Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested Move)

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 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

  • Kumar Saravana → Saravana KumarSaravana Kumar (currently a redirect instead to P Saravana Kumar) (move · discuss) – all sources cited call him Saravana Kumar, apart from a few that call him Saravanakumar.
UPDATE: Saravana Kumar was originally created in 2021 as a redirect to P Saravana Kumar. In April the redirect was changed to an article about the current businessman, then redirected, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saravana Kumar closed as "already redirected" in May, with G7 eligibility unclear. Another editor then restored it in June, and it was redirected again. Looks like this should be considered as a controversial request after all. Connection between original April creator Evan Chumpino, June recreator Bobbis Singerrrr, and current recreator Raccoonspirit is also unclear. @Pppery and Onel5969: courtesy ping. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:D166:DA64:AC83:4F4B (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@MC-123 As you have been advised, changes to primary topics are not uncontroversial. Please start a full RM discussion on this. Also, be prepared to explain what you believe should end up at Never Leave TiggerJay (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the EP receives minimal traffic, does not appear to be particularly notable, and is unlikely to be the primary topic over this newly-created song article. See WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gluonz Previous RM to that target was not moved, another RM is likely needed here as the move would be controversial. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenshi Hinanawi: Ah, ok – I had failed to notice that previous discussion. Thanks! –Gluonz talk contribs 20:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QalasQalas This page is for requesting moves that you cannot do for technical reasons, for mergers see the instructions at WP:PM Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:20, 28 August 2025 (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

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 August 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 August 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 16:46, 28 August 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 August 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 16:46, 28 August 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 August 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 16:46, 28 August 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 August 2025

– why Example (talk) 16:46, 28 August 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 August 2025

– why Example (talk) 16:46, 28 August 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. 89 discussions have been relisted.

August 28, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Annunciation Catholic Church shooting → 2025 Annunciation Catholic Church shooting2025 Annunciation Catholic Church shooting – The previous move was an WP:RMUM, which took the title away from WP:NCWWW, specifically, In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened. As the event happened just a few days ago, there is no historic perspective as required by WP:NOYEAR to remove the year this early after the event. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gojoseon → Old Chosŏn – Per WP:COMMONNAME research below in major Korean history books. Note that Gojoseon is not a significant topic in South Korean pop culture, which tends to use RR. "Kojosŏn": * Everlasting Flower: A History of Korea by Keith Pratt (2007) * Korea: A History by Eugene Y. Park (2022) "Old Chosŏn": * Korea: A Religious History by James H. Grayson (2002) * Historical Origins of Korean Politics by Duk-kyu Jin (2005) * A Brief History Of Korea by Mark Peterson and Phillip Marguiles (2009; note doesn't use diacritic) * A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present by Michael J. Seth (2010) * A History of Korea by Jinwung Kim (2012) * Korea: Outline of a Civilisation by Kenneth Wells (2015) * The Ancient State of Puyŏ in Northeast Asia by Mark E. Byington (2016) * The Three Kingdoms of Korea by Richard D. McBride II (2024) "Old Joseon": * A History of Korea by Kyung Moon Hwang (2022) "Gojoseon" * The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism by Jae-eun Kang (2006) * Korea: A Cartographic History (2012) by John Rennie Short Also, note that McCune–Reischauer works out well per WP:NCKO and WP:COMMONNAME. Significant majority of academic books on Korean history use MR. See WP:ROMANKO#Romanizations used in books for some proof of this; I've been tallying up what various books use. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 27, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Will to live → Will to life – All Schopenhauer sources refer to it as the will to life, not live (to name just a few, the Cambridge edition of WWR, Sophia Vasalou (2013), Dale Jacquette (2005), while I've not found one that translates it as 'life'. In its current state, this article is an improper conflation (or SYNTH to use a wikipedist term) of two distinct concepts. Loafiewa (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 26, 2025

