Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Shortcuts

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

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page; however, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves


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

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.

  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Sexy movimiento → Sexy MovimientoSexy Movimiento (currently a redirect back to Sexy movimiento) (move · discuss) – Song titles are not generally supposed to be in sentence case, and the sources all use title case.  Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Kowal2701, given that Akani is a disamb page, this probably needs to go to a discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you Kowal2701 (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For better or for worse, it's back to where it has been stable since 2023, the sock has already been reverted. This is long overdue an RM, we can't revert back to a 2007 title. CNC (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This has been bouncing around for a while. The original move was in 2023, so it's been there long enough, and the person who moved it back was also a sock. Due to the controversial nature of this request, this will need an RM discussion - hit "discuss" above next to the article titles. HurricaneZetaC 16:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

@KingSkyLord The title is create protected so will need an admin HurricaneZetaC 16:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How sure are we that XOGUS99 isn't a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scottish12345678? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 13 January 2026" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 13 January 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 13 January 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 13 January 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2026‎ (UTC)[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 13 January 2026

– why Example (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 13 January 2026

– why Example (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 65 discussions have been relisted.

January 13, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Jacinta Nampijinpa Price → Jacinta PriceJacinta Price – Per WP:MIDDLENAME, we should only include her middle name if it is used more commonly in reliable sources. Using "Nampijinpa" is just creating an unnecessary disambiguation as I cannot find any other articles on Wikipedia with a similar title. When I first challenged this move, I was concerned with the difficulty to pronounce "Nampijinpa". This name change would make a lot of sense per WP:CONCISE. It's difficult to go by sourcing because her middle name is almost equally used as frequently as only her first and last name in references. Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, we should use the part of her name that is most well-understood. Her middle name is not significant to understanding who she is as a politician. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Inside Out → Inside outInside out – The film is pretty clearly the primary topic by usage. The film gets over 65% of pageviews of anything titled something even remotely like "Inside Out" (first ten here), and the pageviews are 7.8 times the pageviews of the franchise, which is the next highest article (please note that I have limited pageviews to the past year to avoid the 2024 surge in results caused by the release of the sequel). The film fulfills the bar required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as it is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be sought. The views out of the disambiguation page also reflect this; the film article gets over 60% of the views out of Inside Out, which is more than everything else combined, and over five times the amount of the sequel, which is again the second highest. The disambiguation page can be moved so it is naturally disambiguated. Note: Please keep in mind that the primary topic is neither what first comes to your mind, nor is it the dictionary definition. Wikipedia does not have an article on the concept of turning an object so that its inner surface faces out, and such an article could not be viable, because it is not an encyclopedic topic. As a result, it is not a contender for the primary topic; only the articles actually listed at the disambiguation page are contenders. There are a number of articles where the primary topic is a specific subject even though it shares a title with a common word or phrase, including Often, Twice, and Tangled. Ladtrack (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 12, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Namesco → names.co.uk – The company rebranded as namesco.co.uk in 2013 [6] and the press has been identifying it by that name ever since. E.g. [7] [8] [9]. It is also the name the company uses to identify itself: [10] Please note I have a COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the company.

References

  1. ^ "Brickit Is an Amazing Educational Toy, but Does It Miss the Point of LEGO?". Lifewire. Retrieved 2026-01-12.
  2. ^ "This Clever App Tells You What to Build With Your LEGO Pile". Mental Floss. 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2026-01-12.
  3. ^ Paul, Raffi (2021-07-16). "The Brickit app tells you what you can build from a jumble of Legos". Mashable. Retrieved 2026-01-12.
Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Iranian opposition → Iranian dissidentsIranian dissidents – The article talks about the opposition to the Islamic Republic as such and not to the particular governments, therefore, it is actually talking about dissidents rather than any kind of opposition. This is also evidenced by the selection of language - article frequently uses words such as "overthrow", focusing more on rejection of entire regime and political order of the country. Unlike article, Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia, where the "systemic opposition" is also mentioned, here there is no mention of anything like that at all. Namely, there is no mention of Iranian principalists and Iranian reformists, who have been changing each other in power and being in opposition to each other. Mostly Iranian reformists are in opposition and they should be a subject of this article too, but there is almost no mention of them at all, there is only one mention of one Iranian Reformist and only of his statement when he rejected the Constitution of Islamic Republic entirely. There is no talk about how Iranian political system and opposition within Iranian political system operates. Therefore, this article mainly focuses on dissidents, opposition to the political order and activities aimed at its overthrow. ~2026-25103-1 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 11, 2026

