example (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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 can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, 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 discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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.

Current discussions

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. 42 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

October 17, 2021

  • (Discuss)Imia/KardakImia – The article currently is using a double name formula, Imia/Kardak, by pairing the more WP:COMMONNAME Greek name "Imia" which used by the majority of the WP:RS (5.000 results in Google Books: [1]), along with the less used Turkish name "Kardak" (2.800 results [2]). Additionally, the majority of the historical/geographical maps (even Turkish ones) that were published prior to the crisis, used the name "Imia" (see: Cartographic evidence for more info). Last, -and if all that wasn't enough- the International community uses the name Imia or has lend their support to Greece which calls them "Imia", while Turkey's position with the name "Kardak" didn't ever gain any notable support (see: International community's positions). I understand completely that the article's topic is politically very sensitive, however, that doesn't mean the project's rules shouldn't apply: the WP:ARTICLENAME should be a single name, which is the common practice across the English Wikipedia. Usually, it is the WP:COMMONNAME which reflects on the majority of the WP:RS and the views of the majority, instead of giving both names an WP:UNDUE weight on the article title, or WP:POVNAMING the article using a double name formula just because certain editors may regard the single name to be biased. I am initiating this move request to bring the article in line with the rules and be WP:CONSISTENT with how it was done so far for every single other article in the Disputed Islands topic area. - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Mission PeakMission Peak Regional Preserve – The article discusses a lot about the park itself as opposed to discussing purely about Mission Peak. This also makes it more consistent with other EBRPD parks' names. We could use a redirect at "Mission Peak" to Mission Peak Regional Preserve to accomodate for people who refer to it as "Mission Peak" (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Andrew ZimmermanAndi Zimmerman – Per their faculty page (see citation), the subject of this article uses "they/them" pronouns and goes by the preferred name of Andi as opposed to their birth name of Andrew. I do not personally know them, so I am unsure of their correct gender identity (transgender or non-binary). There appears to be different treatment of their preferred name in relation to their scholarship. Barnes and Noble, for example, uses their preferred name, while Amazon does not. I am not sure of the policy regarding article titles and individuals' preferred names, so I am asking for further discussion before I move the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Heuristics in judgment and decision-makingHeuristic (psychology) – TL;DR - Moving this page should be uncontroversial, but I'm not 100% certain about which name would be preferred. To start with, I'm also fine with Heuristic (cognitive), Heuristic (cognition) and Heuristic (cognitive science). I do prefer psychology because it encompasses cognitive science, so it's the least specific option that still clearly identifies the topic (WP:PRECISE). It's also more recognisable to a lay audience. But I only have a surface level of knowledge of this topic (half of a uni lecture and occasionally reading up on cognitive biases, to be precise), so I could be wrong about which qualifier would be best. The reasoning to move: # WP:COMMONNAME: Psych/cog science call them "heuristics" not "heuristics in judgement and decision-making". # WP:QUALIFIER: The parenthetical format is the most appropriate format here. It is not the primary topic, so cannot be just "Heuristic"; it has no real alternative name; it's not appropriate for a comma-separated qualifier; and parenthetical qualifiers are generally preferred over descriptive titles (or titles that combine methods). Note that the current name is descriptive. # WP:CONCISE: The current name is very long for no reason. # WP:CRITERIA (consistency): The other heuristic articles are titled Heuristic, Heuristic (engineering), Heuristic (computer science), and Heuristic argument (although this last one doesn't support my position, I still think the rest of them show a clear pattern). Singular form ("heuristic") followed by a qualifier in brackets that identifies the relevant field or topic area would also match the pattern broadly used in other science, social science, psychology, and cognitive science articles. Basically, the current name isn't ideal and its best to have it in the form of Heuristic (qualifier). Xurizuri (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 16, 2021