  • (Discuss) – James Matthews (racing driver) → James Matthews (hedge fund manager)James Matthews (hedge fund manager) – Considering his motorsport career was brief and low-key (He won two regional Formula Renault titles in the same year (both of which don't have pages) and placed a highest of 9th in a regional formula 3 series), and he is probably most well-known for being the brother-in-law to William, Prince of Wales, should his article title state something different than 'racing driver'? Like, 'hedge fund manager' or 'British aristocrat' considering he is currently a billionaire hedge fund manager and the current heir to the Laird of Glen Affric, and both of those are probably much more influential and long-term to his standing than a few years of what was probably just a hobby in the mid-90s. I think 'hedge fund manager' is more reflective of his current status in the world and it is listed before 'racing driver' in the infobox. Also, from my personal point of view, I discovered this man from Pippa Middleton and not motorsport and I think that it reflects a wider user experience of him being known for something else than motorsport, especially as the majority of the sources also relate to other things Tangost1 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 25, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Air Force Reserve Command → ? – Per WP:COMMONNAME AND WP:PRECISE, I propose this page be moved to either "United States Air Force Reserve" or "Air Force Reserve," with a tertiary option of "Air Force Reserve (United States)." The legal entity is known as the "(United States) Air Force Reserve." Per the United States Congress, "There are seven reserve components: ...Air Force Reserve." Federal law defines the entity as the "Air Force Reserve," per 10 U.S.C. § 10110. Per 10 U.S.C. §10174, "[t]he Secretary of the Air Force, with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, shall establish an Air Force Reserve Command. The Air Force Reserve Command shall be operated as a separate command of the Air Force... ...The Chief of Air Force Reserve is the Commander of the Air Force Reserve Command."

    Alternatively, we could delete the re-direct found here and create a seperate "Air Force Reserve" article, modify this (Air Force Reserve Command) article slightly... bring us in-line with articles like United States Army Reserve versus United States Army Reserve Command.

    I'm open to all of these options, but we need to do something... "Air Force Reserve" hasn't been touched in nigh-on 20 years. And, more importantly, the AFR and the AFRC are two separate entities. AFRC just happens to be the entity which 'commands' all USAFR units.

    MWFwiki (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Television Hall of Fame → Television Academy Hall of FameTelevision Academy Hall of Fame – As far as I can find, the award has been named the "Television Academy Hall of Fame" since its inception in 1984. While "Television Hall of Fame" is used to refer to this informally, the Television Academy uses the name of the proposed move. This article was created with its original name, but an undiscussed move soon after article creation in 2006 moved the page to its current title, despite any references justifying this change in name. Since this isn't a common name vs. formal name issue, but rather a correct vs. incorrect name, I propose to move the article back to its correct full name. Vmanjr (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 03:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 24, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Corselet → CorseletteCorselette – As per the OED, this is "usually in form corselette", when used with this meaning. "Corselette" has only the meaning of women's clothing and "corslet" has only the meaning of armor, where as "corselet" can mean either. So I suggest the two articles should be "courselette" and "corslet", with each listing "corselet" as an alternative spelling. By default, "corselet" should redirect to "corselette", since that is the far more common meaning today. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 23, 2025

