Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts

Welcome to Requested moves/Technical requests

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

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

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page, just click the button below.

To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.

  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.
Administration needed

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests


  • USS Charrette → Greek destroyer Velos (D16) (currently a redirect back to USS Charrette) (move · discuss) – The Velos is an active museum ship, and its current name is more relevant to its status, and better known then its previous name Charrette AlixAurorae (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    This seems like a question of whether the ship is more notable under its former name or its current name. The nom thinks using its current name is best, and may be correct, but it seems like a discussion might be warranted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • MotoGP Legends → MotoGP Hall of Fame (currently a redirect back to MotoGP Legends) (move · discuss) – The MotoGP Hall of Fame is now the most presitigious honor. Back then, MotoGP Legends is indeed synonymous to the HOF, but lately in 2025, they created a separate HOF, with those being honored as "Legends" now classified under HOF. The current "Hall of Fame" is more presitigious and exclusive; the "Legends" tag is just under the prestige of HOF. I don't think the Legends need a separate article though; it's enough for them to have their own section here in the HOF page (once moved). Dieter Lloyd Wexler 18:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Requests to revert undiscussed moves



Contested technical requests

Primary topic grabs are, by definition, not uncontroversial. I've reverted recent changes to the articles in question. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I suppose you're right. And reading Wikipedia:AUTONYM again I note "The names an ethnic group or Indigenous government self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." Even if sources commonly just refer to the community as "Attawapiskat", it is more correct and follows Wikipedia practice to name the article after the FN. Thanks! James Hyett (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Billboard has is as "Koe Wetzel & Ella Langley", and I'm definitely giving more weight to that. 162 etc. (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Large sections on notable topics may be split to a standalone article. See WP:SPLIT. Creating a new stub article which contains far less reliably-sourced information than what is already on Wikipedia is not particularlly useful. 162 etc. (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Robloxguest3 Per above, you could try to propose a split of the history section at the talk page instead of creating a new draft. Does that sound like a good alternative? Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 14:45, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply
sounds great! Robloxguest3 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Paperswanflourishing We do not use ALL CAPS in titles (unless it's an acronym or something). Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 00:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the note. STACKTV is the brand’s official styling, like STX Entertainment or IKEA Paperswanflourishing (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Ymekouar14 Disambiguation is required only when two or more different topics have the same name. As of now, there are no other topics with this name. Annh07 (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1
  • |new1=New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
  • |current2=Current title of page 2
  • |new2=New title for page 2
  • |currentN=Current title of page N
  • |newN=New title for page N|}}
...where N represents more pages to be moved. Place a pipe ( | ) at the end just before the final set of braces ( |}} )

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 25 October 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 09:33, 25 October 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 25 October 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:33, 25 October 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 25 October 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 09:33, 25 October 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 25 October 2026

    – why Example (talk) 09:33, 25 October 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 25 October 2026

    – why Example (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    Commenting on a requested move

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

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

    When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

    Closing a requested move

    Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request by assessing consensus after the requested move discussion has been open for at least seven days (168 hours). Please familiarize yourself with the quick guide to closing requested move discussions before performing any close. Some best practices for closing are outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions.

    Relisting a requested move

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

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

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

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

    Notes

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

    Current discussions

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

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 59 discussions have been relisted.

    October 25, 2026

    October 24, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Alternative for Germany → AfD – As an English speaker, I've worked with many English-based news sources internationally doing reporting about the AfD in Germany. One example is the Frontline PBS documentary about the AfD, where they basically refer to it as "the AfD" throughout the documentary. I think "Alternative for Germany" is clunky because it's the awkward translation of a WP:COMMONNAME in another language, and I really don't think this should be the title for the English version of the article when the acronym is much more commonly used than the official translation of the name. According to the News on the Web (NOW) Corpus, from October 24 2025 to October 24 2026, the string "AfD" has been used 7041 times and the string "Alternative for Germany" has been used 1082 times. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Sacred Name Movement → Sacred Name movement – I realize this is a relatively minor change but I think the capitalization of the current name could be understood as implying that this is a single denomination or organization of similar denominations. Some of the organizations more prominently associated with the Sacred Name movement have denied an association with it. I think writing "movement" in lowercase allows us to discuss it more as a general phenomenon. Theemausoliam (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Galfoy → Malfoid – This page started out at Malfoid and was moved here on 16 October with no discussion and no edit summary (log). The account that moved it has since been blocked as a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24), so I'd treat this as restoring the original title rather than a fresh rename, but it's been sitting here for a week with an AfD running under this name, so I'm bringing it here rather than to RM/TR. On the merits "Malfoid" is plainly the WP:COMMONNAME. Of the sources cited in the article, Lifestyle.INQ, Cybernews, Indiatimes, Tuổi Trẻ and Creative Bloq have it in the headline or first line, and El Financiero and Azteca Puebla give it next to "Malfoy Girl". Know Your Meme, IBTimes and Just Jared use it as well. The only source I can find that says "Galfoy" is SlimePress, and even that one gives both. The section at Draco Malfoy is headed with both names, and the Malfoid redirect is still pulling 30–90 views a day, so it's what readers are actually typing. I expect the pushback will be that "foid" comes from incel slang. This is covered in the main section but WP:POVNAME is fairly explicit that where sources overwhelmingly use one name we follow them even if the name has a word we'd otherwise steer clear of. Tuổi Trẻ and Indiatimes both report that within the trend it's treated as a pun on the surname. "Galfoy" isn't a more encyclopedic alternative here, just a rarer one. The AfD is still open as I write this; this request is only about the title. QuillQuasar (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 23, 2026

