Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

That is a reasonable request when compared to other things at the Zachativka disambig page, but I wonder if everything there could have fewer disambiguators per WP:CONCISE. I am by no means an expert on categorizing Ukrainian place names though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UAPLACE actually only accounts for disambiguation by oblast (province/region) or raion (district), but not by hromada (municipality/community) or beyond (as in the case of Zachativka (rural settlement) and Zachativka (village), both of which are located in the same hromada). This is one of the reasons why I've initiated a discussion about the expansion/update of WP:UAPLACE to account for such cases. Regardless of its outcome, I think my current suggestion is as good as we can do for now (though IMO having the oblast in the title is not necessary when the raion is mentioned but that would go against the current version of WP:UAPLACE and is something I'm proposing to change as well in the aforementioned discussion). Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in-depth explanation and I have no dispute. Let's see what others think. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Rohann333 Can you explain your reason for moving the page? HurricaneZetaC 18:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://indiarailinfo.com/train/-train-bhubaneswar-new-delhi-tejas-rajdhani-express-via-tatanagar-22823/15084/238/664 Rohann333 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the train belongs to tejas rajdhani type of Indian Railways Rohann333 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rohann333 and HurricaneZeta: should we maybe consider moving back to Bhubaneswar–New Delhi Tejas Rajdhani Express then? That appears to be the name used in your source, and found in other sources too.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

@Polish kurd Isn't this the same thing as Direct Democracy (Polish parliamentary group), making it a WP:CONTENTFORK? You should merge the content of the Free Republicans page into that page and then redirect it to there. HurricaneZetaC 17:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay1279 Unfortunately the current title was derived from a 2024 RM, so this would need an RM to move to a different title. HurricaneZetaC 14:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You've given no explanation on how this is the correct name - do you have any sources? Two of these moves have already been moved in the past as well. HurricaneZetaC 14:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DAR.45m: courtesy ping to let you know someone has contested a page move you did four months ago. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dentsinhere43 There was an RM (see talk page of Nihil) that was closed as not moved to these titles, so if you want to move these you can start an RM HurricaneZetaC 14:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention that? That was when there were no other articles named/starting with "Nihil", and that's about 11 years ago. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 23:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Impaled Nazarine album gets a lot more pageviews than the KMFDM album. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PK-WIKI This RM wasn't explicitly closed as an "uncontested technical request", so it is discussed. However there was minimal participation so as a closer I would reopen if there were any objections - worth a shot asking on the closer's talk page. HurricaneZetaC 14:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The poster used in the article has some Hindi or Telugu text under "DACOIT". (Sorry for not knowing which language it is.) How does that translate and does it matter for the movie's official title? If not, this request is valid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 It roughly translates to "A Love Story" HurricaneZetaC 15:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayanthkumar123 Contesting per translation on poster - this seems to be a part of the film title, but I might be wrong. HurricaneZetaC 17:57, 31 January 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, 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 1 February 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 1 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 17:22, 1 February 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 1 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:22, 1 February 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 1 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 17:22, 1 February 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 1 February 2026

– why Example (talk) 17:22, 1 February 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 1 February 2026

– why Example (talk) 17:22, 1 February 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. 89 discussions have been relisted.

