Click here to purge this page

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

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). 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. 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.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. 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 for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be 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

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

Undiscussed moves

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.

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:..."

  • 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.
  • 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

  • American open-wheel car racing  Indy car racing (currently a redirect back to American open-wheel car racing) (move · discuss) – WP:COMMONTERM RegalZ8790 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it though? I'm not sure "indy car" really saw much use before the 1990s, retconning the entire history of American racing is at least worth a discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if i can chime in, the page is an overview of Indy car racing only, which has been known by that name since the 1950s. If it was an full histort of American racing it would also discuss the other open-wheel disciplines such as sprint cars, midget cars, super modifieds and modifieds. Not to mention the non-open-wheel of NASCAR and Drag Racing. The article itself is clear that the common term is Indy car. thank you 2605:59C8:10F0:1410:396E:69B0:4005:79DF (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it isn't, Formula cars are also called indy cars, according to some authorities. So any open-wheel open-cockpit single-seat racing prototype/specialty series/race would be indy car racing, not just American ones, including formula, including spec racing. -- (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgica metro station  Belgica (Brussels Metro) (move · discuss) – Bélgica (Madrid Metro) is formatted in this manner (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All entries at Category:Brussels metro stations are of the form X metro station, and this matches the standard for rail transport stations across the whole project so certainly the proposed move should not go ahead as specified. Arguably it's the Madrid metro stations which do not follow that format and should probably be renamed... On the specific question of whether further disambiguation is needed between the Brussel and the Madrid Belgicas, it seems like the diacritic (Belgica vs Bélgica) is sufficient here per WP:SMALLDETAILS so I'd recommend leaving the Brussels one exactly as it is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bélgica itself (with the diacritic) redirects to Belgium, and Brussels is in Belgium... -- (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current title meets WP:NATURAL. Maybe it's Bélgica (Madrid Metro) that needs moving? Either way, yes, this is not uncontroversial. Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempted assassination of Robert Fico  Shooting of Robert Fico (currently a redirect back to Attempted assassination of Robert Fico) (move · discuss) – Moving the article to the current title was jumping to ungrounded conclusions, and as such shouldn't happen here. The requested title was the original article's title. Now it is a redirect page with more edits in the history, so I cannot move it back. The content of the article state that the attack was not meant to kill him. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IHaveBecauseOfLocks, given that this was a subject of discussion on the talk page and elsewhere, an unilateral move may be contentious. Please open a RM discussion. – robertsky (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: The article was moved from David T. C. Davies to its current title less than a year ago, so this would require further discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over two years ago, actually. But yes, there needs to be a requested move discussion before restoring this reverted move. You can open an RM by clicking "discuss" on this request. SilverLocust 💬 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust Both actually. It was moved in February 2022 (over two years) and again in June 2023 (less than a year). --Ahecht (TALK
13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page was moved in June 2023 without moving the article. SilverLocust 💬 16:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This move was previously attempted last year but was reverted, implying it is controversial. Side note, I did move to restore the stable name of Naaginn (2007 TV series) Bensci54 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we aren't going based on WP:DIFFCAPS (and I think there's a solid case for that policy here), the football union would only really be competing with Wafu dressing, which I would say the pageviews are close enough to warrant discussion, but WAFU is recognizable enough from Wafu. No need to compare pageviews to the redirect/dab and the only other article is related to the union and honestly doesn't need disambiguation. All that said, pageviews are less relevant here, the real question is whether reliable sources are using "WAFU" or "West African Football Union" more often. ASUKITE 14:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are used interchangably; until you brought in the Wafu dressing pageviews comparison, which I didn't see coming and admittedly very close within the last fortnight. I felt that if it was moved to WAFU, the other DAB entries could be incubated into a hatnote at the page. Intrisit (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: You mean like what it is done for NBA, ISO and NFL? Intrisit (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

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

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") 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, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. 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 29 May 2024" 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

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
| 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, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. 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.

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.

Request all associated moves explicitly

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 29 May 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024 (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 29 May 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024 (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 29 May 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 29 May 2024

– why Example (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024 (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 29 May 2024

– why Example (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

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

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.


