Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

< Wikipedia:Requested moves
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested moves/current)
Shortcuts
This page 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. 91 discussions have been relisted.

August 31, 2025

edit

August 30, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Jenaro Flores Santos → Genaro FloresGenaro Flores – The current article title is based on the primary reference by Rocha Monroy, which erroneously used "Jenaro" in place of "Genaro". I'll note that both "Genaro" and "Jenaro" are often used interchangably, but that the form with a "G" is both WP:COMMONNAME as well as his apparent legal name, with the "J" form being a commonly repeated inaccuracy. Using, WP:COMMONNAME, Google trends in both the US and Bolivia give "Genaro" as the more popular form. The Spanish article [es] using the "G" form, with most sources (except the Rocha sources) using that spelling. The individual has deceased, so their legal name will no longer be present in Bolivia's biometric electoral roll, but his name on the 1985 ballot in which he was a candidate is spelt with a "G". Archival sources also show his name spelt with a "G" in official communiques be organizations he was affiliated with 01, 02. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – With Authority! → WWF With Authority!WWF With Authority! – I previously requested this move before, however there was no consensus made to move, but have become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and I believe have been able to construct a more thorough argument.  :: First Release Name: Per Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for video games, articles should use the title under which the game was first released. The game launched in February 2001 as WWF With Authority! — this name appears on the retail packaging and in all initial promotional material.  :: Common Name in Reliable Sources: While the game’s official website often shortened the name to With Authority!, WP:COMMONNAME gives weight to secondary reliable sources, not primary or community shorthand. Coverage from major outlets such as GameSpot, IGN, and Metacritic, as well as official materials from THQ/JAKKS, consistently use the title WWF With Authority! when reviewing, listing, and promoting the game. This indicates that the WWF-branded title is the most common name in independent, verifiable sources.  :: Rebranding: The later change to WWE With Authority! in 2002 should be documented in the lead section, consistent with how other WWF-to-WWE games are handled. However, this does not override the first release title nor the weight of reliable source usage. Please also see WWF WrestleMania: Steel Cage Challenge, WWF SmackDown! 2: Know Your Role WWF SmackDown! Just Bring It and WWF Raw (2002 video game) that were also re-released as WWE games.  :: Conclusion:  :: Therefore, WWF With Authority! is the most policy-compliant article title, satisfying both MOS:VG (first release name) and WP:COMMONNAME (as demonstrated by usage in reliable secondary sources). Redirects can cover With Authority! and WWE With Authority! for search convenience. Icaldonta (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tomahawk missile → Tomahawk (missile)Tomahawk (missile) – I attempted to WP:BOLDly correct this page title after the recent RM moved to a title that does not comply with MOS. This a proposal to comply with WP:PARENDIS. Per discussion on my talk page after that previous move attempt, "Tomahawk missile" also isn't the WP:COMMONNAME; uses of that in sources are of the "Tomahawk, a missile" type (and, IMHO, it's a...I'm not sure there's a page for it, but it strikes me as being too "casual English" for a page title). It's a disambiguator, and while WP:NATURALDISAMBIG is a thing, it's not a truly natural one here. Note also a similar "one missile with different boosters leading to different designations" (i.e. why it's not at, say, BGM-109 Tomahawk - as there's also AGM-109, RGM-109, and UGM-109) is at Harpoon (missile) which is compliant with MOS, as this proposed move would make this page. The Bushranger One ping only 07:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 29, 2025

edit
  • (Discuss) – Vcha → GirlsetGirlset – The group has officially rebranded from Vcha to Girlset as announced by JYP Entertainment and Republic Records on August 7, 2025. Since then, they have made their debut with their single "Commas", which was released on streaming platforms under their new name and all their social media was changed to fit the rebrand. Forbes, 1, 2, 3, 4 Wekimekifan (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 28, 2025

edit
  • (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

edit
  • (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

edit

August 25, 2025

edit
  • (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

edit
  • (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]

Elapsed listings

edit
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.

Backlog

edit
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (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]
  • (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. [42][43][44][45] 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.[46][47] 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. [48][49][50][51]. 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

edit
See "Bot considerations"

References

edit
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1308705761"