WebSafe 3.7en.wikipedia.org
|
|
🏠
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves


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

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

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests


Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

Previously discussed in 2025; no consensus. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@আফতাবুজ্জামান There is Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain (born 1942) HurricaneZetaC 20:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Oornery Best not to move the article while the AfD is still ongoing, per WP:AFDEQ. 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Shwabb1 This request appears to be incorrect. WP:UKRTABLE indicates that о should be transliterated as io if it follows ь. Bensci54 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That rule was added by VSL even though the source does not indicate this. I've removed this incorrect addition now. The law I've previously attached specifically notes that Нижньогірський → Nyzhnohirskyi and Верхньодніпровськ → Verkhnodniprovsk. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@QINGSHAN XUE There is a disambiguation page at the proposed title, so this is a primary topic grab, which is controversial. 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:25, 18 February 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 18 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 18 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 19:17, 18 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 18 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 19:17, 18 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 18 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 19:17, 18 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 18 February 2026

– why Example (talk) 19:17, 18 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 18 February 2026

– why Example (talk) 19:17, 18 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. 101 discussions have been relisted.

February 18, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Verkhniokamianske → VerkhnokamianskeVerkhnokamianske – The national system transliterates "ьо" as "o". See Law 55-2010-п that establishes the current version of the national transliteration system (the source of WP:UKRTABLE) as well as Law z0957-14 that lists out the official transliterations and translations of certain toponyms (including Нижньогірський → Nyzhnohirskyi and Верхньодніпровськ → Verkhnodniprovsk). The previously used "io" is incorrect transliteration (even though it phonetically makes more in accordance with iotated letters that have similar sounds but I digress). The law explicitly states that the soft sign is not reproduced in Latin. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rhomaioi → Romaioi (Byzantine period) – To align with Byzantine scholarship usage (Kaldellis, Stouraitis use "Romaioi") and to better align with Wikipedia policy on WP:TITLE, WP:PRECISION, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation for articles of the same people but in different eras. "Byzantines" is common usage for the Romaioi during the Byzantine period but scholarship in the Ottoman period does not have as much consensus and in the modern era they are still called Romaioi (Greeks in Turkey) though this is more complicated. This is necessary as readers should not think of these are different people but as the same people in different eras. Usage of Greeks as an identifier pre-1821 (versus Greek speakers) is also not neutral as was debated before for Byzantine Greeks and is similarly an issue for Ottoman Greeks as multiple Balkan ethnicities emerged from the Romaioi Biz (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Julio Foolio → FoolioFoolio – MOVE REQUEST. He always performed songs under the stage name "Foolio" and former name Lil 6. He was never performed as Julio Foolio. "JulioFoolio" was just his Instagram account name because maybe someone had already taken "foolio". Unresearched mainstream media writers who even didn't know his name until his death kept referring to him as "Julio Foolio" in obituary articles, but it was completely wrong. People need to stop believing that social media account ID and stage name were not always the same. This is a huge problem in poor journalism these days. This is the same reason why 6ix9ine's article title is not "Tekashi69" or "Tekashi6ix9ine". Use the common and official stage name. Other database and info websites, YouTube, Spotify, Genius, IMDb, Discogs etc, every his pages just "Foolio", why Wikipedia article is keep referring to him as Julio Foolio? Please move immediately RIGHT NOW. --~2026-92591-2 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 17, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Chams → Cham peopleCham people – Using Chams with a plural -s and without people is somewhat indistinct and confusing. First-time readers might wonder whether it refers to a thing, a concept, or a group of people since the Cham are not as well-known a people as Koreans, Germans, Swedes, or Canadians (see examples at WP:ETHNICGROUP). A demonym is "a word that identifies a group of people (inhabitants, residents, natives) in relation to a particular place." Meanwhile, Champa was a multiethnic society, and Cham was not its sole ethnic composition. Furthermore, many Cham people today live outside the territory of the former Champa. Thus, Cham is not strictly a demonym, and the title Cham people is simply the natural way to refer to the group and less vague. Hence, the proposal is based on the criteria of Naturalness and Recognizability per WP:TITLE. --Greenknight dv (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Brandeis International Business School → ? – The institution formerly known as “Brandeis International Business School” has been officially renamed **School of Business and Economics** in 2025 as part of a broader academic restructuring at Brandeis University. This is reflected in official university communications and the institution’s own branding. The current Wikipedia page title no longer matches the school’s formal name and mission; updating it improves accuracy and aligns with Wikipedia’s naming conventions that article names should reflect the *current* and *most commonly used* official name of the subject. Reliable university sources verify the name change and the