    References

    Shadow4dark (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 22, 2026

    • (Discuss) – IT'SUGAR → It'Sugar – Wikipedia generally avoids all-caps promotional styling of article titles. This use of all-caps is purely promotional – not an indication of some abbreviation and not pronounced by spelling it out letter-by-letter. It's clearly intended to be pronounced like a word (or phrase). Several of the cited sources use "It'Sugar". Reading the Confectionery store article today, I also noticed that this source cited in that article uses the suggested styling as well. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 21, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Us Moderates → We Moderates – The current title "Us Moderates" is an ungrammatical, word-for-word translation of the Italian party name "Noi Moderati." In English, the pronoun "We" is grammatically required for a subject phrase like this. Moving the page to "We Moderates" corrects the grammar while providing a proper English translation for readers, aligning with Wikipedia's preference for accurate English styling. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL: If editors prefer to avoid English translation disputes altogether, I suggest moving the page to its native Italian name, **Noi Moderati**, which is widely used by international media and complies with Wikipedia's naming conventions for political parties (WP:NC-PL). Either option is vastly superior to the current ungrammatical title. Theescholar (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Confectionery store → Sweet shop – Apparently the name "confectionery store" was thought to be a sort of compromise between American English and British (or maybe Commonwealth-minus-Canada) English. Unfortunately it completely fails at that purpose. Americans almost never use the word "confectionery" in any context, but rather have a broader definition of "candy" than the British do, one that includes almost all "sugar confectionery".
      There is an established principle, at WP:TITLEVAR, that a name that is less common can be used to avoid choosing between varieties, for example "soft drink" instead of "soda" or "fizzy drink", but I don't see that as the same thing because "soft drink" is highly recognizable. This name seems to be closer to using light naphtha instead of gasoline or petrol.
      The article currently seems to be mostly in British English anyway (for example the spelling "liquorice") so I think we should just go with the British name. -- Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 20, 2026

    October 19, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Atlanta Voice → The Atlanta Voice – As far as I can tell, they consistently use The when referring to themselves, e.g.:

      For more than 60 years, The Atlanta Voice has ably provided a voice for the voiceless. It is the largest audited African American community newspaper in Georgia. Founded in 1966 by the late Ed Clayton and the late J. Lowell Ware, The Atlanta Voice has evolved and redefined its efforts to better connect with the community it serves.[3]

      — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Mandinka → Mandingo – Per WP:DABNAME: The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives. Seven of the 11 entries use "Mandingo". For several entries, "Mandingo", "Mandinka", and other terms are synonymous. However, the page also contains at least five entries which are only ever referred to as "Mandingo": three titles of published works, the racist stereotype, and so-called "mandingo fights" which are depicted in the film Django Unchained. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Nonconformist (Protestantism) → Nonconformist – This is the clear primary topic for the term 'Nonconformist', whilst there is general usage of the term nonconformist there is no article on such a thing and in an encyclopaedia one would expect nonconformist to be about the Church of England nonconformists. Google Scholar has 96,500 results for "nonconformist", if you remove the word "england" from search results it drops to 36,200. Whilst some false positives exist it seems quite clear that in academic contexts the term "nonconformist" primarily refers to the Church of England nonconformists cf. Reformation which is not titled Protestant Reformation despite general usage of the term "reformation" Traumnovelle (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 00:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 18, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Social Outburst (Chile) → Estallido social – Had trouble finding this today because the title is not commonly used in English and instead is a rather wooden translation of the Spanish name for the period of social unrest in Chile from October 2019 to March 2020. Sufficient English language sources exist referencing the name in Spanish and then explaining what it is: , , , , , , , .
      The Harvard article does use the social outburst phrasing as a translation of the Spanish word, but other sources use explosion and social outbreak, showing there’s not a consistent English translation of the phrase, but that sources always use the Spanish. Under our naming conventions, since the convention in English that is most common is to use the Spanish, we should be using the Spanish with a translation to English in the first sentence, as this is what virtually all of the reliable sources do. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Francis Bacon → Francis Bacon (philosopher) – I propose reconsidering the current title in light of Wikipedia's primary topic guidelines. Francis Bacon was a highly influential figure in modern art, and Francis Bacon (artist) receives a substantial number of page views, demonstrating that readers also frequently search for him under this name. Although Francis Bacon (philosopher) receives more views, page-view statistics alone should not determine the primary topic; they should be considered alongside the subjects' relative significance and long-term notability. The previous discussion dates back to 2010, and its outcome should not be treated as immutable. Given the artist's prominence and the considerable readership of his biography, I believe there are reasonable grounds to reassess whether the unqualified title should redirect to a single individual or instead serve as a disambiguation page. The aim is to ensure that the title reflects common usage and helps readers find the subject they are looking for. ~2026-55615-43 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Happy Mistake → Happy Mistake (album) – The current title is ambiguous, as it refers not only to Raphael Gualazzi's 2013 album but also to Lady Gaga's 2024 song of the same name, included on Harlequin. The latter has received substantial coverage in music publications, and readers searching for "Happy Mistake" may reasonably be looking for Gaga's song rather than Gualazzi's album. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the existence of a standalone article for one subject does not automatically establish it as the primary topic. I therefore propose moving the album to Happy Mistake (album) and using the unqualified title as a disambiguation page, unless consensus establishes a clear primary topic. Sricsi (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    Elapsed listings

    Shortcut
    The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
    • (Discuss) – Issyk-Kul → Ysyk-KölYsyk-Köl – I propose renaming this article from Issyk-Kul to Ysyk-Köl, using the direct romanization of the original Kyrgyz name, Ысык-Көл. Rationale * Linguistic accuracy: "Ysyk-Köl" directly represents the Kyrgyz name Ысык-Көл, whereas "Issyk-Kul" is derived from the Russian spelling Иссык-Куль. The Russian-based spelling does not preserve the original Kyrgyz vowels, particularly Ы and Ө. * Authoritative geographical naming references: The United Kingdom's Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (PCGN), in its Kyrgyzstan Toponymic Factfile (2025), identifies "Ysyk-Köl" as the Kyrgyz romanized form, distinct from the Russian-derived "Issyk-Kul". This demonstrates that the Kyrgyz spelling is recognized by an authoritative English-language geographical naming body. * National naming conventions: Kyrgyzstan's legislation on geographical names establishes the use of the state language for naming geographical features and regulates their representation in other languages. This supports using the original Kyrgyz name as the basis for romanization. * Existing usage: "Ysyk-Köl" is already recognized in international geographical references, including GeoNames and the UK PCGN publication. The Wikipedia article itself also acknowledges the original Kyrgyz name. Wikipedia article title policy I recognize that WP:COMMONNAME generally prioritizes established usage in reliable English-language sources over official or indigenous names. Nevertheless, I believe "Ysyk-Köl" merits consideration under Wikipedia's article titling criteria, particularly naturalness, precision, and consistency with authoritative geographical naming references. The aim of this proposal is not to eliminate the familiar spelling "Issyk-Kul", but to use the original Kyrgyz-based romanization as the primary title while retaining "Issyk-Kul" as a redirect for accessibility and searchability. References * UK Permanent Committee on Geographical Names — Kyrgyzstan Toponymic Factfile (2025) * Kyrgyzstan — Law on Geographical Names * GeoNames — Ysyk-Köl I welcome input from other editors, particularly concerning the use of "Ysyk-Köl" in independent English-language sources and its suitability under Wikipedia's naming conventions. Erkebekab (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.

    References

    1. ↑ Amari, Micheal (2003). History of Muslim Sicily. Vol. 1. Florence: Le Moné. p. 429.
    2. ↑ Vladimirova, Desislava (2025-01-01). "The Berbers and Arab Rule in Sicily (9th–11th Centuries): Recovering the Missing Voices". Istoriya-History.
    3. ↑ Their website
    4. ↑ "The Traitors on NBC". Retrieved 20 September 2026.
    5. ↑ "Meet The Traitors Season 6 Cast! (Official Bios & Photos)". Retrieved 20 September 2026.
    6. ↑ "The Traitors Cast 2027: See All 23 Celebrities in Season 6". Retrieved 20 September 2026.
    JoyfullySmile (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. squawk7700 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Sycerion (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

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

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1381702611"