  • (Discuss) – SG Mall → ? – The subject’s full official name is Semanhyia Golden Mall. The current title is an abbreviation. Moving the article aligns with Wikipedia’s article title policy (WP:ARTICLE TITLES, WP:COMMONNAME). The abbreviated name “SG Mall” should redirect to the full name. Sweetabena (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 16:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Iranian Revolution → 1979 Islamic Revolution1979 Islamic Revolution – The title "Iranian Revolution" is no longer a representative name of the article's subject. This page deals specifically with the 1979 revolution that led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic, not with ongoing events such as the current unrest in Iran. Renaming the article to "1979 Islamic Revolution" would clarify its scope and reduce ambiguity. While the current uprising is not yet widely called a revolution, how people talk about it is still in flux. In the eventuality of an overthrow of the Islamic regime, "Iranian Revolution" could instead serve as a disambiguation page linking to both events. ConflictFan (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mahón → MaóMaó – Reposting a malformed move request on behalf of User:Ristando, with the following rationale: The page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is pretty clear:  : The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. If not, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used. If Mahon is a "widely accepted English name" then it should be the name of the page, if not then it should be Maó, the official name, it makes no sense that right now it's a third one. Bsckr (talk) :The article name should really be "Maó", since it is the official town name, not "Mahon" or "Mahón" (written in Spanish). :It satisfies the 5 points in WP:CRITERIA:  :* It is recognizable  :* It is natural, since it's the historical catalan name since 2021  :* Precise, since it is the official town name since  :* Maó is shorter than Mahón  :* The consistency is no problem, and people who mentioned things like Mahón cheese can also be renamed fairly easily following the same idea. :For the ones that support the name of "Mahon", it comes from that settlement of the english back in the 18th century that lasted only a few years, and it was called "Port Mahon". So it makes no sense from a historical point of view to keep its name "Mahon" or "Port Mahon", not even "Mao-Mahón" :Therefore, I propose the rename of the town to Maó, given that in 2021 it was again made official that the town name is Maó (and not Maó-Mahon). Ristando (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – TMSR → TMSR (disambiguation)TMSR (disambiguation) – I wish to use TMSR for an article on the Chinese Academy of Science's TMSR project (2011-present, with plans to 2035+) which now is working on its third reactor (article TMSR-LF1 is getting a bit big, and I want to make this the main article for what is mostly the background section there. The disambiguation page already exists, but is being used as a redirect... to this page, which is surrently... a disambiguation page. So I tried to 'be bold' and make this an actual page, but was pretty much instantly smacked down. This is IMHO shenanigans. Limulus (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Killing of Renee Good → Killing of Renée GoodKilling of Renée Good – Good consistently used "Renée" in her life. Examples include: * A poem written under the name "Renée Nicole Macklin" (2020).[1] * Her signature in her name change petition written as "Renée N. Macklin" (2023).[2] * Paperwork used to register an LLC under the name "Renée Nicole Macklin Good" (2024).[3] * An Instagram profile made to promote said LLC used "Renée Good" (2024).[4] * Her Instagram profile uses the name "Renée Good" (updated 2025–2026).[5] A bio by ODU also used the accented "Renée".[6] A number of sources have begun adopting the diacritic as well,[7][8][9][10][11] including The Washington Post.[12] Though WP:SPNC applies to name changes, the Milena Kitić → Milena Kitic example seems similar enough to make the point that minor spelling variations, when consistent, should be followed.