  • (Discuss)Siege of Yorktown (1781)Siege of Yorktown – Siege of Yorktown (1781) was boldly moved from its base name Siege of Yorktown last year (see above section) and the base name presently is a redirect there. However, either the 1781 event is the primary topic and that article should exist at the base name without parenthetical disambiguation per WP:QUALIFIER, or there is no primary topic and a disambiguation page should exist at the base name per WP:NOPRIMARY; either way the base name cannot be a redirect. In addition, the disambiguation page is currently at Battle of Yorktown even though both disambiguated terms are Siege of Yorktown, and finally, there is no hatnote to either Siege of Yorktown (1862) or the dab page, so anyone searching for Siege of Yorktown and seeking the Civil War event has no easy way to get there. I propose that the Revolutionary War event is the primary topic (as it was, albeit without proper hatnotes, for years). Alternatively, if it is deemed there is no primary topic, the dab page at Battle of Yorktown should be moved to Siege of Yorktown. Either way, hatnotes should be updated as needed. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)The BatmanThe Batman (TV series) – I think it'll be pointless to argue if either the movie or the TV show is more notable and rather we should just move the page and have The Batman redirect to the Batman disambiguation page. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Data link layerData-link layer – It seems like this would be more grammatically correct because data link is arguable a compound modifier of layer. It will be significant work to make the change to the article content and incoming links so I'd like to see some support before WP:BOLDLY making the change. ~Kvng (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Korean-style fortresses in JapanAncient mountain castle – These fortresses are called "Ancient mountain castle" 古代山城(こだいさんじょう)Kodaisanjyō on the Japanese page. They were inspired by Korean, but also Chinese style mountain city in the 8th century (中国式山城). On the Japanese page the word "korean" is not used. It is described as "It is a generic term for defense facilities built on mountains in western Japan according to the situation against Korea and China from the Asuka period to around the Nara period." First there was Kōgoishi 神籠石(こうごいし) in the 6th or 7th century CE. Then there were the "Tochigi mountain castle" (天智紀山城) or “Baekje style mountain castle” (百済式山城) built under the guidance of General Baekje in 663 CE. On the Chinese page it's also called "Ancient mountain castle (Japan)" 古代山城 (日本). So the name should be changed to "Ancient mountain castle" or "Baekje style mountain castle" the first one is used on the Japanese page. - comment added by Artanisen 10:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC). — Converted to requested move. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Chester Beatty LibraryChester Beatty – The Chester Beatty Library is now referred to just as the Chester Beatty, and the article reflects that. Chester Beatty currently redirects to Alfred Chester Beatty, the museum/library's founder, but I believe this should be changed, as the institution would seem to be the slightly more primary topic, given current usage. The article does receive marginally more page views. Paul_012 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Independence Day (Pakistan)Birth Day of Pakistan – Two reasons, first, proposed name is WP:COMMONNAME. second, before 14 august, 1947 both india and pakistan were one country under british rule. On 14 august, 1947 a big land mass of India was cut named pakistan, so technically india got independence and pakistan was born because before 14 august, 1947 nothing was named as "pakistan" so how can something, which doesn't exist got independence? Jivejiv (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Troy VIITroy VI/VII – As explained in Troy#Troy_VI-VII, current scholarship considers Troy VII to be a continuation of Troy VI. Most of the text one could add here would apply to Troy VI as well, so it would be better to have an article that covers both (and redirect both "Troy VII" and "Troy VI" here.) Botterweg14 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)LART (computer)LARTThere was a move request to "LART" back in 2010, the result of which was "Move", with only one oppose !vote (of four total) by User:Anthony Appleyard stating "LART" has other meanings... It was then moved back again by User:Electron9 in March 2011 with the ES "Prior meaning". As far as I see, that was an undiscussed move after an RM discussion. Hey ho, time has passed. Nevertheless, ten years later we do not have other substantial content for "other meanings"; the definition at luser is just that. While page views show that the redirects Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool, LART and Lart – which all target Luser – get fewer views combined than this article (just). So it makes sense to revert the undiscussed move. The two articles have hatnotes to each other. I'm not sure what to suggest for Lart since only the term in caps is used in either article. (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 15, 2021

  • (Discuss)Calculus OneXimera – The topic of this is a MOOC system originated at Ohio State University which offered a course with the common name of Calculus One. That system used to be called MOOCulus and is now Ximera (pronounced "chimera"). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Saekano: How to Raise a Boring GirlfriendSaekano – "How to Raise a Boring Girlfriend" is the series' subtitle, and a search reveals less than 1,000,000 Google hits for the full title. On the other hand, just "Saekano" without the subtitle gets around 2.6 million hits. On the other hand, many official sources such as licensor websites and ANN list the series under its full title. Should the article remain in the full title, or is the short form the more appropriate article title here? MOS:SUBTITLE suggests that the most common name should be used, while earlier discussion at WT:ANIME suggested that article titles of anime with subtitles should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Dhuan (Smoke)Dhuan (short story collection) – The present parentheses simply mean that "dhuan" means "smoke" in Hindi. That's not how Wikipedia uses parentheses. We don't need an explanation in the article title, that's what the text itself is for. This article could otherwise be moved to Dhuan, but that title is already taken by an unrelated film. The parentheses should disambiguate, not explain. If "short story collection" is too wordy, feel free to suggest a better title. JIP | Talk 02:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 14, 2021