consolidation of business, economics, and finance programs under a single school identity. ArtVandelay23 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wu Zetian → Empress Wu Zhao of Zhou – The current title of the page ‘Wu Zetian’ was given to this figure when she was removed from power in 716. The name ‘Wu Zetian’ was not used during her rule and its promulgation was part of a campaign to diminish her rule after she was deposed. Although common practice is to refer to the emperor with their temple name, in this figure’s specific case, the name ‘Wu Zetian’ was forced upon this figure after she was deposed and does not serve the typical functions of a temple name. In this imperial edict, translated by N.H. Rothschild in his book, Wu Zhao: China’s Only Woman Emperor, page 8, this figure named herself as Zhao and was referred to as such during her rule. “One must have a name so that their personal record can be truthfully and accurately made known. This respectfully conforms to the will of Heaven and the practices of men. Thus, when I issue an order that the Hundred Spirits be treated with reverence, when I offer praise to the Lord on High, when I extend New Year’s blessings to the three deceased sovereigns of the House of Tang, when I receive ambassadors from the myriad nations in court—it is fitting that, in discharging these duties of state, I follow the canonical practice of rectifying names and take a name. Thus, I shall take Zhao as my name.”(Chinese Original: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%85%A8%E5%94%90%E6%96%87/%E5%8D%B70096#%E6%94%B9%E5%85%83%E8%BC%89%E5%88%9D%E8%B5%A6%E6%96%87 ) By naming herself Wu Zhao, this figure created a character based on the historical and cultural trends of the time, containing homages to Buddhism - a new religion to China at that time - and Daoism. By referring to this figure as ‘Wu Zetian’, vital historical information is lost to readers. There exists historical precedence (Di Xin) in changing the title of a figure’s page because of the derogatory circumstances behind the previous title. In addition, contemporary scholarship on this figure has begun shifting to using the name Wu Zhao on the basis of the reasoning provided above. Below are some examples of such: - Rothschild, Norman Harry. "Wu Zhao's remarkable aviary." Southeast Review of Asian Studies 27. 2005. 71-89. - Doran, Rebecca. Transgressive Typologies: Construction of Gender and Power in Early Tang China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2016. Pg. <>. ISBN 9780674970588 - Stephen R. Bokenkamp. A Medieval Feminist Critique of the Chinese World Order: The Case of Wu Zhao (r. 690–705). 1998. Religion, Volume 28, Issue 4. Pg. 390, Note 1. ISSN 0048-721X. https://doi.org/10.1006/reli.1998.0147 - Barrett, T.H. Breaking the Reputation of Female Rule in China: Daoism and the Rewriting of the History of the Reign of Wu Zhao (624-705). 2019. NAN NÜ, 21(2), Pg. 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685268-00212P01 - Marlowe, Britt. Empress Wu Zhao, son of Heaven: Uses of religious patronage and propaganda to secure support and quell dissension during the Tang dynasty. University of Colorado at Boulder, 2008. - Lee, Yuen Ting. "Wu Zhao." Education About ASIA 20.2. 2015. It is for these above reasons why I believe that the title should be changed to ‘Empress Wu Zhao of Zhou’. The name ‘Wu Zetian’ is still commonly used; however, it breaks with other standards the Wikipedia uses for emperors. Although I continue to hold that ‘Emperor Wu Zhao of Zhou’ is the most historically accurate and in line with current scholarship, I believe the title ‘Empress Wu of Zhou’ can be a fair compromise in line with the pages of other Chinese emperors. In addition, this figure’s page could use the name ‘Wu Zhao’ / ‘Zhao’ instead of ‘Wu’ when referring to this figure, especially during their time as Emperor. This would also match how names are used for similar pages on Wikipedia. Frutescens (talk) 15:20, 17 February 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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:37, 17 February 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) — Relisting. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 16, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Jeremiah Justin Simms → WifiskeletonWifiskeleton – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be titled using the name that reliable, independent sources most commonly use. In music journalism, interviews, streaming platforms, and coverage of underground hip-hop scenes, the artist is overwhelmingly referred to simply as Wifiskeleton rather than Jeremiah Justin Simms. The stage name is the primary and most recognizable identifier used in reliable sources and professional contexts, making it the natural and predominant usage. Retitling the article to Wifiskeleton would therefore align with Wikipedia’s naming conventions and improve recognizability and consistency. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Grumman → Grumman CorporationGrumman Corporation – This page was previously changed from "Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation,", which I agree is too long, but the current title for the page just being "Grumman" doesn't make much sense. Other defunct/merged companies that I can see utilize the full name when possible, ex: Rockwell International. Although an example in the archive uses Boeing as a reason to change from the old title to just "Grumman," this works because Boeing is rarely referred to as "The Boeing Company" in official capacities or by the general public. The logo for Boeing is also very specificaly *just* Boeing, it doesn't have any of the other text from the full name, in contrast to Grumman, which is somewhat referred to publicly as just Grumman, but the late stage logo and self referential material refers to the company as "Grumman Corporation," instead of just Grumman. It's also still a short enough name not to be too distracting or unnecessary. Clint11480 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Box-office bomb → Box-office failureBox-office failure – The term "box-office bomb" is a non-neutral colloquialism, the meaning of which is not obvious to those not in the know about the film business and also has changed over time, and may yet change again. Although some may argue that "bomb" is the common name, WP:POVTITLE specifically states that common names may be avoided if they are "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". "Box-office failure" is concise, neutral, and clear, avoiding any potential issues with POV or ambiguity. Additionally, due to the increasingly common occurrence of blockbuster films that boast huge production budgets yet fail to make them back during their theatrical run despite earning significantly large sums, there are an increasing number of films that are considered box-office disappointments but are not described as "bombs" in the media, one such example being Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning. Others, such as The Matrix Resurrections, do not turn a profit in their theatrical run, but do find an audience on streaming platforms. The lede sections of these articles neutrally describe the specific way in which they are considered to have "failed" by sources; "underperformed", "disappointment", etc., rather than "bomb". The article title should therefore be changed so as to recognize that a film can fail financially at the box office, but not necessarily be considered a "bomb" as such. Box-office bomb should obviously remain a redirect, and the true box office bombs (the likes of Morbius, Megalopolis, and Joker: Folie à Deux) can still be described as bombs if the sources warrant it. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty → National LandscapeNational Landscape – It's been over two years since AONBs in England and Wales became National Landscapes, so it's time to formally discuss a move. All of the AONBs except four now use the 'National Landscapes' branding, and only two of those four use 'AONB'. The name is regularly used in the media, including by the BBC, Times, Independent, LBC, Telegraph, and in local papers. If the move is successful it should incorporate a split of the information about Northern Irish Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which are organised on a different legal basis and now have a different public name to their English and Welsh counterparts. I wasn't sure whether to organise this discussion as a move or a split, but the result of any change should be something along the lines of: * National Landscape, containing the bulk of the content from this article * Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, containing the information relevant to Northern Ireland AONBs * Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (England and Wales), a redirect to National Landscape * AONB, a disambiguation to National Landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty A.D.Hope (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 07:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lazar Stefanović (disambiguation) → Lazar StefanovićLazar Stefanović – There was an inconclusive RM at Talk:Lazar Stefanovic last year involving this title, and another editor disputed my recent move. So, apparently I have to force a new RM. Sorry. There is no primary topic for the Serbian name "Lazar Stefanović" (with the diacritic), because we know that this was the name of both a 20th century politician, a present-day sportsperson from Serbia, as well as the Serbian name of a person of Serbian descent in North America, whose article title omits the diacritic. A Google Books search for this name, Lazar Stefanović, gives me exclusively information about the politician. Therefore, it would likely surprise readers who are aware of this and then look this up in the encyclopedia to find that that we focus on another topic, esp. one with far less obvious long-term significance. Showing how ambiguous this name is the most appropriate solution. For readers who look up the name without a diacritic, the modern-day American/Canadian person might well be a primary topic, and I'm not arguing for changing that at this time (because I don't particularly care to do the amount of due diligence necessary to do that). What is however apparent is that they aren't the primary topic for the Serbian name. Joy (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 07:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Twitter → X (social network)X (social network) – Current reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the platform as “X”. Sampling of reliable sources consistently shows that these sources refer to “Twitter” only in historical or “formerly known as” contexts. Usage guides and reference works (e.g., AP Stylebook, Encyclopedia Britannica) have also adopted “X” for present-day use. Common objections based on colloquial speech, legacy terminology, URLs, or disambiguation concerns are inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and past practice for renamed entities. Detailed explanation below. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. – LuniZunie(talk) 07:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Regulation of radio broadcast in the United States → Regulation of radio transmission in the United States – The very regulatory body that is at the center of this article, the FCC, makes a distinction between transmission and broadcast and defines both terms in its regulations. While definitions vary between regulations, FCC part 97 (this just deals specifically with the regulation of amateur transmission, so not otherwise general) offers a good definition of "broadcasting" that generally accords with other definitions and is useful to highlight the distinction. It defines broadcasting there as: "transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed." Hopefully this makes clear that "broadcast" is a subset of "transmission". The FCC regulates both. On that basis, as there is currently no article covering the regulation of transmission, I propose this article be renamed to "Regulation of radio transmission in the United States." Pietrus1 (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Pracalit script → Newar scriptNewar script – Prachalit or Pracalit script is not a commonly used term compared to Newari script, as seen in the ngram.This source mentions that the most common name for it is Newari, and the name Prachalit was popularized later by Shakyavamsa. Similarly, this script was first referred by the name “Newara Akhara” or Newar script in 1654 CE. All academic sources in English and Nepali refer to this script as the Newari script. For example:1, 2,3,4. Since the Indic suffix “-i” is considered inappropriate it would be good to move this article name to Newar script. Jujubhaju (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 14, 2026