References

  1. ^ Macklin, Renée Nicole. "2020 Academy of American Poets Prize: On Learning to Dissect Fetal Pigs". poets.org. Academy of American Poets. Archived from the original on January 8, 2026. Retrieved January 8, 2026.
  2. ^ "Petition for Change of Name 2136-FCO9058" (PDF). Missouri Courts. October 16, 2023. Retrieved January 9, 2026.
  3. ^ "Articles of Organization: B. GOOD HANDYWORK LLC". Missouri Secretary of State. August 26, 2024. Retrieved January 9, 2026.
  4. ^ "Becca & Renée Good". Instagram. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  5. ^ "Renée Good". Instagram. Retrieved 8 January 2026.
  6. ^ "ODU English Department's Post". Facebook. 1 April 2020. Archived from the original on 8 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  7. ^ "Everything We Know About the ICE Killing of Renée Nicole Good". Them. 8 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  8. ^ Katie Langford (7 January 2026). "Renée Nicole Good, woman killed by ICE officer in Minneapolis, was from Colorado". The Denver Post. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  9. ^ "What we know about Renée Good, the Colorado-born woman killed by ICE agent in Minneapolis". The Denver Post. 8 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  10. ^ "Outrage and Mistrust Mount as Federal Agents Shoot Two People in Portland One Day After Renée Good's Killing". Mother Jones. 9 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026.
  11. ^ "JD Vance Claims Renée Good Had No Authority To Be Alive In First Place". The Onion. 9 January 2026. Retrieved 10 January 2026. (satire)
  12. ^ Molly Hennessy-Fiske; Annie Gowen; Praveena Somasundaram; Kyle Rempfer (10 January 2025). "How Renée Good ended up in a fatal encounter with ICE in Minneapolis". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 January 2025.
Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC) (edited 00:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