  • (Discuss) – Per here, the format used by the White House itself is That formatting is clearer to readers, so I think we should adopt it as well. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Animal rights and the HolocaustAnimal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy – The proposed change of this article's name to "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy" drew a positive reception when posited in a comment in the 25 September move request. I made this suggestion based on the use of analogous formats for other areas of contentious subject matter on Wikipedia. It would also pave the way for restructuring the article in terms of arguments in favour of and against the analogy. Framing the article in these terms would also be more precise and potentially less inflammatory or open to being misconstrued than the present title. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Christ myth theoryJesus mythicism – In current popular usage "Jesus mythicism" is the most common terminology used. "Christ myth theory" has been deprecated (i.e. made obsolescent) in current popular usage. Per this talk §.Critics of the historicity of the Christ the christ (i.e. the lord of the Christian church) is a myth as held by virtually every secular person on the planet. To call someone a "Unicorn mythicist" for denying that Unicorns exist makes as much sense as to call someone a "Christ mythicist" for denying that Christs exist. WP policy is to name articles so as to distinguish them from similar sounding topics. WP policy is also to name articles with names appropriate to finding modern academic scholarship that engages with the topic's current academic debate and therefore cites modern scholarship. 2db (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)E1 (Jerusalem)E1 (West Bank) – This isn't in Jerusalem, by all accounts it is in the West Bank. Jerusalem as a disambiguation makes no sense, West Bank or Palestinian territories make the most sense per WP:PLACEDAB (Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient). Per the further examples on disambiguating by state or province or whatever, and to avoid some rather pointless arguments about Palestinian territories or State of Palestine, I suggest West Bank as the disambiguation. Nableezy 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 13, 2021