February 1, 2026

  • (Discuss) – West Midlands Trains → London Northwestern & West Midlands Railways – The operator appears to have dropped the "West Midlands Trains" name, and entirely rebranded its corporate news site and changed its logo some time in April or May 2025 (April 31st–May 24th), and now uses "London Northwestern & West Midlands Railways". MOS:AMPERSAND should kept as a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the ampersand is always used. For WP:COMMONNAME, sources generally refer to WMT relative to its two brands independently, as London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway or some variant of that (e.g. BBC), although a number of railway industry media sources (e.g. RAIL) do still refer to it as West Midlands Trains. So, given that: # The company is no longer called West Midlands Trains (the new nationalised rail operator is legally called WM Trains Limited) # The company and its predecessor has not done business as West Midlands Trains for approaching a year, and now does business as London Northwestern & West Midlands Railways # Reliable sources are at least split on the name so that there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used so that editors must decide the article title based on policy # The title "West Midlands Trains" may be confusing, and purport that the operator only operates trains in the West Midlands, or only operates West Midlands Railways trains I believe the article should be moved to London Northwestern & West Midlands Railways Note that if the article is moved, the lead sentence should be changed to WM Trains Limited, doing business as London Northwestern & West Midlands Railways, is a British state-owned train operating company..., and West Midlands Trains (2017–2026) should be moved back to this location as the date range is no longer needed for disambiguation. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:07, 1 February 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) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 31, 2026

  • (Discuss) – 2026 Minnesota general strike → 2026 Minnesota ICE protests – Wikipedia defines a general strike as "a strike action in which a substantial proportion of the total labour force in a city, region, or country participates. General strikes are characterised by the participation of workers from a multitude of workplaces across different industries, and tend to involve entire communities." A strike action is defined as "a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work." The actions taken on January 23rd do not fulfill these definitions and thus cannot be classified as "general strikes". Over 700 small businesses closed, and an unknown amount of people called off work, but the existing labor unions that represent employees have explicitly rejected strike action. This can be seen here: Teamsters 638: “The collective bargaining agreement that applies to you includes a no-strike provision, so you are not legally permitted to strike on January 23.” (https://www.instagram.com/p/DTvvcLICSQM/?hl=en) SEIU Healthcare MN: “The collective bargaining agreement that applies to you includes a no-strike provision and you are an essential healthcare worker, so you are not legally permitted to strike on January 23. In fact, your participation in a strike may result in being terminated from your job. (https://www.seiuhealthcaremn.org/news/urgent-statement-to-seiu-hcmnia-members-from-the-executive-board/)” MNA: “While supporting participation in the day of action, MNA is not calling for a work stoppage or walkout. Nurses hold a unique and essential role as caregivers and patient advocates, and MNA encourages members to honor the no-strike provisions of their contracts and report to work as scheduled." (https://mnnurses.org/minnesota-nurses-association-encourages-participation-ice-out-of-minnesota-a-day-of-truth-and-freedom/) IATSE Local 13: “We are not and cannot call for a strike at our venues. However, you as workers have the right to choose if you want to work that day. We will support your choices. You will not receive any sort of discipline if you choose to work, or if you choose to be activated. To help the call office, please make your choice before we dispatch the next batch of offered work.” (https://www.iatse13.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=980238) The Minnesota AFL-CIO board makes no mention of striking and frames it as a protest endorsement. (https://mnaflcio.org/news/minnesotas-labor-movement-endorses-123-day-truth-freedom) Existing articles that describe general strikes such as the 1934 Minneapolis one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_general_strike_of_1934) have labor unions explicitly calling on members to strike and a substantially larger participation in work stoppage as opposed to workers calling off the job sporadically. The distinction is clear; there was action taken to refuse to work, but it was not a "mass refusal" that encompassed a large enough proportion of workers. For a more recent example, we can look at the 2025 Italian general strike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Italian_general_strikes_and_protests_for_Gaza) which had strike action endorsed by workers organizations. While reliable sources label this as a general strike, they are repeating what non-worker organizations are saying while ignoring the fact that no labor