January 10, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran → Reza Pahlavi – I am re-opening the requested move to the simple article title of Reza Pahlavi, due to how the previous move had some users express support for this title. I am the person who made the previous requested move to this title, and several users who expressed opposition simply did not respond to my points, and a non-admin closed the move. This time, hopefully there are more users that participate and cite Wikipedia policy. I will reproduce my previous requested move, but I will update it to address additional concerns: This title being used in this article's name is in violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NCROY. He does not hold any official, legal title. This is because Iran's monarchy has been out of power for over 45 years. Muhammad bin Salman, an official crown prince who exerts power in his country, does not label him "Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia" in the article name. Neither does , which has no issue disambiguating the three people whose full name contains "Reza Pahlavi". Both in English and in Persian, since the beginning of the 21st century, people who say "Reza Pahlavi" are unambiguously referring to the man born in 1960. His father is referred to as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and his grandfather is referred to as Reza Shah. WP:NCROY states the following: "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of English-language reliable sources use." Reza Pahlavi himself does not use this title. On his website's "about" page, it merely states that he was "officially named Crown Prince in 1967"[28]. In the news articles promoted on his website there is no consensus. The Persian language articles merely call him "Prince Reza Pahlavi", while the English language articles use phrases such as "last Shah's exiled son" or or "eldest son of the last Shah", while one CBC article does refer to him as an "exiled Crown Prince and son of the last Shah of Iran." Note that this is a curated list of news articles on his own webpage. For these reasons, I propose: 1. This article's name is moved to Reza Pahlavi, removing the unnecessary disambiguation page. 2. References to "the Crown Prince" in this article should be replaced with appropriate pronouns or his actual name, unless it is a discussion of the title itself. I've reviewed the previous move requests (from 2018 and earlier), and here's my responses to points raised in previous move requests: Referring to him as Reza Pahlavi II is not commonly used in news sources. In fact, I've never seen him referred to as such, whether in English or Persian. As stated above, referring to "Reza Pahlavi" in the 21st century unambiguously references this article's subject. For this reason, I oppose any suggestion that this article should instead be moved to Reza Pahlavi II. Reza Shah, aka Reza Shah Pahlavi, has been dead for over 80 years, and is currently not referred to as "Reza Pahlavi", whether in English or in Persian. Unlike Reza Pahlavi, Reza Shah was not born with the name "Reza Pahlavi", only for a brief period from 1919-1925 did he use the surname Pahlavi without also referring to himself as Shah. For this reason, there is no need to disambiguate "Reza Pahlavi" to distinguish between Reza Pahlavi and Reza Shah. The hatnote at the top of this article is sufficient, as it currently the case on Persian Wikipedia. Other objections: * Reza Shah has often been called Reza Pahlavi, and he has much greater historic importance and was the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty. :Wikipedia titles should reflect current usage. As of the 21st century, the man born in 1960 is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this article. Consider how in the 1988 Republican presidential primary debate, the person who is now called George H. W. Bush was simply referred to as "George Bush". Why? Because at that point, his son was not a notable person. However, In the current era, both father and son are notable persons, and for that reason, their middle names are used to distinguish them. This is noted in the George H. W. Bush article, which says it was in the year 2000 that people began to disambiguate "George Bush." Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Reza Pahlavi is the current primary topic, and his name space should reflect that. There are no sources that contemporaneously refer to anyone other than the man born in 1960 as "Reza Pahlavi." * The Iranian monarchy being a thing of the past does not change the fact that this individual was the last heir to it. :This does not justify having unnecessary disambiguation in the article's title. The fact that this individual was the last heir to the Pahlavi dynasty is notable and should be mentioned in the article. It is not required in the article title. * Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia and Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece  :WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an appropriate justification for the current title. But specifically, the situation with Alexander is quite different. For one, the list of people with the name Alexander is long, as listed at Alexander of Yugoslavia and Alexander of Serbia. Second, a simple Google search makes it clear that there is no single, unambiguous primary topic. Searching "Alexander Karađorđević" on Google and you will find multiple people in the search results, such as Alexander I of Yugoslavia, the aforementioned Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, and Alexander Karađorđević, Prince of Serbia. In contrast, a Google search for "Reza Pahlavi" does not provide any search results beyond the man born in 1960. This makes it totally clear that Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia does need disambiguation, while Reza Pahlavi does not. Nevertheless, I would support a move of that article too, but that can be decided at another time. :Separately, Pavlos is a mononymic person. He does not have a last name. He cannot use the article title Pavlos. I am not