  • (Discuss)Byte (app)Clash (app) – Byte didn't shut down, but rather, it renamed to Clash after it joined the "Clash family". The reason why I'm requesting this instead of moving the page myself right away is because I'd like everyone else's inputs before I move it. L33tm4n (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC) L33tm4n (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)BicepsBiceps brachii muscle – This was the name of the article page before it was changed a decade ago, and I believe it should return. Biceps is workout slang and isn't accurate as it can also refer to the Biceps femoris. While the common name is just Biceps, it isn't used in the medical community. For more reasons why the medical term should be used, see this discussion from when I proposed that Rectus abdominis should be just Abs. "Muscle" should be added back in too, per the consensus and WP:CONSISTENT, as all other muscle articles end with muscle. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Hurricane Gordon (1994)Hurricane Gordon – The 1994 Hurricane Gordon is clearly the primary topic. It did significantly more damage and killed more people than all of the other storms named "Gordon" in the North Atlantic, including every other Gordon that made it to hurricane status. The death toll of 1,122 is also significantly higher that what we see from most storms in the Atlantic hurricane basin in contemporary times. The pageviews for the 1994 storm shows that its article usually receives significantly more traffic than those of the other hurricanes with the same name. Sure, a couple of the other Gordons in the North Atlantic were also pretty significant for the areas they impacted (specifically, the 2006 and the 2018 storms), but none of the other storms come anywhere close to this storm in terms of overall significance. Also, the vast majority of mentions on "Hurricane Gordon" that I've seen in the media refer to the 1994 storm. Whenever I see an article referring to a "Hurricane Gordon" that referenced it as a strong candidate for retirement (without the year mentioned), it was always referring to the 1994 storm. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE, any storm that is clearly the primary topic should get the main title, without the year. The actual retirement status is irrelevant. While most of the retired storms are the respective primary topics, some of them clearly aren't. As such, I propose moving this article to "Hurricane Gordon." LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Lakhimpur Kheri massacreLakhimpur Kheri incident – Media/news sources use both 'incident' and 'massacre'. The incident itself has violence from both sides. Also, usage of the word such as 'terror' on one side, and that human rights shouldn't be selective from the other, points at this being highly charged and politicised. Wikipedia guideline and policies need to be kept in mind such as those dealing with sensationalism and opinions. All this points to a change in title. DTM (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Granada Cinema, WoolwichChrist Faith Tabernacle Cathedral – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The church moved into the building in 2011 and has been holding regular services there since 2013 with their branding clearly displayed on the outside. I think most people now refer to it as the displayed name, Christ Faith Tabernacle Cathedral. In my opinion, keeping the article called Granada Cinema when it has not been a cinema for over 50 years is like if we called the article for The O2 as "Millennium Dome" as that was its original name. Kidburla (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Kennadi BrinkJessika Carr – Her common name is Jessika Carr in PW sources since 2017 (when she signed with WWE). Her career as a referee in WWE is much more notable than her days as a wrestler in the independent circuit. She has appeared in many WWE PPVs and events as well as WWE weekly shows like NXT and SmackDown. She is an active referee as Jessika Carr while her last match as Kennadi Brink was in 2017. Mann Mann (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Seán Patrick O'MalleySeán O'Malley – It was successfully argued on the talk page of the fighter Sean O'Malley, that the Cardinal's common name was Seán O'Malley, and as a result the fighter's page was moved. If that's the case I don't see a reason why the Cardinal's page shouldn't be moved.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Final (album)Final (Vol.1) – ...although I'd be happy with Final Vol.1 as well. The artist has called the two volumes of this as his "final" album, but in reality these are two separate albums – they have two separate release dates several months apart (not even in the same calendar year), will have different track listings, will be sold and streamed as individual albums, will be reviewed separately, and have individual chart placings... it makes no sense to lump both albums together in the same article. Per WP:COMMONNAME, almost all reliable sources are calling this album Final (Vol.1), including the Billboard charts [8], Swiss charts [9], and the streaming sites Apple Music [10], Spotify [11] and Amazon [12]... the Spanish chart is calling it Final Vol.1 without the parentheses [13], as does a USA Today review of his live show [14], and the one album review so far calls it Final Vol 1 [15]. AllMusic doesn't have a review of the album yet, but have it listed in their database as Final, Vol. 1 [16]. However you look at it, "Vol 1" is included in every independent source that talks about this album. Richard3120 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Shillpi SharmaDJ Shilpi Sharma – Her real name is Shilpi not Shillpi. As there is already an article present with the name Shilpi Sharma, her name is being changed. Instead add DJ infront of her name Shilpi as everyone knows her by that, so the correct name won't be disrupted by this way. ManaliJain (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 12, 2021