  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.
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. 87 discussions have been relisted.

May 29, 2024

  • (Discuss)Anti-NormanismNormanism – The article starts with "Anti-Normanism is an opposition to Normanism, the mainstream narrative..." I find it weird that the mainstream theory of Normanism is but a section inside the fringe theory. The article must be moved and reshuffled upside down. - Altenmann >talk 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Hoani NahiHoani Nahe – While 'Nahi' appears in some sources, and sometimes both 'Nahe' and 'Nahi' appear in the same source, it seems that 'Nahe' is the correct spelling. 'Nahe' is the only spelling used in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography article, the Cyclopedia of New Zealand article, and the numerous articles about him in the Journal of the Polynesian Society. In Papers Past magazines and journals, 'Hoani Nahe' occurs 78 times and 'Hoani Nahi' never. In Papers Past newspapers 'Hoani Nahe' occurs 696 times and 'Hoani Nahi' 47 times. All 47 times were articles about him, not by him; the letters that he wrote to newspapers were always singed 'Nahe'. We did once had an article called Hoani Nahe – it was merged into this one, rather than the reverse merge, for reasons I don't understand. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)SlobodaSloboda (settlement) – This word means "freedom" in the original Slavic languages, and while there is a significant usage in Russian and Ukrainian history as well as some usage in modern-day Russian administrative divisions, described at this presumed primary topic, its usage and long-term significance does not actually overshadow the ambiguity over the other uses of the word for the average English reader. In preparation for this move, I went through the list of ~200 incoming links to preemptively disambiguate them. The usage is typically clerical, to explain the strange term, which is most commonly placed in italics. This indicates that the fact that the explanation was directly at "sloboda" was a very easy way to get the etymological explanation. However, that's a possible description of editor behavior, which is not necessarily the reader behavior (WP:RF). It should also be noted that Russian toponymy lists are quite weird from the perspective of a navigation purpose for set indices, with an apparent habit of linking these kinds of terms contrary to what MOS:DABONE would advise. It's not that I'm opposed to having a link somewhere in such a set index to explain the term, but the volume of this skews the statistics. After going through the list, I was left with 19 links (~10%) where I couldn't identify a clear connection to this particular subject. Mostly they seemed to be generic references to the Slavic word for "freedom". This also extended to Russian topics. Some were references to specific places named Sloboda, not the concept. I had also disambiguated numerous others by linking Foobar Svoboda instead of keeping a largely useless partial link (sadly I didn't keep a count of these to be able to note the percentage). A search in Google Books for me does not identify this meaning to be primary - I get more references to people named this way. Likewise for Google Scholar. I don't have reason to believe that this would differ for the average English reader. WikiNav for Sloboda and meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive indicate that the hatnote is consistently one of the most commonly clicked links on the page - even in months where we see a larger readership, it's still among the most commonly clicked links (for example in March '24, with 162 clickstreams to 9 identified destinations, the hatnote was #3 with 17). This is typically indicative of a navigation issue. Another editor reverted the initial preparatory move, thinking this broke links (it did not) and saying this changes a 'long established' status quo - I don't see an actual rationale there. Just because this grew organically as is - doesn't mean it's not subject to evaluation and adjustment. In addition, similar terms like svoboda and swoboda are not short-circuiting here and are indeed disambiguated, so this change would seem to make things more consistent. Joy (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Genocide of Indigenous peoplesGenocide of indigenous peoples – "Indigenous" is only a proper name when adopted as conventional for a particular ethnic group, and when applied to the specific groups who have done so. As a general, global adjective it is not and cannot be a proper name (any more than the opposite, "colonial"), so should not be capitalized. See in particular the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS: WP does not capitalize that which is not capitalized consistently across nearly all independent reliable sources, and "indigenous peoples" is not so capitalized (indeed, it