February 13, 2026

February 12, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Metal Gear Solid (2000 video game) → Metal Gear: Ghost BabelMetal Gear: Ghost Babel – I've debated making this RM for a while now, but today I felt like going ahead with it in light of recent announcements. While both names are in theory valid, I believe that Metal Gear: Ghost Babel is the WP:COMMONNAME of Metal Gear Solid (2000 video game), and it should be moved to that title, with the original Metal Gear Solid video game moved as well to compensate. My points are as follows: # While a lot of sources do refer to it as simply Metal Gear Solid, it's generally within the context of only talking about that game. But when you look for sources that discuss the series as a whole, you will start to see a lot that refer to it as Ghost Babel. A few examples: [36] [37] [38] [39]. Even sources that do choose to refer to it as just Metal Gear Solid seem to point out that it's also named Ghost Babel. [40] [41] # The game was referred to as Ghost Babel from the beginning in its initial release country of Japan, and by technicality, a bit before it made its way to the United States. This should especially be noted as we have articles where we refer to a release based on what it was originally called. For example, Yoshi's Universal Gravitation is called such because that's the title it goes by in most regions, even if Topsy-Turvy is used sometimes. # Ghost Babel is a more precise, valid name that eliminates the need for a disambiguation. # Perhaps most importantly and what got me to make this request today specifically, a re-release of this game was recently announced as part of the second volume of the Metal Gear Solid Master Collection. Even in the United States (and everywhere, for that matter), the game is now officially being referred to by Konami as Ghost Babel. [42] [43] [44] The move would also allow Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) to be moved to simply Metal Gear Solid (video game) without issue, as the release year disambiguation would no longer be necessary and the 1998 game is the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A disambiguation hatnote could be kept on that article to guide people to this article, if they are still looking for it. λ NegativeMP1 23:29, 12 February 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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Flagstar Financial → Flagstar BankFlagstar Bank – Flagstar Financial has rebranded as Flagstar Bank, N.A. However there was already a page here titled "Flagstar Bank".[47] I moved prevalent information about the current Flagstar Bank to this page and moved the former article titled "Flagstar Bank" to Flagstar Bank (1987–2022) which now only focuses on the former Flagstar Bank prior to its acquisition by the current Flagstar (thus avoiding the need to merge articles). Opposition to moving this earlier seemed to be focused upon when the holding company was under the NYCB and Flagstar Financial, I believe now it makes since to move this article. BrendanM127 (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 11, 2026

  • (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) — Relisting. HurricaneZetaC 22:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – 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) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 14:32, 11 February 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) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 00:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 14:26, 11 February 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: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61] * Books: [62] [63], [64], [65], * Web and news: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] 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: [77] [78] [79] [80] * Academic sources: [81] [82] [83] 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) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 14:15, 11 February 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.[86][87] 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"[88] and 12 for "Candidozyma auris"[89] published in the last 12 months and Springer–Nature shows 233 hits for "Candida auris"[90] and 40 for "Candidozyma auris"[91] in the past 12 months. While the UK government has apparently adopted Candidozyma auris,[92][93] Candida auris is still used by the US CDC,[94] the Canadian government,[95] the WHO,[96][97] federal and local health authorities in Australia,[98][99][100][101][102][103] APIC,[104] 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) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:26, 2 February 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]
  • (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]

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:
19:17, Wednesday, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1333157853"