union called for a strike. If we were to continue calling this a general strike, then every day of action (no shopping, no work, etc.) no matter the participation would qualify. ~2026-61928-4 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sources of the Rhine → Source of the RhineSource of the Rhine – Wikipedia prefers WP:SINGULAR titles, and the article says that there is a single source (at or near Lake Toma) that is generally recognized as the source of the Rhine. The opening paragraph of the article uses the word "source" in its singular form. Qualifying that, there is apparently a Swiss federal office that more precisely identifies some other location a bit farther north, but that doesn't sound like a very significant difference. Many rivers have multiple sources, of course, but this has one that is generally recognized, and the Swiss government seems to also be who put a plaque there to commemorate it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 20:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – House of Mathrafal → Lleision (dynasty)Lleision (dynasty) – The name 'House of Mathrafal' is misleading and has been superseded in modern academic works following professor of history at Bangor Huw Pryce's study of the history of the connection of the dynasty with Mathrafal, which you can read here. He says "the designation of Mathrafal as the principal seat of the princes of Powys... may be traced to a passage in a Welsh legal text which sought to provide pseudo-historical justification for the supremacy of the prince of Gwynedd over other native Welsh rulers, claiming that the sixth-century king, Maelgwn Gwynedd, with his court at Aberffraw, had been given superiority over the "earls' of Mathrafal, Dinefwr and Caerleon. The earliest manuscript to contain the passage is of the mid thirteenth century, and the passage can be dated to the first half, and probably to the second quarter, of that century, since it echoes other attempts by Venedotian jurists to devise a political theory upholding the superiority of the prince of Gwynedd, attempts which were connected with the ambitions of Llywelyn ap lorwerth, whose adoption in 1230 of the title 'prince of Aberffraw and lord of Snowdon' has been interpreted as an assertion of overlordship over other native Welsh rulers. Nor were those ambitions mere empty words. In particular, it should be noted that Llywelyn had overrun southern Powys — the territory in which Mathrafal was situated - on the death of Gwenwynwyn in 1216, and that the latter's heir, Gruffudd ap Gwenwynwyn, only recovered his patrimony from Gwynedd in 1241. Mathrafal therefore first appears with clear political connotations in the context of propaganda devised in the interests of the prince of Gwynedd: it represented a Powys subordinate to the Venedotian court of Aberffraw... There is, then, no evidence that Mathrafal was regarded as enjoying special status as the chief court of Powys before the thirteenth century. Moreover the earliest sources proclaiming its status were written in Gwynedd, and it is unknown how far that status was promoted or indeed acknowledged within Powys itself. From the late twelfth century to c. 1274 the rulers of southern Powys generally used the style 'lord of Cyfeiliog', after their westernmost cantref, thereafter gradually adopting the name 'de la Pole' which referred to their town of Welshpool. No attempt was made to associate their authority with Mathrafal. The likelihood is that Mathrafal was named by Venedotian jurists so as to provide Powys with a chief court similar to Aberffraw and Dinefwr, already attributed respectively to Gwynedd and Deheubarth by Gerald of Wales and other sources in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Why Mathrafal was chosen in preference to any other place in Powys, we can only guess." Thus, one finds in academic sources from after this publication reference to the 'Lleision' or the 'House of Powys' instead of the 'House of Mathrafal', since Huw Pryce showed there is no real connection between the members of the family and the place. Such sources include David Stephenson, Medieval Powys: Kingdom, Principality, and Lordships 1132-1293, p. 24, and note 8 on that page; T. M. Charles-Edwards, 'Dynastic Succession in Early Medieval Wales', pp. 81-2, in Wales and the Welsh in the Middle Ages, David Stephenson, 'Madog ap Maredudd, Rex Powissensium', Welsh History Review, 24 (2008), pp. 1-28, Patrick Sims-Williams, 'Powys and Early Welsh Poetry', Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 67, pp. 33-54, Ann Parry Owen, 'Rhieingerdd Efa ferch Madog ap Maredudd, Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr a'i cant', Ysgrifau Beirniadol 14, pp. 56-86, and Ben Guy, Medieval Welsh Genealogy (2020). Tipcake (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Yonge–Dundas Square → Sankofa SquareSankofa Square – the previous discussion included some botched argument about slaves in Ghana, and reached a rough consensus so I thought this can be rediscussed. This official name has been reflected in City of Toronto documentation and asset records. Reliable secondary sources have since adopted the new name in current coverage. Sources like Toronto Star, TorontoToday.ca and Toronto Life has been using this name for reporting current events. Reports on social events use this name too at woodbine.com and nowtoronto. In addition, there are