is overwhelmingly lowercase [2][3], except in highly retrictive contexts that refer to specific populations who have adopted the term self-referentially as a name in English). This same situation is true of all such terms such as "native" and "aboriginal". "Aboriginal" is capitalized in reference to autochthonous Australians, and "Native" is capitalized in "Native Americans" in reference to the autochthonous peoples of what is now the US and sometimes (in mostly US usage) all of the Americas. But "native" is not capitalized (by the preponderance of modern reliable sources) in reference to Australians, nor "aboriginal" in reference to Americans, and neither is capitalized in "the native (aboriginal) peoples and languages of Siberia and Central Asia before the Soviet Union", etc. PS: There may be other over-capitalized articles of this sort, but perhaps take them one at a time, since some might pertain more narrowly to groups that have taken on "Indigenous" as a self-referential name/label.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC); revised 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Karma (2024 song)Karma's a Bitch – This page keeps getting moved. The previous rationale was "The song was originally called that in the Miley Cyrus demo, and the Brit Smith demo. It also takes away the disambiguating, so it more succinct." I’m unsure, however. The article is about the song as an entity, but that 'entity' hasn’t got a name, but it’s clear that there are two versions of the same song, and that they are not covers of each other. I don’t think this has ever happened before. Plus the proposed title is already a redirect to the page, so seems like the most logical title. This is a case of 'what came first, the chicken or the egg?' Another suggestion is Karma and Karma's a Bitch. (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes2022 аttack of Azerbaijan on Armenia – I have not seen a single reliable source saying that Armenia attacked Azerbaijan. But multiple reliable sources say the opposite. Various sources describe the events as an “invasion”, “offensive”, “attack”, or “assault.” There is consensus that Azerbaijan was the one who initiated the hostilities. Some talk about “Azerbaijan’s Invasion of Armenia”, “Azerbaijan’s Offensive on Armenia”, “Azerbaijan’s Attack on Armenia”, but they all agree on one thing: Azerbaijan was the initiator of the clash, and it was Azerbaijan who attacked. Therefore, the title “Attack of Azerbaijan on Armenia” perfectly reflects the vast majority of reliable sources and is the least ambiguous. I will provide the overwhelming evidence below: * Human Rights Watch:  :The killings took place during fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces that broke out in mid-September, when Azerbaijan made incursions into Armenia...” * Genocide Watch:  :“Azerbaijani military attacks on Armenian territory show Azerbaijani disregard for Armenian sovereignty.” * Freedom House:  :“Freedom House Condemns Azerbaijani Attacks on Armenia”  :“The Azerbaijani armed forces must immediately cease their deadly attacks on Armenian territory” * Axel Gehring, Ph.D., political scientist and expert in the field of foreign and security policy and researcher at the Institute for Critical Social Analysis of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Berlin:  :“On September 13, regular Azerbaijani troops launched a large-scale attack on Armenian territory. This attack took tensions between the countries to a new level.” * Laurence Broers is a specialist in conflicts in the Transcaucasus, founder of the scientific journal Caucasus Survey:  :"Azerbaijan's recent attack seeks to enforce terms in negotiations with Armenia" “ The recent large-scale cross-border attacks inside Armenia by Azerbaijan...” * Maximilian Hess, Research Fellow for Central Asia at the Foreign Policy Institute, in Foreign Policy magazine:  :“Azerbaijani forces who marched into Armenia continue to occupy part of its territory, in particular heights around the town of Jermuk.” * David L. Phillips, conflict analyst in The National Interest:  :“The United States criticized Azerbaijan's recent attacks on Armenia proper” * European Parliament Resolution:  :“Strongly condemns the latest military aggression by Azerbaijan on September 12, 2022 on the sovereign territory of Armenia”  :“calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, therefore, to immediately withdraw from all parts of the territory of Armenia “ * Wojciech Gorecki, senior researcher at the Department of Turkey, Caucasus and Central Asia:  :“in September 2022 Azerbaijan attacked targets located on Armenian territory.” * The Guardian:  : “This week, with attention focused across the Black Sea in Ukraine, fighting on the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia killed about 100 troops after Azerbaijan shelled a number of towns in Armenia, with both sides accusing each other of “provocations”.” * Der