  • (Discuss) – KXTV/KOVR/KCRA Tower → Transtower – Broadcast towers don't often have common names. And this is definitely not the right one in context. While KXTV, KOVR, and KCRA all broadcast from here in between 1962 and the mid-80s, they all built even taller towers nearby in the mid-1980s, which are still in use. The proposed name comes from the joint venture set up by the stations back then to manage the facility (Transtower Inc.), which remains an active business. The KXTV/KOVR tower article is not proposed to change, as that is the tower they actually use. The article requires some work, but I already have key references for repairing it from having done all of Sacramento's major TV stations. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 22, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Rufous beaked snake → Rhamphiophis oxyrhynchusRhamphiophis oxyrhynchus – "Rufous beaked snake" is not the primary common name of the species discussed in this article (Rhamphiophis oxyrhynchus), but rather, the common name of a closely related species, Rhamphiophis rostratus, previously considered a subspecies of R. oxyrhynchus. This article was originally located at the binomial, but was moved to this common name by @Gigemag76 in 2013. Some older sources will use rufous beaked snake as a common name for R. oxyrhynchus in reference to the circumscription that included R. rostratus, making locating either species article at the common name confusing for readers. All the modern field guides I can access use the name rufous beaked snake to refer to R. rostratus, and use the common name western beaked snake to refer to R. oxyrhynchus sensu stricto, as does IUCN assessment for R. rostratus and the IUCN assessment for R. oxyrhynchus. I would suggest moving this article to the binomial name Rhamphiophis oxyrhynchus for maximum clarity, and redirecting "rufous beaked snake" to the genus article Rhamphiophis or blanking it for now and later redirecting it to Rhamphiophis rostratus (which I plan to create in the future) with a hatnote mentioning Rhamphiophis oxyrhynchus. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Flat Display Mounting Interface → VESA mounting standard – VESA is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME for this type of mount. "Flat Display Mounting Interface" is an obscure technical name that most people (including myself a few minutes ago) will not recognize (recognizability is one of the five WP:CRITERIA for good article titles). On VESA's website, their page about the standard is titled "Mounting Standard", with FDMI as a small subtitle. Looking at just about any other site (found via Google, etc) that talks about the standard, they will overwhelmingly call it VESA mount and only mention FDMI as an alternate name (if they mention it at all). Google Ngram Viewer shows that VESA is far more used than FDMI. I can't compare to "FDMI mount" or "Flat Display Mounting Interface" because they are too rarely used; it says "Ngram not found". Although the article currently lists "VESA Mounting Interface Standard (MIS)" as an alternate title, it appears that this is actually the name of an obsolete standard from 1999; it was superseded by FDMI in 2002 (per FDMI v1.1). Thus, that title isn't suitable; "VESA mounting standard" (in lowercase because it's not a proper noun) seems like the best fit (especially given its use on the official website). IagoQnsi (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 21, 2025