posts on Youtube and Reddit[1] 2using that name too. Under WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME, when an official name change has been enacted and is reflected in reliable, current sources, the article title should follow that usage. Given this, the article should be moved to Sankofa Square, with Yonge–Dundas Square retained as a former name in the lead and as a redirect. It's the same example like Rogers Centre here. Just because an official name wasn't liked by some people (or "everyone") at the time can't be the sole reason this article should not be renamed. Zochaian (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vainglory (disambiguation) → VaingloryVainglory – "Vainglory" is so uncommonly used as a synonym for vanity that it's arguable there is no obvious primary topic for this term. Ngrams lists vainglory as having a fraction of the uses vanity does, and it's likely that people searching for it on Wikipedia either have no idea what it means (in which case a DAB page with a Wiktionary box would be more helpful than sending them to "vanity") or are looking for one of the works of media with that name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 10:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 30, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Egor Demin → Egor DëminEgor Dëmin – Every reputable source (including official NBA sources in the places where they do actually include diacritics) I've seen spells his name with the ⟨ë⟩ rather than ⟨e⟩, and I suspect that will only increase in universailty as/if he gets better (in line with people spelling Jokić and Dončić correctly). P.S.: My greatest wish is for him to go back in time and chose to transcribe his name as ⟨Dyomin⟩ or ⟨Djomin⟩, but oh well. Hugo P. Behrmann (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Babayevo (town), Vologda Oblast → Babayevo, Vologda OblastBabayevo, Vologda Oblast – The rural settlement of the same name, which if I've understood correctly was one block of houses immediately north-west of and adjacent to the town, with no intervening geographical features, has been abolished and merged with the town proper. Since the rural locality no longer exists, was less than one half of one per cent the population of the town, is now part of the town, and has no article to merge to this one, this article is the primary topic in terms of long-term significance. DrKay (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 29, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Ellie Nesler → Killing of Daniel Mark Driver – Person notable for only one event. As explained in WP:BIO1E, "[t]he general rule is to cover the event, not the person" in a case such as this. It rarely happens that the extraordinary political, social or historical nature of an event can make a single person merit their own page (Crooks, Chauvin, Guiteau), but the event in question here has no more relevance than any other notable true-crime cases that we usually cover on Wikipedia because it only meets the bare minimum of WP:NEVENT. I see nothing out of the ordinary here that would lead us to go against conventional standards and give this person an individual article that almost overshadows the event itself. V. S. Video (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kaiser Family Foundation → KFF (health policy) – Kaiser Family Foundation is no longer the name of the organization. It legally changed it's name to KFF at the end of 2025. The current title "Kaiser Family Foundation" is outdated. The entity has legally transitioned from a private foundation to a 501(c)(3) public charity. KFF is its common name; It has been DBA as KFF for several years prior to the legal change. Major media outlets refer to the organization as KFF. Examples include Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN. While "organization" or "nonprofit" might be preferred by Wikipedia, there is another nonprofit organization "King Faisal Foundation" that also goes by KFF. Therefore, this move request is a topical one, which succinctly informs the reader of the specific field of expertise for KFF. Rsidel (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Global Connectivity Index → ? – The current article documents a specific proprietary index initiative developed and published by Huawei between 2014–2019, as reflected by its sources, methodology, and historical scope. The title "Global Connectivity Index" is generic and does not clearly distinguish this specific initiative from other uses of the term in broader connectivity or internet measurement contexts. Renaming the article would better align the title with its actual subject matter and help clarify scope for readers. ~2025-42165-26 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 28, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–present) → Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes (2024–2025) – : This article should be discontinued and all subsequent clashes from January 2026 should only be added to the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. This page was made to cover the escalation of clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Until another proper conflict breaks out again like the October 2025 conflict, any new border clashes should only be added to the original border clashes page. Having to update both this page and the normal one till the end