fully convinced that this is an appropriate article title, but again, the issue of a mononymic person is clearly different than that of Reza Pahlavi. * "Reza Pahlavi" is not clear. It is ambiguous. :If it is really ambiguous, then it should be easy to demonstrate this. Is there any media from the 21st century that uses the name "Reza Pahlavi" to refer to someone other than the man born in 1960? * You're only suggesting this because you hate Reza Pahlavi and want to defame him  :WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'm not interested in any political squabble. My focus is on having an appropriate article title for the subject. Persian Wikipedia has used the article title "رضا پهلوی" without issue for years. No additional disambiguation needed. This is also the case for many other language Wikipedias. I'm not convinced that the situation in the English-language Wikipedia is unique and deserves something special. * It's standard for crown princes to have their status as crown prince be mentioned in the article title :No, it's not. See Muhammad bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. And unlike how the monarchy in Iran was abolished, the monarchy is active in Saudi Arabia, with the title crown prince having legal status in Saudi Arabia. In contrast, no royal titles have any legal status in modern-day Iran. JasonMacker (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Theatre of War Project → Theater of War ProductionsTheater of War Productions – Misspelled & WP:Official. The group's activities have expanded far beyond the "Theater of War Project", applying the same model to other social issues, a scope the article has begun to reflect. I suspect that the current page title may be discouraging editors from appropriately expanding the article by narrowly defining the (now historical) scope as the group, rather than the organization that grew from it. Strictly speaking, "Theater of War project" refers only to the readings of Ajax and Philoctetes. Official name may not be the ideal disambiguator, but is more accurate and less vague than "Project" (which is not typically capitalized in independent sources), and is more concise than alternatives like "(theater company)" while "(project)" fails to capture the scope of the article. "Theater of War Productions" seems to become more common than "Theater of War project" in independent sources beginning around 2015/16. BrechtBro (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). BrechtBro (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mandela United (football club) → Mandela United Football ClubMandela United Football Club – The article was created at Mandela United (football club) because the title Mandela United Football Club currently exists as a redirect to Winnie Mandela. This redirect is misleading, as Mandela United Football Club was a distinct football club and not synonymous with Winnie Mandela as a person. The club meets notability requirements and has its own independent history. The most natural and commonly used name for the subject is Mandela United Football Club. I therefore request that an administrator delete or retarget the existing redirect and move this article to the naturally correct title, Mandela United Football Club (not Mandela United (football club) ). ZS Khumalo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – All In: London (2023) → All In (2023)All In (2023) – Per WP:CONSISTENT. Subtitling wrestling PPVs with their location is something that both WWE (and lately, AEW) have been doing as of late as a promotional tactic, but I'm not convinced that the use of subtitling is common enough in parlance (i.e., do people say "All In: London" more than just "All In"?) that the balance doesn't tip to treating the three All Ins as different. As a comparison, here's the cases I could find where a AEW PPV or WWE PLE in the past few years (if WWE did this under Vince, please comment below) has had a location subtitle, and how the article titles look; AEW PPVs that do this are italicised: *PPV name and location subtitle (with year disambiguation if necessary): All In 2023–2026, NXT TakeOvers *PPV name (with year disambiguation if necessary): SummerSlam 2023–25, Elimination Chamber 2024–2025, Backlash 2024–2025, Clash at the Castle 2024, Bad Blood 2024, Royal Rumble 2025, Worlds Collide Jun & Sep 2025, Money in the Bank 2025, Night of Champions 2025, Battleground 2025, The Great American Bash 2025, Forbidden Door 2025, Heatwave 2025, Wrestlepalooza 2025, All Out 2025, Crown Jewel 2025, Survivor Series 2025, Deadline 2025 *Other: WrestleMania 39–41 In the case of WrestleMania, we default to consistency within WrestleManias (i.e., they're numbered), and for NXT TakeOvers, the location subtitles form both a natural disambiguation and also part of the common name (i.e., you'll still see people using the phrase "(NXT) TakeOver: New Orleans"). For the sake of argument, I'm not opposed to prefixing PPV articles with the promotion name (see: the TNA Talking Point RM last year), but for the sake of the closer, if you do indicate your preference for those prefixes, do it separately to your preference on location subtitles so as to not create a trainwreck discussion. Sceptre (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 9, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Sutton, London → Sutton – This is a list of all the places called "Sutton" in the UK (yes, there are other countries but they don't have high populations)
