Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help 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 "The/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.

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • 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

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

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 28 October 2025" 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 28 October 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2025 (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 28 October 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2025 (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 28 October 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2025‎ (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 28 October 2025

– why Example (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2025 (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 28 October 2025

– why Example (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2025 (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.

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. 88 discussions have been relisted.

October 28, 2025

  • (Discuss) – DK (publisher) → Dorling KindersleyDorling Kindersley – Straightforward application of MOS:ACROTITLE and WP:NATURAL: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. The archetypal example often cited is the American Broadcasting Company, which is far more commonly known as "ABC" but is not the primary topic of that acronym. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 27, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Manukau → Manukau CentralManukau Central – I don't believe this area is primary for the term 'Manukau', it gets about equal page views as Manukau City and 4% of readers click through to Manukau City (most readers get here via external Google search I suggest that a disambiguation page be created at Manukau as I do not believe there is a primary topic. The area is often referred to as Manukau Central or Manukau City Centre instead of simply 'Manukau', which is often used for the former Manukau City area. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shetland dialect → ShaetlanShaetlan – As of yesterday, Shaetlan has received an ISO 639:3 code (scz) with the name spelled Shaetlan, which is the autonym of the language. "Shetland Dialect" is now inappropriate for the title of this article when it is considered a language in its own right. The term "Shetland Dialect", while widely used locally, is an exonym, and is now inaccurate. The reason for the spelling "Shaetlan" over "Shetland" is two three-fold - 1) it accurately portrays a large portion of speakers' tendency to pronounce the word with a voiceless /d/, 2) the <ae> reflects the intuitive community spelling convention of primary stress short intercononantal vowel, cf. maet, paet, etc. which haes the same vowel as the first syllable of Shaetlan, & 3) it keeps the language name and place name easily distinguishable when written. This is the style I Hear Dee has adopted while trying to create a standardised orthography for the language. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), because of the use of Shaetlan being exclusive to the language, it would qualify as "unquestionably the primary topic for the name", so "Shaetlan language" seems unnecessary. As per Wikipedia:Article titles, Shaetlan is more precise and more concise, and it is more natural to native Shaetlan speakers as an autonym vs an exonym. This admittedly at the cost of being slightly less recognisable outside of Shetland, however Shaetlan is slowly becoming the new standard name for this language in linguistics circles. I think this is the best compromise here. After this name change, I intend to do a bit of an overhaul of this article to set the record straight on languagehood and a number of other inaccuracies. For full disclosure, I am one of the first few signatories to the ISO code change request application. I am a project co-investigator at I Hear Dee. I am also the person who requested this article be renamed last time! A lot has changed in the last 5 years in the Shetland linguistic scene - at the time I made the last request, the name change was a vast improvement over the previous name, but now is an appropriate time to move on. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Disc cutter → Diamond disc cutterDiamond disc cutter – I have proposed renaming article so that the community can decide whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with redundant content—or prefer the updated version, which I have restructured and referenced. The main reason for the change is that disc cutters differ from abrasive saws essentially in the type of blade they use. Although both tools may seem similar, the disc cutter uses segmented diamond blades, designed for cooling and precise cutting, while the abrasive saw uses non-metallic abrasive-type blades, which are more prone to thermal wear. Previously, there were two articles that dealt with virtually the same topic, without a clear distinction between the two technologies. I have modified the disc cutter article because most current manufacturers produce motorized machines with diamond blades, which better reflects contemporary industrial reality. Furthermore, this distinction has practical and documentary relevance. For example, in the Louvre robbery (October 2025), a portable gasoline-powered saw with a segmented diamond blade was used, not an abrasive saw. To avoid duplication and confusion, I have excluded all information on abrasive blades from the updated article, which already has its own specific article. Therefore, this renaming proposal seeks a vote on whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with ambiguities—or consolidate the updated version, with clear technical differentiation and multiple inline references.--Mcapdevila (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – C. Chhunga → Ch. ChhungaCh. Chhunga – The reason I am recommending this move is that as a researcher in this field, Ch. Chhunga is the established norm of the Mizo name system. All official sources, government and academic sources use Ch. Chhunga. Other prominent Mizo figures also follow this thus as Ch. Saprawnga. My sources are the search engine results mainly. C. Chhunga yield little to no reliable sources while Ch. Chhunga brought up numerous historical documents, books and GOVT websites. https://mizoram.nic.in/gov/cm.htm The Government website here states it as Ch. Chhunga. *Nunthara, C (1996). Mizoram: Society and Polity. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. p. 42. ISBN 81-7387-059-4. *Verghese, C.G.; Thanzawna, R.L. (1997). A History of the Mizos. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. These prominent Mizo history books also use Ch. Chhunga. Suhas Chatterjee, an authority on Mizo history conforms to Mizo naming standard in his book: Suhas Chatterjee (1994). Making of Mizoram: role of Laldenga, Volume 2. M.D. Publications. p. 252. ISBN 978-81-85880-38-9. this text also used Ch. Chhunga. The biography written by James Dokhuma is called Ch. Chhunga biography. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL25405610M/Ch._Chhunga_Chanchin An official school named after him uses Ch. Chhunga https://schooleducation.mizoram.gov.in/post/pi-lalrinsangi-chawngthu-state-awardee-2025-headmaster-govt-ch-chhunga-hs My last point is that the official Mizoram Gazette in adminisntration and law uses Ch. Chhunga in their official records: https://mizoramassembly.in/storage/Assembly/Gazette/EO/GZEO1ISS_015.pdf Taitesena (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Team Envy → Envy (esports) – The org has shifted to branding itself as ENVY (all caps) since its 2025 relaunch. Would be similar to mousesports rebranding as Mouz (MOUZ) since the title of the article would be in normal type while I denoted its all caps name within the article. (esports) would naturally have to be tagged on for disambiguation purposes. IntMaMis (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 26, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Grok (chatbot) → Grok (xAI)Grok (xAI) – The current title is outdated and overly narrow, reflecting only the project's 2023 launch as a conversational AI on X, while failing to capture its 2025 evolution into a comprehensive multimodal platform powering xAI's ecosystem (e.g., Grok 4 reasoning engine, API integrations, Grokipedia, and Tesla/X features). Per WP:COMMONNAME, the most recognizable and precise name in reliable sources (e.g., xAI announcements, tech media) is "Grok" tied directly to its developer, xAI, emphasizing its branded identity as an xAI product rather than a generic tool. This avoids recency bias WP:RECENTISM by focusing on enduring branding over initial function, while maintaining disambiguation from Heinlein's "Grok" (primary topic at plain "Grok").
    Precedent: Analogous to the recent move of "Gemini (chatbot)" to "Google Gemini" (closed Sep 17, 2025), which shifted from a functional descriptor to developer-inclusive branding for Google's AI suite, recognizing its growth beyond chat interfaces. Similar patterns include "ChatGPT" (no disambiguator needed due to primacy) and "Claude (language model)" for Anthropic's offerings, prioritizing developer association under WP:SOFTWARE.
    Policy Alignment:
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: xAI's Grok dominates modern "Grok" searches/pageviews (surpassing the neologism since early 2025), warranting a title that reflects its notability without diluting the historical term.
    WP:DAB: "(xAI)" provides natural, non-descriptive disambiguation, improving accessibility (WP:AT) over the anachronistic "(chatbot)."
    WP:PRECISION: Ensures the title scopes to the xAI entity, accommodating expansions like Grok 5 AGI without future renames. This move enhances neutrality and usability; oppose if it risks ambiguity with other xAI tools (none currently). Ronnotel (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 09:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 25, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Algieba → Gamma LeonisGamma Leonis – This page was moved with the reasoning This seems like in an ADS search, Algieba got about three times more results than Gamma Leonis, which satisfies WP:STARNAMES. For some reason, simply searching ADS for "Algieba" returns over 100,000 results, which have nothing to do with the star. (Looks like it may be showing results for "algebra"?) If "object:Algieba" is added to the query, the number of results is in the single digits and less than for "Gamma Leonis"/"Gamma1 Leonis". So I don't think that can be used to argue that "Algieba" is more common. On the other hand there may be a shift toward preferring proper names of stars as article titles (see Talk:Kochab#Requested move 15 September 2025) so people may prefer this title anyway. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Horned gopher → CeratogaulusCeratogaulus – This animal is obscure enough that "horned gopher" is not really a "common name" in a meaningful sense for this taxon (nor is it accurate because they are not particularly related to gophers), and the term has only been used a handful of times to describe this animal, or anything else otherwise in the scholarly literature [8] (note, I have added -twilightbeasts.org to remove irrelevant non peer-reviewed blog posts which are all included because the term "horned gopher" is listed on the sidebar of every article on the site). The name "horned gopher" is ambiguous because other related members of the family like Mylagaulus also bore similar horns, and has also been referred to as a "horned gopher" (e.g. [9]). Ceratogaulus is the clear, WP:PRECISE and unambiguous name for this taxon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Qasr Mushatta → Mshatta – The most common spelling in English is Mshatta rather than Mushatta and, moreover, it seems like more sources refer to it as simply Mshatta, without Qasr. Qasr (al-)Mshatta still appears in references, or appears as a longer version of the name alongside the shorter version, but it's not more common and evidently not necessary. See for example ngram or compare number of results in Google Scholar searches: [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Plenty of direct examples in scholarly general references ([14], [15], [16], etc) or in more specialized works ([17], [18] [19], etc). Nor does there appear to be any other topic that goes by this name, so there's no ambiguity or loss of precision with the more concise version. So for both WP:COMMONNAME and for WP:CONCISE, recommend moving to "Mshatta". R Prazeres (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 24, 2025