  • (Discuss) – John Hancock Tower → 200 Clarendon Street200 Clarendon Street – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, "200 Clarendon Street" is the name most consistently used in current reliable sources, official references, and by building occupants. The "John Hancock" name has not been used for this building in any official capacity for approximately a decade, and John Hancock Insurance is no longer an occupant. Recent reliable sources demonstrate this usage. For example, on August 6, 2024, The Boston Globe published an article titled "Bain Capital inks deal to expand headquarters at 200 Clarendon." Similar usage appears across other local media outlets. A Google Books NGRAM search shows a significant decline in "John Hancock Tower" usage between 2015 and 2022, and more recent news publications seem to favor the name "200 Clarendon." News articles that use the name "John Hancock Tower" only do so in contexts acknowledging the former name while emphasizing the new one. Signage also reflects this change. There is no "John Hancock" signage on 200 Clarendon, whereas the building directly across the street at 200 Berkeley prominently displays "John Hancock" signs on the roof and above the Clarendon St entrance, creating potential confusion for readers. Additionally, 200 Clarendon’s new "200 Club" social lounge (opened 2025) and internal communication from owner BXP to tenants reinforce the "200 Clarendon" name. From my personal experience having worked in 200 Clarendon from 2021 to present, occupants primarily call the building "200 Clarendon", and non-occupants avoid the "John Hancock" name due to confusion with 200 Berkeley. Finally, the current article title creates disambiguation issues, as "John Hancock" has been applied to multiple other buildings in Boston and elsewhere. "200 Clarendon Street" avoids ambiguity (per WP:NATURAL), aligns with current reliable sources, and reflects the building's official and common name. Muted Dawn (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 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) – The Jungle (Wheldon Road) → Wheldon RoadWheldon Road – Under the five WP:CRITERIA for article titles, Wheldon Road seems to fit better than the current The Jungle (Wheldon Road) on three points: Concision, Naturalness and Consistency. *Concision: This is the most apparent benefit. Wheldon Road unambiguously identifies the subject in two words rather than four, and avoids the need for parenthetical disambiguation due to the numerous other meanings of The Jungle. *Naturalness: Wheldon Road is the WP:COMMONNAME and enduring historical title, prominently used in reliable sources including match reports and redevelopment news. The Jungle is frequently used as a nickname or alternative, but sources discussing the stadium rarely refer solely to The Jungle without also specifically identifying it as Wheldon Road. *Consistency: Article title convention for similar sports stadia is to avoid sponsored names where a well-known and stable historical alternative exists, for example Kirklees Stadium, City of Manchester Stadium, and Mount Pleasant, Batley. The Jungle originated from a sponsorship deal by Jungle.com (later continued as Mend-A-Hose Jungle), whereas Wheldon Road had been the sole name before this. The new sponsored name OneBore Stadium also omits official reference to 'Jungle' entirely. Ieatseatbelts (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Epcot → EPCOTEPCOT – The name of the park is an acronym. Always has been. This was remphasized by Disney when they introduced the new logo nearly 6 years ago. All mentions of the park name within the "My Disney Experience" app now use the all caps. This even extends into official communications with Cast Members. It's not just a a stylization, it's how the official name of the park is written. So per WP:OFFICALNAME, we should move this article. Moreover, our own article uses "EPCOT" in every instance but the first at the beginning of the lede. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 16:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign → Odaenathus' Sasanian CampaignsOdaenathus' Sasanian Campaigns – We have been going into a discussion regarding Odaenathus' campaigns against the sasanians, Numerous sources mentioned that Odaenathus conducted more than a campaign: # The Abridged history of Arabs before Islam (in Arabic) Second Volume, page: 634-635,by Jawad Ali: :he gathered whatever forces he had and swiftly surprised the Sasanians with an attack that terrified them, striking such fear into them that they abandoned to him most of what they had obtained as spoils from their war with the Romans. They also lost some of the king's wives, who fell captive into the hands of Odaenathus' forces. The king of Palmyra was not satisfied with this revenge alone, but hastened in the year 263 CE to attack Mesopotamia, where he defeated Shapur, then besieged his capital, Ctesiphon The Sassanians continued to fight against Odaenathus in hopes of defeating him and taking revenge upon him until the year 265 CE, but they were not successful, as Odaenathus was murdered. Shapur was never being able to take his revenge against him. :as well as the same book but volume 3 page 94: :Perhaps Odaenathus' increasing pressure on the Persians, which compelled them to abandon Dura, thereby cleared the way for the Roman garrison to return to this city, Odaenathus managed to liberate Mesopotamia from the Persians and conquered Nisibis and Harran. # Syvänne, Ilkka (2019). The Reign of Emperor Gallienus: The Apogee of Roman Cavalry, Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-526-74521-7 page 151-152: he retook Nisibis, Carrhae and Mesopotamia almost immediately, then defeated Shapur himself and pursued Shapur and Shapur’s children as far as Ctesiphon, capturing Shapur’s concubines and a great amount of booty. However, on the basis of the HA ( Gall .10.1ff.) it is possible that the re-conquest of Carrhae and Nisibis took place later in 264. If this is true then, Odaenathus would actually have conducted three campaigns against the Persians: the first in 259–261, in the course of which he pursued Shapur up to Ctesiphon and from where he then returned to fight the Macriani; the second in 264, when he re-conquered Nisibis and Carrhae; and the third in 266–267 against Ctesiphon, after which he turned back to face the Goths Whatever the truth, Odaenathus appears to have received Gallienus’ order to return to crush Macrianus when Odaenathus was fighting in the neighbourhood of Ctesiphon in 261. The other reason for his readiness to retreat back to Roman territory was of course the fact that the Persian satraps were harassing his forces that were besieging Ctesiphon. Consequently, he was quite ready to obey. There also exists a dedication which praises Septimius Herodianus (likely to be Odaenathus’s eldest son Herodes) for his victory over the Persians near the Orontes River. This dedication has been used as evidence that Herodes inflicted a serious defeat on the Persians and forced them to retreat from Antioch. One may make the educated guess that this defeat together with the successes of Odaenathus forced Shapur to start his retreat that then led to the battle in which Shapur was defeated and forced to flee to Ctesiphon # Drinkwater, John (2005).Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'Crisis'. In Bowman, Alan K.; Garnsey, Peter; Cameron, Averil (eds.).The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–66. ISBN 978-0-521-30199-2, p. 45: "Emboldened by his success, in 262 he campaigned against the Persians in Mesopotamia, recovered Nisibis and Carrhae, and may also (possibly also in 262) have reached Ctesiphon. A further deep invasion of Persian territory may have occurred around 266. # Watson, Alaric (2004).Aurelian and the Third Century. London: Psychology Press. ISBN 0-415-30187-4, p. 32: "In 262 he managed to wrest northern Mesopotamia from Persian control, recapturing the vital stronghold of Nisibis, and launched a counter-invasion into the Persian empire. ... A few years later, in 266 or 267, he returned to the offensive and met with still greater success. This time he even reached the capital, Ctesiphon, # The Collins Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 B.C. to the Present by Dupuy, R. E. and Dupuy, T. N.: on page 153 states: 259-261. The Rise of Odaenathus of Palmyra. Septimus Odaenathus, "prince of Palmyra, was a Romanized Arab. Apparently he preferred to accept Roman authority rather than Persian. He may have tried to obtain Shapur's good will after the capture of Valerian; either his efforts were rebuffed or he was merely gaining time while raising a new Roman-Arab army to dispute Shapur's control of the Roman dominions of the East. The threat of Odaenathus small army seems to have caused Shapur to withdraw eastward from Cappadocia (261). West of the Euphrates River, Odaenathus and his small army surprised and routed the Persians, who were carrying great quantities of booty from Antioch and Asia Minor. Abandoning most of their loot. the Persians fled across the river, harassed by Odaenathus' light cavalry." a splitted part mentioned his other series of campaigns (Which proves that he conducted more than one campaign): 262-264. Odaenathus Invades Persia. "Having been substantially reinforced by Gallienus. Odaenathus invaded the lost Roman provinces east of the Euphrates with a small army composed mainly of light foot archers, heavy cataphracts and lancers, and irregular light Arabian cavalry. He drove off a Persian army investing Edessa, and recaptured Nisibis and Carrhae (262). In the two following years he harassed Armenia and raided deep into Mesopotamia. consistently defeating Shapur and his lieutenants, and twice capturing Ctesiphon, the Sassanid capital. Apparently Odaenathus was accompanied and assisted on his campaigns by his beautiful and able wife, Zenobia. Shapur sued for peace (264)." on page 174 of the same book, a full page discussing shapur's campaigns and other wars he fought in....  ::::where it was mentioned "261-266. Shapur's Wars with Odaenathus of Palmyra.": The Persians were driven from Rome's Asiatic provinces (see p. 153). R3YBOl (🌲) 08:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – On conducting a special military operation → Speech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of UkraineSpeech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of Ukraine – The background to this is in the section above, but here is an account of the issue. The question of making the move was raised by NikitaIsNext05, and on checking I found that I agreed with their concerns. Freedoxm has stated that he disagrees, but has so far not said why. There are, it seems to me, two issues: the title has no official status, apparently having been invented for this Wikipedia article, and it is not a helpful or informative title. I shall deal with each of those points. * "On conducting a special military operation" is not used as a title for the speech in any significant or reliable source, including the official Russian government publication of the speech. The speech on the Russian government website is titled "Обращение Президента Российской Федерации"; the English version on the Russian government web site is titled "Address by the President of the Russian Federation", which is also how Google translates the Russian title. (Those two versions are respectively at http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 and http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843.) "On conducting a special military operation" is a quote from the speech, but I have searched extensively, and the use of it as a title for the speech has, as far as I can see, been invented by a Wikipedia editor. I have not found any example anywhere of use of the Russian version as a title, and its use in English is largely restricted to wikis and similar sites, all of which have either certainly or probably derived it from this Wikipedia article. * The title "On conducting a special military operation" is not helpful to the reader, as it does nothing to convey what the article is about. * Since the title of this article is neither an official title nor a title in use in reliable sources, and since it does not indicate the subject matter of the article, it would be much better replaced by something which does indicate what the article is about. NikitaIsNext05 mentioned that the Russian Wikipedia article has the title (in translation) "Speech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of Ukraine", and I have accepted that, as it clearly indicates what the article is about, but I am not wedded to that form of words if anyone has a better suggestion. Certainly I see that as far better than the current title. JBW (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Équinoxe → EquinoxeEquinoxe – Adherence to WP:TITLE, with a sensible and particular attention to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGLISHTITLE, WP:TRANSLITERATE and WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS would result in this article being titled Equinoxe (note the lack of diacritic/accent on the E). * This article was originally created with no diacritic October 13, 2004 * It was moved to a diacritical title without any apparent discussion November 3, 2008 * The first attempt at discussion about the title started December 29, 2009 ** The editor attempted to show that the artist had not used a diacritic in the title of their work, by referencing images of various release covers on Discogs ** While the use of Discogs as a source should be very carefully considered, it only shows what is unarguably clear on the artist's official website ** There was no mention of policies or even guidelines, and while there was no immediate direct response to this attempt, a few responses did come over time * The next discussion was a sloppy request to move back to a non-diacritical title started February 16, 2010 ** The initial request included another reference to Discogs as the sole argument, with again, no mention of policy ** Through the entire move request discussion, policy was not mentioned ** The page was moved back to the non-diacritical