(full disclosure, list above was ChatGPT). What you'll notice is that all the places called Sutton that aren't this one have some sort of prefix or suffix, whilst this is just Sutton. You'll only find small villages also called Sutton. Therefore #Requested move 1 January 2021 was incorrect, this is a clear primary topic for just the search term "Sutton". A similar argument has been made for Bromley, Croydon, maybe even London. Furthermore, when searching Sutton minus London, for a news source like the Telegraph (similar analysis works for BBC), very few results show up, suggesting this is the PTOPIC. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Altaic languages → Transeurasian languagesTranseurasian languages – As mentioned in the more relative and concrete information over the case of "Altaic" homeland, and with the lack of solid results over what should be the classification of this proposed language family, there seems to be an alternative view over how this connection between the said languages and whether this includes a direct common descendent, a more acceptable and likely, areal and consistent grammatical and verbal connections are discussed and widely accepted, as well as not entirely denying any common ancestry, instead, leaving an open place for discussion and promoting more research with what evidence and reconstructions can be made. Instead of suggesting a pro and anti view of a macro-language family, using more neutral terms that fit better with both real life counterparts of the modern languages that this languages represents, and fit better with especially Precision and Consistency of Wikipedia's title change policies. With this thought in mind, I believe Martin Robberts and Alexander Savelyev has a fair point to turn this into a scientific, proper debate that encourages academic research and works to be put, without the attached meaning of what Altaic languages was initially proposed to be, and the nationalistic and unreliable narratives that used this hypothesis to move forward with their ideological views rather than to properly analyse it all through an objective, methodologically correct perspective. [1] ~2026-17840-6 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 8, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Hors d'oeuvre → AppetiserAppetiser – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. The Ngrams shows Hors d’oeuvre, Appetizer, and Appetiser. In it, american language appetizer is much more popular compared to the french Hors d’oeuvre and british appetiser, however, appetiser is a british variation of american appetizer and the article is written in british english. the word Appetizer/Appetiser is used way more often in english than french because, it’s literally an english word and version, and pretty much every english speaking person uses the english term. Also see this: Appetizer Hors D’oeuvre on this dictionary. Notice how there are much more web examples of appetizer compared to hors d’oeuvre. Dylan240 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kingdom of Eastern Georgia → Georgia under Mongol rule – The dominant political reality of the period covered by the article was Mongol overlordship, which fundamentally shaped governance, taxation, military obligations, and royal succession in Georgia. Eastern Georgia functioned not as a fully sovereign and clearly defined kingdom, but as a vassal territory under Mongol authority. As such, the title “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” implies a level of independence and institutional continuity that does not accurately reflect the historical situation. Moreover, the secession of the Kingdom of Western Georgia was itself a direct consequence of Mongol domination, undertaken largely in an effort to escape Mongol rule. This further undermines the notion of a stable or unified “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” during this period. The article’s content primarily addresses Mongol rule and influence over Georgia as a whole, with particular emphasis on eastern regions where Mongol control was most direct, rather than focusing on a formally constituted, independent kingdom. Renaming the article to “Georgia under Mongol rule” would therefore better align the title with the actual scope and substance of the article. Additionally, there is an existing requested article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)/Requested articles titled “Georgia under the Mongol rule”. The fact that Georgian Wikipedia contains articles on Mongol rule in Georgia but not on a “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” further suggests that the latter is not a commonly used or well-established historical designation. For these reasons, “Georgia under Mongol rule” is a more accurate, neutral, and historiographically sound title that better reflects both the historical realities of the period and the article’s content. Gergos10 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of the Maghreb → Arab conquest of North AfricaArab conquest of North Africa – There is a huge RS weight supporting the use of "North Africa", and a further layer of weight supporting "Arab" over "Muslim" as the descriptor of the conquerors. This is very clear from Ngrams, which shows even an undifferentiated "conquest of Maghrib" being soundly kicked to the curb by both the proposed title and its closest alternative. The reasons for this are very simple. The conquest was for the most part against the Exarchate of Africa or Byzantine North Africa, with the term "Africa" being consistently used for North Africa throughout the Roman period, as exemplified by the honorific title "Scipio Africanus" for Rome's conquering general. In a historical context, "Maghrib" is by contrast the terminology of the conquering Arabs for the region – from bilad al-maghrib – but it was not an accepted name in the vernacular of the region or the wider Mediterranean/Old World at the time. It would be rather like retroactively calling the Arab conquest of the Visigoths the conquest of "Al-Andalus", as opposed to Hispania (or Spain/Portugal or the Iberian Peninsula in modern usage). And while the term Maghreb does find some usage as a modern geographical term, it has less usage than North Africa and is quite vaguely defined, much like "Levant", lending it little to justify denying the more prevalent terminology in reliable sources. And looking at the actual sources on page, we see that – in a mirroring of the Ngrams chart – Maghreb and Maghrib appear just one time each in the titles of sources (one in French). It appears around 40 times worked into the page. "Africa", by contrast, despite not appearing in the title and tags, appears 70 times on page, including in about 20 references. This excludes the French "Afrique", which appears in a further two sources, including in Robert Brunschvig's Ibn Abd al-Hakam et la conquète de l'Afrique du Nord par les arabes. In English, a parallel source and a key anchor source for the page is Fenwick & Hitchner. "The Arab Conquests and the End of Ancient Africa?" in: A Companion to North Africa in Antiquity. See also: Walter E. Kaegi. Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa. Also: Ṭāhā, ʿAbd-al-Wāḥid Ḏannūn. The Muslim conquest and settlement of North Africa and Spain. Routledge. Many more titles then use Africa alone, but for obvious reasons, North Africa is clearer, while still consistent with the Exarchate of Africa. As for "Arab", well again the Ngrams speaks for itself and so do the sources."Muslim" appears in the titles of just two sources: Kaegi and Dannun, as above. "Arab" appears in 10 sources, including Fenwick, as above, but also in the likes of: Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Chapter LI (51): Conquests By The Arabs — Part VI. Also: Kennedy, Hugh (2007). The great Arab conquests. Also: Hoyland, Robert G. (2015). In God's path: the Arab conquests and the creation of an Islamic empire. And others. This conquest succeeds the Arab conquest of Egypt and is a part of the Arab-Byzantine wars as its direct parent. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sonic the Hedgehog (character) → Sonic (character)Sonic (character) – I think the character is more commonly referred to as simply "Sonic", and several citations in the article also support that usage. On the other hand, it's also better for concision. Also, a thing I noticed is that multiple sources that use "Sonic the Hedgehog" in their titles don't use that term further and just go with the usage of "Sonic" in the rest of the paragraphs. My other point is that searching for "Sonic character" on Google will mainly pop up results related to this character. So, keeping all that in mind, I don't think it would be that much of a problem. Kazama16 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 7, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Robustness → Robustness (term) – "Robustness" primarily serves as both a dictionary definition and various related subtopics with no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with the various subtopic pages having more notability than the general term itself. Previous editors unilaterally split the "Robustness" article into the disambiguation page and a broad-concept article, but the latter remains a stub that serves little long-term encyclopedic value for describing the dictionary term. It would more meaningfully serve readers to have the disambiguation page with the generic definitional term and various listed subtopics at the base title. I am also proposing for the history of the original Robustness article to be preserved at "Robustness (term)", which can then be redirected to the new Robustness base article. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Electric light → Light bulbLight bulb – Given that the widely-accepted technical terms lamp and electric lamp have (like luminaire) been deemed insufficiently common by the Wikipedia community for use as article titles, I propose that: * the electric light article be moved/renamed such that its title becomes either light bulb (which appears to be more common than the shortened lightbulb), and * the related terms lamp, light, and light source (as well as the explicitly electric versions of these terms) be listed in that article as terms that can refer to a light fixture or one of its light-emitting components (i.e., are not true synonyms for light bulb). The term electric light is recognizable (e.g., as a kind of "artificial" or anthropic light) and concise, but does not satisfy the other criteria for good article titles: * Unnatural – Consider a light fixture that contains multiple light bulbs. If someone asks you to "switch off the light", you probably wouldn't ask which of its light bulbs they're referring to. Some light fixtures have multiple circuits to enable separate switching of their light bulbs, but it typically wouldn't make sense to say "switch off the electric light" if electric light is defined to only mean light bulb. * Imprecise – The term light is ambiguous in that it can refer to visible radiation, a light bulb, or a light fixture. The term electric light is more specific but can still refer to visible radiation (generated using electricity), a light bulb, or a light fixture. * Inconsistent – The existing article titles electric light and light fixture are poorly coordinated. One problem with electric light is that the aforementioned imprecision results in overlapping scope for the two pages. Another issue is its different pattern/structure, namely light fixture (light-emitting fixture) versus electric light (electrically-powered light). In contrast, light bulb would satisfy all of the criteria. I produced the user essay at Jrtuenge/Move electric light to more fully document my rationale; it provides additional explanation and justification for this potentially-controversial requested move. Jrtuenge (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sanford Brown (writer) → ? – The subject is professionally and commonly known as “Sandy Brown,” which is the name used on published guidebooks, publisher materials (Cicerone Press), public appearances, and external coverage. Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) favors the name most commonly used in reliable sources over a legal name. The parenthetical disambiguator distinguishes the subject from Sandra Brown, the American novelist. ~2026-14166-2 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 6, 2026

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Martin Robbeets & Alexander Savelyev. "Introduction," The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages (2020, Oxford University Press), page 1.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
09:26, Tuesday, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1332461912"