  • (Discuss)Hailey BaldwinHailey Bieber – Mrs Bieber has been married for two years and since then, the virtual majority of reliable sources have referred to her as Hailey Bieber. Cosmopolitan, TMZ, Vogue, USA Today, Teen Vogue, Bustle, InStyle, Yahoo! (multiple times), British Vogue, among countless other sources. Mrs Bieber herself even told Bustle (story via Fox News though ironically the Fox News article uses Hailey Baldwin in the title), told them that she changed her name to Bieber because “I always wanted to add his name to mine because I feel like we're becoming family, and I’m a little traditional and old school like that." Per reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME, the title should be changed to Hailey Bieber. In addition, WP:NAMECHANGES states that we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. Considering that the virtual majority of sources are using her new name, it is apparent the title should be changed. Though not policy and is not recognized per WP:COMMONNAME, it is respectful to use the name she chooses, akin to Caitlyn Jenner and Elizabeth Manning Chelsea Manning. Mrs Bieber also uses her married name on Instagram here and on Facebook here. cookie monster 755 17:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Basavaraj Bommai ministryBommai ministry – All ministries' have been named after the leader's last name only. So this should also follow the norm. I know his father S. R. Bommai too held the post but needless to say his notability is far less than his son's. Even the page views of these pages tell the same. Once we move this article, then we can put a hatnote to redirect to S. R. Bommai ministry, if need be. Appu (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Galit Distel-EtebaryanGalit Distel-Atbaryan – The currect way to spell her name, now there's Niqqud added to her native Hebrew name in the article. So this is more proof that Atbaryan is the correct romanization (as her personal and formal Facebook pages, per the Knesset website, per Instagram and other many sources [1] [2] [3]), Etebaryan is not "common name" its a misspelling, that her real name we talking about not nickname or stage name, same real name. so per WP:BLP we should fix the wrong spelling. Google generate 1,290 results for "Galit Distel-Etebaryan" and 4,600 results for "Galit Distel Atbaryan". Sokuya (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Sokuya (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)2021 Milan airplane crash2021 San Donato Milanese airplane crash – The airplane crash didn't happen in Milan, but in the nearby locality of San Donato Milanese. The title is misleading. I had thought it happened on Milan and that San Doneto Milanese could be some quarter of the city or something like that. I didn't pay much attention to it. This could also be the case for many readers, so we should use the correct location on the title. Super Ψ Dro 10:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Common leopard geckoLeopard gecko – Thank you for checking in to assess this requested page move, your time is appreciated. I believe a rename to "Leopard Gecko" from "common leopard gecko" is warranted. "Leopard gecko" is generally used as vernacular to refer to E. macularius unambiguously, not to the genus Eublepharis. Though some other Eublepharis species are occasionally referred to as leopard geckos (though always with a modifier - eg, Satpura leopard gecko or West Indian leopard gecko), majority use guidelines for page naming ( would indicate that it is more appropriate to name this page "Leopard gecko" which is used by most to refer to E. macularius, as opposed to "common leopard gecko", which not frequently used. Furthermore, "leopard gecko" is used synonymously with E. macularius in most scientific literature (see link to prior discussion below for details), and google search results for "leopard gecko" currently link to the page for "common leopard gecko," which indicate that internet users searching for leopard gecko are looking for information on E. macularius and not the genus Eublepharis (In further support of this assertion, please see this research article on reptile search terms: The name of the page not reflecting this majority use could potentially be confusing to users not well versed in latin names. This change would be unlikely to cause inconvenience to those familiar with latin names, as the best way to be precise would be to search the actual latin name to begin with, which would redirect users to the appropriate page anyway. This topic was previously discussed here: where consensus was moving the page was warranted. As not many editors weighed in, I felt providing opportunity for further discussion was warranted prior to the rename. Connorlong90 (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 11, 2021

  • (Discuss)The Duke and Duchess of UrbinoDiptych of Federico da Montefeltro and Battista Sforza – "Diptych of Federico da Montefeltro and Battista Sforza" is the correct title for the subject painting since Federico was not made a Duke until after his wife's death, so she could not have been a duchess. [3] [4] Currently page 2 ("Diptych of Federico da Montefeltro and Battista Sforza") REDIRECTs to page 1 ("The Duke and Duchess of Urbino"). When the move is completed page 1 should REIRECT to page 2.


  1. ^ Harding, Paul T. (1980). A catalogue of the papers of Denis R. Pack Beresford at the library of the Royal Irish Academy. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.
  2. ^ "The Bangladesh Gazette" (PDF). 15 October 2020. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  3. ^ Hoysted, Elaine (April 2012). "Battista Sforza, Countess of Urbino" (PDF). Socheolas: Limerick Student Journal of Sociology. 4 (1): 100–116.
  4. ^ Kamhi, Michelle Marder (October 8, 2021). "Delving into an Incomparable Work of Renaissance Portraiture". For Piero’s Sake.
TedKinloch (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Richard J. GordonRichard Gordon (politician) – This man is never referred to as "Richard J. Gordon", with the middle initial. Either it's "Richard Gordon", "Richard 'Dick' Gordon" or "Dick Gordon", with preference to the first option. Now, checking Richard Gordon, there are at least a couple other politicians named "Richard Gordon", but neither are referred to as such, one is called "R.H. Gordon", while the other is "Rich Gordon", the Richard Gordon of this RM is never referred to by these names. Most of the references in this article refer to him in any of the three names I shared. This guy can claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over "Richard Gordon (politician)"; in case that's disputed, we can use "Richard Gordon (Filipino politician)" or "Richard Gordon (politician, born 1945)". Compare Richard J. Gordon vs. Rich Gordon. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)McAfeeMcAfee (company) – McAfee is also a surname, I think the McAfee article should be about the surname, not a company with the same name. Aalaa324 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Mike PolchlopekBart GunnWP:COMMONNAME. He is best know to the people as Bart Gunn. Despite working under other names, he worked as Bart Gunn during the Attitude Era and the New Generation era. Also, recently he appeared at Dark Side of the Ring and was credited as Bart Gunn. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)List of political ideologiesList of ideologies – Renaming this to "List of ideologies" will allow for more freedom in what is included, without lengthy debates on which ideologies are political and which are not. It will also remove the need for an expert in politics to review the article, which means that there will be one less problem to solve. Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Hořava–Witten domain wallHořava–Witten theory – The article is unsourced (and substantially unchanged) since 2004. On Google Scholar, I find enough coverage of "Hořava-Witten theory" to suggest an article could be written on that topic, but not enough about a Hořava–Witten domain wall specifically. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 10, 2021