of time seems useless waste of both energy and time of not only editors, but also readers as well, since both pages have been covering the same new border clashes since 2024. I'd say to end this page hear and only add new clashes to the normal page. If a new conflict between Pakistan and the Taliban breaks out, it can have its own article and a sub-section on the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes article. This article should only be limited to cover the 2024-2025 major escalation in clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover and the subsequent clashes between the countries during this escalation. It should only cover a phase, not a never-ending conflict. KashanAbbas (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Coulson FireLiner → Boeing 737 FireLiner – The article should be move to Boeing 737 FireLiner because the plane is not referred to as the "Coulson FireLiner" by the sources nor have I personally heard seen it in any of my research of the topic. I understand that the article was moved from Coulson Aviation-Boeing 737 FireLiner to Coulson FireLiner for WP:CONCISE, I understand that the name could be more concise, but Coulson FireLiner is not the way to do it. I believe Boeing 737 FireLiner is a better and more concise, especially considering thats what the manufacturer calls it. I do note that I probably should've named it Boeing 737 FireLiner to begin with when I first started the article. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 27, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Zale Corporation → ZalesZales – WP:COMMONNAME. A search for "Zales" by itself without any other keywords turns up exclusively content on the jeweler. Most of the inbound links are from "Zales" or "Zales Jewelers" and not "Zale Corporation", and I couldn't find any other works with "Zales" including the S with which this might be confused. Most of the corporate-level content for the parent company is located at Signet Jewelers, including mentions of all spinoff brands such as Banter/Piercing Pagoda, so I don't think any confusion will ensue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Base Set (Pokémon) → Base SetBase Set – I initially created it like this because there was apparently a "Base Set" for Magic: The Gathering, but upon further investigation, it seems like the term is just an alternative of Core Sets. From looking at things, there's no TCG set in Magic, Pokemon, or otherwise that is just called Base Set (the closes thing is other sets called, for instance, "Pokemon Diamond and Pearl Base Set"). Currently, Base Set is a redirect to "Set", but there's no entries on the disambiguation, which leads me to believe that the reader would be better served with this move. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dragon Hopper → D-HopperD-Hopper – This is a cancelled game that is now finally officially releasing in 2026. However, Nintendo changed the name of the game for this release. Since "Dragon Hopper" now is just the old name that was never used for a released game, with "D-Hopper" being used for an official release, I believe there is no good reason to keep it named Dragon Hopper. WP:COMMONNAME might be a common counter-argument, but sources have already begun to call it D-Hopper,[1] since that is now the name of an upcoming title. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sinhalisation → SinhalizationSinhalization – The current spelling "Sinhalisation" has rarely appeared in real usage. Across academic reports, mainstream media, and online sources, the term is consistently rendered as "Sinhalization" with -ization rather than -isation. Wikipedia should follow the dominant usage. As an example, see the following report from PEARL, as well as articles published by South Asian Voices and Countercurrents that use American spelling: * State Sponsored Sinhalization of the North-East The Anti-Development Machine (PDF) (Report). People for Equality and Relief in Lanka (PEARL). 20 January 2026. * Kapur, Roshni (2020-08-26). "Tamil diaspora and the LTTE movement in Sri Lanka". South Asian Voices. Archived from the original on 30 November 2023. Retrieved 2026-01-27. * Kumarathasan, Rasingam (2022-06-07). "State Sponsored Sinhalese Colonization Of Tamils' Traditional Homeland". Countercurrents. Archived from the original on 8 June 2022. Retrieved 2026-01-27. Here are some more examples: * "Sinhalization of Buddhism in Sri Lanka" (PDF). Journal of Peace Studies. 21 (2). June 2014. Retrieved 2026-01-27. * Devana, Senanayake (19 August 2024). "The Lingering Economic Consequences of Sri Lanka's Civil War". thediplomat.com. Retrieved 2026-01-27. * Jude Lal, Fernando (2025-03-13). "War and armed resistance in Sri Lanka: On the Tamil Eelam right to self-determination and peace in the Indian Ocean | Links". links.org.au. Retrieved 2026-01-27. * "The Sri Lankan Civil War and Its History, Revisited in 2020". Harvard International Review. 2020-08-31. Retrieved 2026-01-27. * P.K.BALACHANDRAN (2019-07-20). "Sinhalization of Tamil Areas by Building Buddhist Shrines over Hindu Temples". www.thecitizen.in. Retrieved 2026-01-27. * "Trincomalee Under Siege: Land Grabs Target the Tamil Homeland in Sri Lanka [EN/TA/SI] - Sri Lanka | ReliefWeb". reliefweb.int. 2024-10-31. Retrieved 2026-01-27. RajaRajaC Talk 16:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 26, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Malakai Black → Aleister BlackAleister Black – Black returned to WWE under this name in April 2025.