Spiegel:  : “Peace negotiations mediated by the European Union have been at an impasse since Baku also attacked territory in the Republic of Armenia in September 2022.” * TIME:  : “...democratic nation that was recently invaded by its authoritarian neighbor”  : “...but also Armenia, which has been suffering from Azerbaijan's invasion for almost three weeks now.” * BBC:  : “I don’t think anyone doubts that Azerbaijan started this operation on the territory of Armenia. Even Azerbaijani commentators admit this. Armenia is currently weak, has little interest in disrupting the status quo.” * Eurasianet  :"Azerbaijan launches large-scale attacks on Armenia"  :“Azerbaijan launched a large-scale attack on targets in Armenia, an unprecedented expansion of the long-running conflict into Armenian territory.” * Michael Rubin, senior researcher at AIP:  :“Last week, Azerbaijan attacked Armenia proper. (Last week Azerbaijan attacked Armenia directly)” * Paul Stronski is a senior fellow in the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Programs, specializing in Russia and the South Caucasus:  : “..the fact that Russia is preoccupied, certainly led to what looks like an Azerbaijani offensive at this time”  : “And what we even saw just in the last few days is actually attacks inside and shelling inside cities inside Armenia, not just along the border." * Kapil Komireddy, political columnist for The Telegraph:  : “But so little about Azerbaijan's attack, which goes beyond the disputed territory of Karabakh and targets Armenia proper.” *Seth Franzman, Middle East analyst for The Jerusalem Post , contributor to Defense News, The National Interest and Digest of Middle East Studies:  :“Attacks on Armenia represent dangerous escalation” *Carnegie Europe:  :“Nearly 300 soldiers died in a large-scale Azerbaijani incursion into the territory of Armenia on September 13-14.” Vanezi (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Israel–Hamas war2023 Gaza War – The previous discussion has concluded that WP:COMMONNAME does not stand as other names are also in common use. In such case, WP:COMMONNAME states that When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. I believe the proposed title is better in consistency; previous wars involving Gaza, Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War, use Gaza War in the title, so this article should also follow suit. NasssaNser 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)HaurakiHauraki, Auckland – The present naming is premised on Hauraki – the North Shore suburb – being the primary topic. However, for the longest period and up to the present day, the primary topic has been a land area whose boundaries vary depending on definition, but which is centered on the Hauraki Plains. Of the 6 articles at Hauraki (disambiguation) that are about land areas (i.e. including the electorates, but excluding the Gulf and radio), 5 are based in this area, with the North Shore suburb being the exception. It is also worth noting a historical definition that we do not have an article for, which is the area stretching from the Firth of Thames south to Putāruru – see The Hauraki District in the 1966 Encyclopaedia. The suburb, though, is separate from the area centred on the Plains and its use of the name 'Hauraki' seems to have developed only in recent decades. I welcome additional info, but it seems that the suburb was once considered part of Takapuna, and took its current identity from Hauraki Corner, which had taken its name from the intersection of Lake Road and Hauraki Road. My impression is that the Hauraki suburb is not particularly well known outside the North Shore, even in the rest of Auckland, let alone the rest of NZ. Is one of the other articles the primary topic? Hauraki District and Hauraki Plains may or may not have been candidates, but their names don't need disambiguating, so can be ignored. The electorates are too specialised. If we had articles that matched the 1966 Encyclopaedia definition, or the Te Ara definition of the territory of the Marutūāhu group of tribes (see The Hauraki region), they may have been candidates. All in all, it seems best to take it that none of the articles is the primary topic for 'Hauraki'. In that case, the suburb article needs a disambiguator, and 'New Zealand' won't do as we have the other areas called 'Hauraki', so it should be 'Auckland'. And the disambiguation page should be moved to the simple "ambiguous term itself", per WP:DABNAME. Another reason for wanting this change is that I have recently fixed 17 articles that incorrectly had wikilinks to Hauraki the suburb, when they were referring to the other area. I fear that more such links will be created, but hope that if the simple 'Hauraki' becomes the name of the disambiguation page, editors would be more likely to realise they are making an error linking to it. Nurg (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 28, 2024