Elapsed listings


  • (Discuss)Romualdas GiedraitisRomuald Giedroyć(Roumald-GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)) Romuald Giedroyć is the actual name that was used by him and his contemporaries which is supported by multiple sources of that time. The name engraved on his grave is: "ROMUALD KSIĄŻĘ GIEDROYĆ", książę meaning "prince" (the picute is linked in the article). It's also the name used by his daughter in her book about uprisings in Poland. "Romualdas Giedraitis" on the other hand is a Lithuanisation of the original name used by modern Lithuanian historiographyMarcelus (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)PawayanPowayan – Tehsil name is Powayan on official government site of Shahjahanpur and on many other news sources.[1][2]
2409:4063:4E11:1AD2:C60A:7822:7D35:CB2E (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Painted whitestartPainted redstart – "redstart" is used far, far more commonly for this species than "whitestart". Of the sources used on this page, the only one to use "whitestart" is from the IUCN, a European-based organisation. On Google Scholar, a search finds 7 results for "painted whitestart" since 2017, all of which are barely relevant. "Painted redstart" gives 74 results, of which the first 4 include the name in the title. I know Google searches can be misleading, but a search for "painted whitestart" gives very few useful results - just Wikipedia, and BirdLife, another European-based organisation (plus eBird which does not use it as the primary name). The first page results also includes a rejected proposal to change the name of species in this genus to "whitestart", and random links to Pinterest and a Youtube video. Meanwhile a search for "painted redstart" returns all the most relevant sources for North American birds and you don't really start finding junk until the third page of results. I have 11 books on the shelf next to me that mention species in this genus, mostly field guides for various areas. 9 use "redstart" exclusively, 1 uses "redstart" but mentions "whitestart", and only one uses "whitestart" primarily, but mentions that "redstart" is commonly used in N America. I think probably this whole genus should be at "redstart" pages, but that's a little less clear when they occur almost exclusively in Spanish-speaking areas. But this species has quite an extensive range into English-speaking areas and it seems pretty clear that "redstart" is way more common and using "whitestart" violates WP:CommonName. Somatochlora (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)IosIos (island) – Anyone searching with ios currently gets taken to the island rather than to Apple's iOS. This is not serving our users well at all as page views of iOS dominate page views of this article by a daily average ratio of about 25,000 to less than 200[25], and probably many of the views to this page are intended for the operating system. By moving this page as proposed without leaving a redirect, or creating a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to iOS, all searches for "ios" with any capitalization will go to iOS, which is clearly the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "ios" and "Ios", as well as for "iOS". В²C 00:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)IBM System iIBM AS/400 – See discussion on talk page. Most links to this page are through the AS/400 redirect. Most references for this system refer to the system as the AS/400, and it is more commonly known by this name. The AS/400 name was used for 12 years, compared with the 2 years in which the System i name was used. WP:UCN Vt320 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Elk (sculpture)Thompson Elk – This one's a bit difficult because the subject has many different names. However, I believe "Thompson Elk" is the best compromise. This very recent source says the sculpture is officially known as "Elk Thompson Fountain", but the statue is not currently a fountain and there are many other sources which use other names, so I'm not sure this title should be used per COMMONNAME. Sources using "Thompson Elk" include The Oregonian, KOIN, Portland Mercury, etc. But, I admit, someone could cherrypick sources to advocate for a handful of different titles. Perhaps other editors have a more systematic way of determining the best possible title? Help! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. No such user (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Sheepherder (painting)Tibetans (paintings) – The scope of this article should be expanded to include the entire series of 7 paintings. Also not the most common translation of the specific painting's title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 02:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Norwegian First Division → ? – I propose moving all the Norwegian men's football divisions from level 2 to level 6, in addition to the women's level 2. The reason being consistency in the article titles. As this is the English Wikipedia, it seems only reasonable that English language sources should have an impact on the names, especially when the current Norwegian names are not