[11] He departed AEW almost one year ago,[12] so in the next few years the name Malakai Black is not going to be used to refer to this wrestler. As an example, during his AEW tenure POST Wrestling referred to Black with the Malakai name,[13] but since he has been back at WWE, they are now using Aleister Black.[14] I think Aleister Black is now his WP:COMMONNAME and he has been with WWE for long enough to warrant an update to this article.Tainmere (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Spike and Suzy → ? – Spike and Suzy is the worst possible name for this series. All other names offer at least one advantage, Willy and Wanda two: * Willy and Wanda - original name, largest number of albums * Bob and Bobette - largest time span * Spike and Suzy - nothing * Luke and Lucy - most recent While Willy and Wanda would be the best choice if we know that no extra albums will appear in English, it is quite customary also to use the current name. Bob and Bobette also has an edge. Perhaps the (in English disgraceful) film can be counted to Luke and Lucy's advantage. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Veleno (guitar) → Veleno Guitars – Prior to my edits on January 26, 2026, this article said that "The Veleno guitar is a highly regarded series of aluminium guitars built by metal craftsman John Veleno." and "Veleno guitars are known for their unique sound quality.". However, there exist multiple models of these "Veleno Guitars", such as the Original, the Traveler, the Ankh, as well as two basses. As there is not enough notability to give each of these models their own page (the original being the most notable), I decided to make this page about the Veleno Guitars company themselves, with a strong focus on John Veleno's history with the guitars he made. Veleno is a company now, not just specifically a series of guitars, as shown on their old website which appears to have been managed by John back when he was still alive, as shown here in this section, a large bit of which is typed in the first-person perspective, as well as their new website. Because of this, I propose that this article be renamed to Veleno Guitars as it is a guitar company now. Romeo v. Juliet (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 25, 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.
  • (Discuss) – The staff ate it later → The staff ate it deliciously later – 2019年5月10日に日本語版で記事が作成された後に、2020年1月16日に英語版の記事が作成されていますが、その際に、日本語の「美味しく」と表現している部分の翻訳が抜けてしまっています。初版の出典を確認してみましたが、全て日本語の出典（AOLの出典が英語のように見えますが確認すると日本語の記事です。）を参照しています。 The Japanese version of this article was created on May 10, 2019, and the English version was created on January 16, 2020. However, during the creation of the English version, the translation for the Japanese expression “delicious” was omitted. Upon checking the sources for the first version, all sources referenced were Japanese (though the AOL source appears to be in English, it is actually a Japanese article). Tail furry (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dredge (disambiguation) → DredgeDredge – Trying this again because the previous discussion was solely opposed by non-policy based WP:VOTEs. Please cite policy of some sort if you are going to oppose this time. My argument remains the same; there are several potential primary topics for "Dredge", including fishing and marine biology dredges, as well as the Dredge video game, and none of them are obviously primary. The dredging article is broader and doesn't necessarily go into detail on the dredges themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Candidozyma auris → Candida aurisCandida auris – This would reverse the undiscussed uncontested technical move requested by User:Redthreadhx and would align with common usage as well as the content of the article itself. Note that the title should be displayed in italics, as Candida auris. The reclassification and change in the genus name was proposed in 2024.[19][20] The proposal is controversial and has not been widely adopted in the medical and scientific literature. Google Scholar shows 3,480 hits for "Candida auris" published since 2025 and just 388 hits for "Candidozyma auris". Similarly, Wiley shows 113 hits for "Candida auris"[21] and 12 for "Candidozyma auris"[22] published in the last 12 months and Springer–Nature shows 233 hits for "Candida auris"[23] and 40 for "Candidozyma auris"[24] in the past 12 months. While the UK government has apparently adopted Candidozyma auris,[25][26] Candida auris is still used by the US CDC,[27] the Canadian government,[28] the WHO,[29][30] federal and local health authorities in Australia,[31][32][33][34][35][36] APIC,[37] and other institutions. This article uses Candida auris throughout and never explains the discrepancy. Coverage of the proposed revision is probably warranted but the longstanding title and common medical and scientific name should be restored. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 13:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula → Muslim conquest of SpainMuslim conquest of Spain – This never should have been moved away from Spain. It's now a lengthy mouthful instead of concise and doesn't follow the predominant language. See Ngrams. Also, it doesn't accurately reflect the name of the geography as it was named at the time when it was conquered. It was Visigothic Spain or Hispania, but everyone knows the Roman term Hispania is what becomes 'Spain', so it gets simplified in literature as the latter. This becomes particularly clear when you look at what actually comes after 'Visigothic' in the literature, and it's not even close: Ngram #2. Finally, 'Iberian Peninsula' only appears on page where it's been inserted, only 12 times and not in the sources. 'Spain' appears nearly twice as much despite being temporarily displaced from the title, etc., and its prominent in sources. Arab conquest of Spain ... Moorish Spain ... Islamic Spain ... Muslim Spain are littered across the source titles. So if it's called Spain before the conquest, and Spain after the conquest, I think we know what it is called for the purposes of the conflict. And yes, Portugal exists, but it didn't at this point in history. See Ngrams or lack therein, for 'Visigothic Portugal'. The clear common name for the relevant territory at this point is 'Spain'. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – List of Renée Good protests → Renée Good protestsRenée Good protests – As this article is shaping up to be more than just a list of protests, and more of a full-fledged article on the Renee Good protests - not only with how the protests section is structured and how different protests are recounted, but also with the addition of the wikibox and the Reactions section. As I stated in previous talk page edits, given that the protests were chiefly sparked by the killing of Renee Good, I believe it to be appropriate to name it as the Renee Good protests (in contrast to, say, the 2026 ICE shooting protests), especially given the already-existing article title. Imo this article has a similar format and structure to other articles covering mass protests whose titles do not start with "List of", for example October 2025 No Kings protests. Even if this remains a List-class article, it is more similar to the structure of a set index article, without a corresponding disambiguation page or other article with the same title. To put it briefly, this is shaping up to be the main article on the protests, so the title should be changed to reflect that. Hackquantumcpp (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Inside Out → Inside Out (disambiguation)Inside Out (disambiguation) – 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. 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) — Relisting. BD2412 T 02:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand → He WhakaputangaHe Whakaputanga – My primary reason behind this is per WP:COMMONNAME. It is quite clear that He Whakaputanga is the WP:COMMONNAME and has been for quite some time now. Additionally, He Whakaputanga complies with WP:USEENGLISH as it is the WP:COMMONNAME in English RSes as demonstrated: * Google Ngrams with He Whakaputanga and its variations, as well as Declaration of Independence of New Zealand/of the United Tribes of New Zealand and its variants shows He Whakaputanga as demonstrably higher than all others. * Google Trends (worldwide) shows that He Whakaputanga is the WP:COMMONNAME over the past five years worldwide. * Google Trends (New Zealand) shows this by a far more significant margin as well. In the previous move request, key examples were listed that demonstrate the WP:COMMONNAME across books, scholarly articles and news/media per Turnagra: * Scholarly articles: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] * Books: [53] [54], [55], [56], * Web and news: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] As it has been over a year since the previous move request, there are further examples that can be listed to support that He Whakaputanga is the WP:COMMONNAME: * Prominent news/media: [68] [69] [70] [71] * Academic sources: [72] [73] [74] There are many other sources that use He Whakaputanga, these are just the first few results when I did a Google search and Google scholar search for the past year. Additionally, He Whakaputanga is more WP:PRECISE than "Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand", which is a precision issue, as it conflates He Whakaputanga, which is an independence declaration of the United Tribes of New Zealand with the separate modern-day state of New Zealand. Moreover, it is quite clear that He Whakaputanga is more WP:CONCISE (it being 2 words compared to the status quo of 6). Lastly, moving the article name to He Whakaputanga, reflecting the WP:COMMONNAME in English RSes, as well as it being the primary name for itself in official contexts ensures this article remains neutral per WP:NPOV, reflecting current consensus from academia and RSes, instead of outdated descriptive terms. While I think this RM should be on the basis of the evidence and policy arguments I provided alone, I also think that it is helpful to note my experience; I have been a law student for around 4 years now, and in all of the study on the topic, and legal sources that I have encountered, He Whakaputanga has been near-exclusively referred to as He Whakaputanga, sometimes with a transliteration in its first occurrence. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 08:19, 20 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) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
17:22, Sunday, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1333157853"