  1. ^,succession%20based%20on%20Mohammed%27s%20bloodline.
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)NewLabour Party (New Zealand)NewLabour Party – This was requested ~7 years ago and no consensus was reached. I think it's been enough time to request a new move. WP:SMALLDETAILS was practically created for this type of situation: The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are often sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane! vs. Airplane; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours. The lack of a space between 'New' and 'Labour' seems more than sufficient enough to distinguish this page from other similar titles. Loytra (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)List of NBCUniversal television programsList of Comcast television programs – This article lists shows produced by Sky Studios (and it's subsidiaries), which is not part of NBCUniversal but rather part of Sky Group, another company owned by Comcast. Additionally, Sky has its own section in the article with other companies that are owned by NBCU, which is misleading and confusing as it can make people assume it's part of NBCU. It would be more suitable if most of the sections were put into an NBCU section, which would exist with the Sky section. Inpops (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit! 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Michael Malone (basketball)Michael Malone – Imagine this gets contested, and I think that is worthwhile. But, the basketball coach over the last month has averaged 1683 pageviews daily and over 52,000 total. Its median is 1431 views. Of all the pages with "Michael Malone", the basketball coach accounts for 97.9% of all pageviews. Since 5/4/23, he accounts for 97.2% of all pageviews. This, despite seven other pages. As a result, I do believe the basketball coach should have the base, non-disambiguated named for "Michael Malone". Debartolo2917 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)WallaceinaWallacemonas – As of 2014 onward, the type species of Wallaceina (W. brevicula) was returned to Crithidia, and the remaining species are now under the new name Wallacemonas (see: doi:10.1016/j.protis.2014.07.001 and doi:10.1098/RSOB.200407). — Snoteleks (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit! 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Parachromis managuensisJaguar cichlid – So, the last time a name change for this article has been discussed was back in 2007 (see "article title" up above). This article used to be named "Managuense cichlid," but was later changed to the Latin name and current title, Parachromis managuensis, on the basis that it was the least ambiguous epithet for the species. Which is true. Latin names are almost always less ambiguous than vernacular names, but they're almost never as concise or recognizable - for the same reason we have articles named Great white shark and Largemouth bass rather than Carcharodon carcharias and Micropterus salmoides, I'm going to propose that this article be renamed to Jaguar cichlid. For the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness, I present the Google Search results for the names listed in the article's lede (in order from most hits to least): * "jaguar cichlid": ~93,700 results * "parachromis managuensis": ~40,900 results * "jaguar guapote": ~9,680 results * "managuense cichlid": ~8,720 results * "guapote tigre": ~8,640 results * "aztec cichlid": ~4,090 results * "managua cichlid": ~1,470 results * "spotted guapote": ~812 results "Jaguar cichlid" is more than twice as prevalent on the web as the Latin name. It's nearly a full order of magnitude more prevalent than the next most popular vernacular name, "jaguar guapote" - and if that's where we draw the line, then names like "managuense cichlid" and "guapote tigre" aren't even in the running. This is supported by Google Trends, which shows that on average, "jaguar cichlid" is searched for 47 times more than "parachromis managuensis" and "managuense cichlid" worldwide. We should name the article accordingly. Simple as. Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)The Three Ages of Man and DeathThe Ages and Death – The article seems to call it "the three ages of woman and death". The museum has The Ages of Woman and Death, in Spanish it is "Las Edades y la Muerte" (Ages and Death). Please note that there is a similarly named painting Die drei Lebensalter und der Tod (Hans Baldung) (Three ages and death).
  • Las Edades y la Muerte (the ages (of man/woman) and death)