  • (Discuss) – List of entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks → ? – The current title is the equivalent of having a Wikipedia article titled List of education affected by the COVID-19 pandemic instead of Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education. The previous RM discussion a few months back failed to establish consensus in either direction. I think that, if I had avoided specifying a new name, then those who would've supported the general idea (but opposed the particular name I proposed) wouldn't have found it difficult to figure out how to cast an honest !vote, so I figured I'd open another discussion of this nature to give such users another chance to say something or suggest different alternative titles. As some opponents argued that the current title should be kept because the article is a list, I recently tried to start an RfC discussion to figure out where consensus would stand on converting this article to prose, but that was quickly shut down because title-changing was brought up alongside unlistification. Although I followed Zxcvbnm's suggestion and created a draft, I've never been able to figure out what to do next with it in order to push for this article's scope to be change[d] to that effect. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 23, 2025

  • (Discuss) – General secretaryship of Xi Jinping → ? – From what I can tell, "General secretaryship of Xi Jinping" is completely a Wikipedia invention. I've not been able to find sources that call his tenure "general secretaryship" (which itself seems to be a pretty uncommon term). I'd also like to find some consensus on what the articles on tenures of Chinese leaderships (and perhaps other Communist leaders) should be called. The Account 2 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 22, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Czech Republic → CzechiaCzechia – I believe that after almost 10 years it is time to move this article to Czechia, which is what the country actually calls itself.
    Looking at the 5 criteria: # Recognizability - Czechia is now just as recognizable as the Czech Republic. Google Maps uses it, many events like the Olympics use it, and Czech Republic now fells slightly clunky. # Naturalness - Just as natural as the Czech Republic, if not more # Precision - While the Czech Republic is the official name, the country has asked for the English-speaking world to use Czechia. As Czechia is the officially requested name, it scores slightly higher here. # Concision - Czechia is more concise than Czech Republic # Consistency - Czechia matches with the general pattern of using short names for countries unless absolutely necessary. We call it the United Kingdom, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland This is why I believe Czech Republic should be moved to Czechia. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2-Bromo-LSD → BOL-148BOL-148 – "BOL-148" is the Sandoz developmental code name for this drug, whereas "2-bromo-LSD" is one of various chemical names (another is "2-Br-LSD"). In Google Scholar, "BOL-148" (and a variation + disambiguation terms) gets 920 results ([37]), whereas "2-bromo-LSD" (and a variation + disambiguation terms) gets 484 results ([38]). Findings are similar if the disambiguation terms are omitted. Hence, this drug is more commonly known by its developmental code name than by the chemical name "2-bromo-LSD" in the scientific literature and thus "BOL-148" may be considered its primary common/trivial name. "Bromolysergide" is another name of the drug but only gets 66 results in Google Scholar. Per policies like WP:OCHEMNAME and WP:COMMONNAME, I propose moving the page to "BOL-148". That is, the major common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies. In addition, numerous other analogues/related drugs are named by their Sandoz developmental code names, including LAE-32, ALA-10, MLA-74, LME-54, ALD-52, LBB-66, LPD-824, MPD-75, and LSM-775. Articles in this area should follow the same naming scheme for consistency (WP:CONSISTENT, WP:TITLECON). Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 04:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lysergic acid 2,4-dimethylazetidide → LSZLSZ – This drug emerged as a novel designer drug in 2013 and has since become well- and best-known by the common/trivial name "LSZ" (an acronym of one of its chemical names) (e.g., [39], [40], [41], [42]). The acronym "LSZ" currently redirects back to this page and there is an LSZ (disambiguation) page with the drug listed as the primary topic. The other entries on the LSZ disambiguation page are "LSZ reduction formula" and "Lošinj Airport" ("IATA: LSZ, ICAO: LDLO"). A previous discussion on the current talk page made the case for the drug being the primary topic for "LSZ", although this was over 10 years ago. Most of the top results for "LSZ" via Google Search are for the drug. In Google Scholar, there are 378 results for "LSZ" the drug (via some disambiguation terms) ([43]) and 1,270 results for "LSZ reduction formula" ([44]). However, the latter is distinct from "LSZ" via a longer name that is essential in describing what it is (the "LSZ" part is simply an acronym of the formula's three creators' last names). Per policies like WP:OCHEMNAME, WP:COMMONNAME (WP:RECOGNIZE), WP:ACROTITLE, and WP:CONCISE, I propose moving the drug page to "LSZ". That is, the common/trivial name is preferred per Wiki policies, an acronym is fine if the acronym (by itself) primarily refers to the topic in question, and the new title is more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. Also, the page name for the closely related drug LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is the acronym form similarly. Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 03:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 21, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Tiendesitas → Ortigas East – I would like to propose expanding the scope of this article from covering only Tiendesitas to encompassing the entire Ortigas East (formerly known as Frontera Verde) mixed-use development where it is located. I think the current article’s scope on the shopping complex is too narrow for standalone notability and would be better contextualized as part of the larger development. Several Wikipedia articles already mention Ortigas East by name, and at least two articles and there are at least two articles on places currently and formerly located in it, such as Christ's Commission Fellowship and Ark Avilon Zoo. Having Tiendesitas covered as part of an article on the broader mixed-use estate would also be more consistent with articles like Araneta City, Capitol Commons, Greenhills (mixed-use development), and Eastwood City, which include their major establishments or malls within a single comprehensive article. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 October 2025 (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) – Smithville tornado → 2011 Smithville tornado2011 Smithville tornado – Multiple Intense-to-Violent tornadoes have impacted the Smithville area prior. In 1920 a long track and highly deadly tornado moved through the Smithville area, in total claiming 88 lives, and more recently in 2023, a deadly EF3 went through the Amory and Smithville areas, claiming 2 lives. Smithville and the surrounding area has been hit multiple times Another reason is the previous title move did not truly reach a consensus with only a single supporting comment, along with one neutral comment. The move proposal was not given enough time for more opinions to be made, and the article title should not have moved. Quincy Gordon (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ram 1500 REV (Range-Extended) → Ram 1500 REV – This is confusing as-is, as "Range-Extended" is unclear. The page using that as a disambiguator is the article for what will ostensibly be the production model; the article currently disambiguated as "All-Electric" has been cancelled and will never see production, at least not under the "REV" branding which has been repurposed for the former. Therefore, the "Range-Extended" REV is all but certain to be the primary topic going forward. Most people looking for information on the Ram 1500 REV will likely be looking for the production model, not the cancelled one. "Concept" may not be the best title for the all-electric article, but it's the clearest I could think of - I'm open to other suggestions on that. Alternatively, the content could be merged to Ram 1500 (DT). In any case, both current titles violate the MOS so I wanted to get a discussion open as soon as possible before more undiscussed moves are made. Sable232 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. WhatADrag07 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocidePalestinian genocide – Following the extensive RFC on the Gaza genocide, Wikipedia now recognizes the Gaza genocide as genocide WP:VOICE. If Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, then by extension it has committed genocide against Palestinians. Retaining the word "accusations" in the title is misleading, as it casts doubt where a broad consensus already exists among scholars, human rights organizations, and international bodies recognizing these actions as genocide. More cautious or qualified wording such as "accusations" can still be included within the body of the article when discussing genocide accusations in past conflicts, but the title itself should reflect the current state of reliable sources and scholarly consensus. Further,WP:NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to denialist or minority views. Article title should also be WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT Cinaroot (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. GiantSnowman 11:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mac Wright → Mac Wright (disambiguation)Mac Wright (disambiguation) – The disambiguation page contains two links in its main section, one to the cricketer and one to the late actor and director Mack V. Wright. The latter, I understand, isn't in MOS:DABSEEALSO as the director was credited as "Mac Wright" for some of his work (IMDb lists one episode of a TV series).[1] According to Pageviews Analysis, the cricketer's page recorded more than three times as many visits as the actor's one over the last 8 years.[2] This suggests to me that someone searching for Mac Wright is far more likely to be looking for the cricketer (using a name commonly used for him) rather than for the director (using a name which is seldom associated with him), and so that taking that person to a DAB page would be unhelpful. The cricketer's article should have a hatnote to the director after this change so someone who entered the wrong term would only be one link from the right page. Neither page would need a link to the DAB page, but I'd keep the one at Wright.

References

  1. ^ "Mack V. Wright". IMDB. Retrieved 2025-10-10.
  2. ^ "Pageviews Analysis". wmcloud.org. Retrieved 2025-10-10.
Aoeuidhtns (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. WhatADrag07 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

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

The current Wikipedia time is:
08:21, Tuesday, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1317827600#Relisting_a_requested_move"