title February 24, 2010 * A short editing war broke out over the use of the diacritic in the content, which for no apparent reason ended April 11, 2010 in the content being strewn with diacritics while the title had none; no mentions of policy throughout ** The final edit of this war was mentioned in one of those few comments added May 15, 2010 to the section of the first attempt to discuss the title, when it was suggested that it should be reverted, though never was ** The editor then suggesting that the diacritics should be removed, has since gone on to suggest that they should be kept August 13, 2025 * An editor decided to move the article again, without any apparent discussion or mention of policy, to the diacritical title January 18, 2013 * Literally nothing happened for over a decade... * I sloppily attempted to start a new discussion of the how the diacritic should not be in the title August 5, 2025, pinging some editors previously involved ** The immediate response was enthusiastic original research ** Realising that some clarity was needed, I noted the relevant policies, and that there was mistitled sources and even misquotes in the article which all need fixing ** While I have repeatedly referred to the relevant policies, the responses in favour of the diacritic have been what reads like unreasonable nonsense about stylistics, WP:HYPHEN (yeah, I have no idea why) and one bizarrely-arrived-at conclusion that the diacritic should remain in the title from the same editor who suggested the diacritics in the content should be removed when the title had no diacritic in 2010 My evaluation of the history of this article's title changes is that the policies have been completely ignored in favour of personal preference and original research. It is clear what the relevant policies are, and they themselves are clear; this article should be titled with no diacritic. I am certain that this move is completely uncontroversial with regard to policy, and there has never been and I can't imagine there ever being any reasonable opposition to it, but there has been, albeit ridiculous, "debate" about the diacritic in the title before, so so here we are. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russia–Ukraine warRussia–Ukraine war – Sources almost universally describe the current conflict as a war. The word "invasion" is used only in reference to Russia's initial 24 February act of invasion, and is not used to describe the current war, three years long. [44][45][46][47] are all from just today; all describe the current conflict as a war. To those sources that call it a three-year-long invasion, we must consider Wikipedia's influence on the matter, which artificially inflates the percentage of sources using such framework. This article calls the conflict a war consistently (e.g. The direct cost of the war for Russia has been over US$450 billion.) This distinction between an invasion and a war has historical precedent. German invasion of the Soviet Union redirects to Operation Barbarossa, not to Eastern Front (World War II), even though Germany was still advancing for almost a year after the German invasion of Russia occurred.
    The main obstacle in moving this article to a page with "war" in it is the existence of the article Russo-Ukrainian War. However, it is hardly community consensus that keeps the page at that title. The article remained at the title Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) for six years before an RM, opened by a blocked sock and with low participation, found consensus to move in June 2020. Immediately after it was closed, a large number of editors voiced salient concerns about the new title that, had they commented in the discussion, would have resulted in the page not being moved. These include I suppose this (and even previous) title is wrong. If to refer to Google search, then Russo-Ukrainian conflict has 100x more hits than both. from Infovarius, followed by agreement below from other editors.
    Sources almost universally refer to the state of affairs since 2014 as a conflict – even many that describe a three-year invasion. The archives of Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War are full of editors complaining about how the title is wrong, and though the ECR means they have no voice on this topic, the complaint should be heard. We have spent three years ignoring sources and misleading readers. Let's get back on track with our policies.
    On "Russo-Ukrainian" vs. "Russia–Ukraine", the former is consistent with names entrenched in historical literature (e.g. Franco-Prussian War) while the second is consistent with contemporary names for conflicts (e.g. Iran–Israel war). The absolute common name is "Ukraine war" or "war in Ukraine", but both are ambiguous, and per WP:NATDIS, this still-common name (used in the Al Jazeera header among other news outlets) should prevail, outnumbering "Russo-Ukrainian war" by upwards of an order of magnitude.
    On "War" vs. "war", the word is not consistently capitalized in sources, per NCCAPS. It is not usually capitalized in sources, per MILTERMS. It is, in fact, very rarely capitalized in sources, as it doesn't yet represent a proper name, but a descriptive name for the conflict.
    TL;DR: Let's do what Wikipedia does best and choose the common name for these two articles.
    -- 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Villawood → Villawood, New South WalesVillawood, New South Wales – The previous discussion noted that there is an existing disambiguation page for Villawood, however it was determined that the suburb is the WP:PTOPIC. However, this is not reflected in the page view statistics. These indicate the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) receives significantly more traffic.[48][49] Furthermore, searches of Trove (since 1990) indicate that the facility has been frequently referred to as just "Villawood" by many National publications for several decades. [50][51][52][53]. Searching the term in Google news also returns many articles that are referring to happenings in the suburb "Villawood", however these are overwhelmingly from Sydney-based media oulets. It also returns many articles about the IDC from national and international sources. Given the above, WP:PT1 would suggest as that name recognition of Villawood is much higher for the detention centre over the suburb to readers outside of Sydney, so the disambiguation page is a more appropriate target and this page should be moved back to Villawood, New South Wales. Dfadden (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 14:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2025 Cambodia–Thailand border conflict → 2025 Cambodian–Thai border conflict2025 Cambodian–Thai border conflict – Short version: This request concerns "Cambodia–Thailand" versus "Cambodian–Thai". Reasons should be obvious to most.
    Long version: This is a requested move to undo an erroneous unilateral move and restore specifically the element of the stable version that is the "Cambodian–Thai" component. The mover provided the following incorrect rationale (diff):