very prevalent in neither English nor Norwegian sources. For example, SofaScore,,,, and RSSSF (Norwegian football archive) all refer to the second level as the Norwegian 1st Division (or Norwegian First Division), and the lower divisions should match that name for consistency. There are also pages like Soccerway and who refer to the league as 1. Division, which is an incorrect translation of 1. divisjon. A correct translation would be "1st division". The Norwegian Football Federation, Altomfotball, Eurosport, VG, and Global Sports Archive refer to the Norwegian 1st Division by its sponsored name, OBOS-ligaen, which is not ideal as a Wikipedia title. Sources that refer to the second level as 1. divisjon are: NRK, NIFS, and National Football Teams. The titles I would suggest are Norwegian 1st Division, Norwegian 2nd Division etc. But they are in no way set in stone. Another opportunity is to substitute the number in the titles with letters, so that Norwegian 1st Division would become Norwegian First Division. However, I think Norwegian 1st Division should be used in that case because it is more concise and a better translation of the Norwegian "1. divisjon". The names should not be confused with Category:Divisions of Norway though. Yet another opportunity is to use the Norwegian names, but it is worth mentioning that a proposed move to 1. divisjon in 2018 reached no consensus. Another question to be had is whether the word "Division" should be capitalised or not. Also keep in mind that there are of course many templates, categories and season pages that go with these articles that would also have to be moved should this proposal be accepted. Sørhaug (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)SportsNet New YorkSNY – SNY is not referred to as Sportsnet New York by the network or by viewers. They don't advertise that name. For ease of use SNY should be SNY on Wikipedia, matching up with on air branding and advertising. This matches up with WP:Criteria naturalness. Mannysoloway (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)KartikeyaMurugan – Murugan is the common name for this Tamil deity. Britannica has it titled as Murugan and not Kartikeya, Kartikeya does not even find a mention in the same Britannica article, that mentions Skanda as the alternate name of Murugan, I belive Britannica has got it right and Wikipedia should do the same. Searching for Murugan on Google gave Seven times more results than the number of results for Kartikeya. In literature also Murugan is more common than Kartikeya. Temples of this deity around the world (Malaysia, USA etc) are known as Murugan temple. Following Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy this should be renamed to Murugan. Venkat TL (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Siege of PetersburgRichmond–Petersburg Campaign – This article is really about the campaign, which according to the National Park Service stops a few days before the siege ends (in the beginning of the Appomattox Campaign). So naming it after the siege becomes very confusing, when that is just the central feature of the campaign. I am indifferent as to whether campaign should be capitalized; it is in some Civil War campaign articles and not in others. –CWenger (^@) 01:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Sobibór (village)Sobibór – The points raised in the recently concluded Talk:Sócrates#Requested move 28 August 2021 may well be applicable to this RM. A key argument posited that it would be counterintuitive to move Sócrates to Sócrates (footballer) if in the aftermath of such a move, the plain name Sócrates were to continue as a redirect to Sócrates (footballer). To quote two of the arguments there, "The philosopher is never spelt with a diacritic in English, so it can only really refer to the footballer as a primary topic" and "this leads to a completely nonsensical conclusion: either Sócrates redirects to Sócrates (footballer), which is absolutely absurd (see WP:R, among other policies); or Sócrates redirects to a dab page or to the philosopher, which is ridiculous because pretty much anyone who bothers to put the accent is looking for the soccer player." The same applies in these two cases — Sobibór redirects to Sobibór (village) and Bełżec redirects to Bełżec (village). Likewise, pretty much anyone who bothers to put the diacritics is looking for the Polish villages, not the World War II German death camps. Of course, as in the articles for the philosopher and the footballer, there are hatnotes atop the entries for the villages and the death camps for the 1% who may be confused. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 02:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)TriplemaníaTriplemania – Per WP:UE: The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage. English-language reliable sources ([27] [28] [29] [30]...) most often refer to this event as Triplemania with no accent. Note that Category:Triplemanía and other articles and templates would also be affected by this proposed move. 162 etc. (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Malformed requests

Possibly incomplete requests


See also