Deadstar (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss)How to Do Well When You're a Jerk and a CrybabyComment réussir quand on est con et pleurnichard – Per WP:NCFFLF: "If the film has never been widely released in the English-speaking world, it is not assumed to have a commonly-recognized English name; in such cases, the native name is to be preferred over potentially variant translated titles used in English-language reliable sources." The current article title is not even identifiable anywhere online from before it was boldly moved here in 2018 with an unconvincing reasoning. The former title at least had some usage.[7] But all of the "English titles" are simply variant translated titles, of which there are many. If the guideline at WP:NCFFLF has any practical application, this would be a prime example. Οἶδα (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 27, 2024

  • (Discuss)Merion air disaster1991 Merion mid-air collision – The proposed title fits better with the titles found at List of mid-air collisions. The relevant title guideline, WP:NCEVENTS, calls for the year to be included in the title in the majority of cases, with the only exception being historically significant events. Given that we don't have coverage beyond 1991, I don't think this one qualifies for the exemption. I'm also proposing we swap "disaster" for "mid-air collision", since WP:DISASTER recommends not using that word: mid-air collision is more precise and will make this title be more consistent with the rest. Pilaz (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)National Security Act, 2024Public Law 118-50 – As noted in the prior talk discussion, "National Security Act" is a draft name that may have appeared in an earlier version, but does not appear in the final text of the law[*], so it cannot be the title of this page. It's difficult to discern what the best title is, given that the bill that became law (H.R. 815)'s actual long title is "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes." which doesn't feel right for a wikipedia article, nor do shortened variants of it ("Emergency supplemental appropriations for 2024," &c.). There is some precedent for using the law numbers in these cases, e.g. Public Law 114-216 (and many others). Another step would be to delete this article entirely (why does it need to exist?), or perhaps to propose a inversion of the pending proposed (and unanimously opposed) merger with Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Of all those choices, going with a renaming to "Public Law 118-50" feels the least controversial. ---
    [*]: Well, we're still waiting for GPO to publish the final text of the law, but it's not in the final text of the final bill that became law, which should be close enough. jhawkinson (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tel al-Sultan massacreTel al-Sultan attack – News sources have called it "attack", "massacre", "strike" and "airstrike". It is not yet clear which is the most WP:COMMONNAME. "Massacre" carries value judgement, and "airstrike" obscures the fact that many of the casualties weren't killed directly by the airstrike, but were burned alive in the resulting fire. "Strike" is very similar to "attack", but "attack" is consistent with other similar events like World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack. I also think "Rafah tent camp" is more recognizable than "Tel al-Sultan" and most sources seem to use "Rafah tent camp" or "Rafah displacement camp".VR (Please ping on reply) 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Washington Crossing BridgeWashington Crossing Bridge (Delaware River) – I honestly am not sure what the right name should be, but being that there is another bridge in Pittsburgh of the same name, this bridge does not take precedence over the other and needs to be moved to an adjusted title. My suggestion is Delaware River, but I am willing to move to a different title pending discussion. JE98 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Headstonetombstone – Dear God, no. (a) Not all gravestones are headstones. (b) This isn't an WP:ENGVAR issue. Tombstone is by far the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME for gravestones in every dialect of English (1, 2, 3). (c) Tombstone already (appropriately) links here, so this isn't any form of WP:NATURALDAB either. (If one were needed, which it ain't, funeral stela/stele would actually cover more ground and be more appropriate for cremated remains &c.) — LlywelynII 20:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 26, 2024

  • (Discuss)Timeline of the Donald Trump presidencyTimeline of the presidency of Donald Trump – Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've found, there was never a discussion for the 2018 moves of countless timeline pages regarding the presidencies of US presidents. Based on this, I would like to discuss whether it might be more useful to move those pages so that they follow the format "Timeline of the presidency of ..." rather than having the presidency as a "attachment" to the president's name as it is now. –Tobias (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Too Many Humans.....Too Many Humans – The article title contains five consecutive dots, which is a phenomenon that is basically never used in ordinary English – I found only four articles like that on all of Wikipedia. MOS:TM says to try to use ordinary English formatting. Although this (self-released, apparently not very notable) album does indeed have five dots on its cover art, this typographical embellishment is not supported by the cited sources. The article cites three independent (non-user-generated) sources: Louder, Vinyl District, and Strauss Media. All three of them use no dots at all when referring to this topic. One non-independent source is also cited (Drag City), and it doesn't use any dots either. The proposed title already redirects to this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Mokai TramwayTaupo Totara Timber Company Railway – The proposed title makes this article easier to find. Many readers will have heard of the "TTT", the tourist town of Taupo, or Lake Taupo. Few people will be familiar with the sawmilling village of Mokai, which today has only a few houses and a marae. The name also distinguishes the main Putaruru to Mokai line from the bush tramways radiating from Mokai. Many of these tramways were accessible only to selected TTT Railway rolling stock. In contrast, all TTT locomotives including the Mallet and the four-wheeled locos were able to run through to Mokai, where the company had its main mechanical workshop. The proposed new title also distinguishes the TTT Railway from the Kinleith Branch, which covered only part of the route and was built on formation that was largely new. (The original TTT formation north of Tokoroa is still visible in some places). I have a large collection of source material on the railway and the company and I hope to add more info and true primary citations as time permits. I will also propose that a separate page be set up covering the TTT company itself Kbwc56 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2024