    The title should have name of the country, not their demonyms such as 2025 Iran–Israel war, not the "2025 Iranian–Israeli war" etc.

    According to general English conventions, this part of a title functions as an adjective and should use adjectival forms, as in Kenyan–Ugandan border conflict (not "Kenya–Uganda border conflict"), Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict (not "Eritrea–Ethiopia border conflict"), Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict (not "Djibouti–Eritrea border conflict"), etc. This is a question of grammar, of language conventions in phrases in the "[x–y] [some kind of conflict]" mold, and of consistency as one of the five Wikipedia naming policy principles.
    The reason why it is "Iran–Israel war" and not "Iranian–Israeli war" is that we say (and have been saying for decades) "Iran–Iraq War" (has a nice syllabic symmetry to it) and not "Iranian–Iraqi War" ("Iranian" and "Iraqi" don't have this symmetry, and people in the 80s were not sure if they should say "Iraqi" or "wikt:Iraqian"; indeed, you will find "Iranian–Iraqian War" in contemporary sources). Unlike the descriptive title of the article being discussed, "Iran–Iraq War" is a proper name, influenced probably by traditional headlinese, which always favors shorter forms, often disregarding grammar. This has locked in "Iran–" in any such phrase. In this context, "Iran–[country]" has become a noun phrase template—with respect to Iran...
    But not with respect to Israel. You see, it isn't "Israel–Palestine conflict"; it is "Israeli–Palestinian conflict". That's because it doesn't have "Iran–". And when Iran a.k.a. Persia was Persia, it was involved in wars such as the Ottoman–Persian Wars, the Anglo-Persian War, the Russo-Persian Wars, etc. Equally for conflicts involving Cambodia and Thailand: It is not "2008–2013 Cambodia–Thailand border crisis"; it is "2008–2013 Cambodian–Thai border crisis".
    Undoing a unilateral move normally does not require a move request, but technical help was declined at the corresponding process page because the mover or movers did not recognize that the "Cambodian-Thai" -> "Cambodia-Thailand" aspect of contested unilateral move is a distinct issue that can be addressed separately; that is to say, separately from any other issue related to yesterday's and the day's before multiple endeavors to improve the title as the situation developed. And so, as it was suggested to editors to deal with this banal problem using the RM process, an RM has been started. —Alalch E. 17:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

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:
16:46, Thursday, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1303691487"