  • (Discuss)Hurricanes Abby and CelesteHurricane Abby (1960) – The storm page was moved earlier this year to accommodate Hurricane Celeste, a storm that was not notable at all, without any discussion at all regarding it. The reason given was solely because Celeste directly formed from the remnants of Abby. I think this is a poor excuse to move an storm article like this because for example, you have Hurricane Francelia, of which its remnants contributed to Hurricane Glenda in the Eastern Pacific, and it only mentions that idea once throughout the article without any other content of the other hurricane. Plus, there is not enough information on Celeste to warrant a merge of both storms, as the overwhelming majority of the article talks about Abby. What I'm saying is, just because a storm is connected to another does not automatically mean to have both storms into one article, and this is why the move was carried out prematurely. I'm doing this not only because I think the move should be reverted, but because I want to see if there actually even is support for the current article name. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 21:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Protestant Church in GermanyEvangelical Church in Germany – Both terms (in English) are used by the EKD itself, but Evangelical is the more common, more accurate term. Etymologically, evangelical/evangelische refers to the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον), while Protestant refers to the Protestation at Speyer. It is not true that "Evangelical" is the former name (see EKD en homepage), and it is also untrue that the term "Evangelical" strictly or primarily refers to the Evangelical/Mainline divide among American denominations. The onus must be on those preferring "Protestant" to demonstrate such a shift in meaning, and I do not feel that prior discussion participants have succeeded. If we are worried that the reader would make this false association, it could easily be cleared up in the body of the article. Survey of use: Ngram, World Council of Churches, Britannica. The lead could read, for example: "the Evangelical Church in Germany, (also called the Protestant Church in Germany)" Dirkwillems (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Words of estimative probabilityVerbal probability – Given that this has been here for a decade and a half now, I didn't want to move it unilaterally without giving people a chance to object beforehand, but verbal probability seems to be a much more concise way of defining the same topic, see for example a PLOS article.[1] I don't think "words of estimative probability" is used that much more often in literature, for all that Kent used it in their 1962 work, from what I can see, it's actually the other way around, even though we do have some that use it like van Tiel et al.[2] Of course, most literature does seem to tack on "word" or "phrase" or "expression" or something else like that, but they also seem to drop it easily enough when concision is desired, so I don't think it's necessary for our title here. I suppose probability phrase is another plausible alternate title if we want to stick to proper grammar, and it does seem to see some use in RS as well, but it seems overall less common, which is why I've opted for "verbal probability" instead. Should probably be a redirect though!


  1. ^ Wintle, Bonnie C.; Fraser, Hannah; Wills, Ben C.; Nicholson, Ann E.; Fidler, Fiona (2019-04-17). "Verbal probabilities: Very likely to be somewhat more confusing than numbers". PLOS ONE. 14 (4): e0213522. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1413522W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213522. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 6469752. PMID 30995242.
  2. ^ van Tiel, Bob; Sauerland, Uli; Franke, Michael; Nicholson, Ann E.; Fidler, Fiona (2022). "Meaning and Use in the Expression of Estimative Probability". Open Mind. 6 (4): 250–263. doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00066. ISSN 2470-2986. PMC 9987346. PMID 36891036.
Alpha3031 (tc) 15:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tungipara Sheikh familyFamily of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman – The current name of the article is Tungipara Sheikh family which is WP:OR. The name is originated from original research and no historical book or news article call this family by Tungipara Sheikh Family. This family, unlike Suhrawardy family, wasn’t part of publication or scholarly research before the creation of Bangladesh and before Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and that's why people didn’t give any specific name for the family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There are many books and research papers mention the family as "Family of Bangabandhu" or "Family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman". Bangabandhu is his title so it is reasonable to name this article Family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There are sources to verify my claim. For example, see this article where it says "8 Bangabandhu family members, relatives to contest polls". The Daily Star states "Bangabandhu family to get more security, free utility, foreign treatment" (see here). Now some sources also call this family as Sheikh family. See this Bengali source where it says in title "শেখ পরিবার থেকে নেতৃত্বে যারা" (lit.'Those led from the Sheikh family'), but if you read the content then you will get "...দশম জাতীয় সংসদে বঙ্গবন্ধু পরিবারের সাত সদস্য ছিলেন। একাদশ জাতীয় সংসদ নির্বাচনে অংশ নেওয়া বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমানের পরিবারের ৯ সদস্যই প্রতিনিধিত্ব করছেন.." (lit.'...There were seven members of the Bangabandhu family in the 10th National Parliament. 9 members of the family of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who participated in the 11th National Parliament election are represented...'). Now the question is if the nine members are really from the direct bloodline of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or not. * Sheikh Hasina : Daughter of Mujib * Sheikh Selim : Son of Mujib's sister * Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh : Son of Mujib's nephew * Sheikh Helal Uddin : Son of Mujib's brother * Noor-E-Alam Chowdhury Liton : Son of Hasina's cousins * Abul Hasanat Abdullah : Son of Mujib's brother-in-law * Sheikh Tonmoy son of Hasina's cousin * Sheikh Salahuddin Jewel : Son of Mujib's younger brother. * Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury : Son of Hasina's cousins. So it is not important if they are directly from Mujib's bloodline or not, the sources still call the family as Mujib's family and that family includes relatives and even distant relatives of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Naming this family as Sheikh family or Sheikh–Wazed family or Sheikh–Kazi family is original research, and we should name it as Family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman because we know the family because Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of the nation, came from the family. And the most important fact is reliable sources call the family by the family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Mehedi Abedin 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit! 14:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Iṣṭa-devatā (Hinduism)Ishtadevata – As WP:ONEOTHER, the Sanskrit term Ishtadevata (IAST: Iṣṭa-devatā) is primarily used in Hinduism vis-a-vis Buddhism where Yidam (from Tibetan) is the popular term (ishtadevata is a ceremonial Sanskrit term). The following generic religion encyclopedias define the term in the Hindu context * An_Introductory_Dictionary_of_Theology p. 651 [24] * Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions:Page 301 - Yudit Kornberg Greenberg · 2007 * Encyclopedia of Spirits and Ghosts in World Mythology - Page 44 (under Devata entry) Theresa Bane · 2016 * The Encyclopedia of Yoga and Tantra - Page 352 Georg Feuerstein · 2022 Encyclopedia of Hinduism - Page 203 - Constance Jones, James D. Ryan · 2006: "Ishta devata (desired divinity) is an important concept in theistic Hinduism." - illustrates its importance in Hinduism Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)FlybeFlybe (2022–2023) – A previous RM in February 2023 immediately after the airline was grounded was not successful on the basis of WP:TOOSOON. Over a year later, it is now clear that the airline is not going to resume operations. If there is a WP:PRIMARY, it would be the the airline that traded for 30 years, Flybe (1979-2020), not this one that traded for 9 months. Propose that this article be renamed Flybe (2022–2023) and Flybe become a disambiguation page. Gleeesqu (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 24, 2024

  • (Discuss)Thunderbolts (film)Thunderbolts* – The official title for this film is Thunderbolts*, with the asterisk, as confirmed by Feige's announcement which is sourced in the article. It is not just marketing sylisation. While it is too early to confirm whether this or Thunderbolts is the WP:COMMONNAME, some news sources have been including the asterisk since the announcement and we can't rule out use increasing once marketing begins properly. More importantly, the asterisk provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation from Thunderbolts (which is a redirect to Thunderbolt) and Thunderbolts (comics). - adamstom97 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Doctor of PhilosophyPhD – Per WP:COMMONNAME the abreviated form without dots is the most common in ngrams, more than twice as common as "Ph.D." and much more common than the full name, which doesn't seem to be very widely used in comparison ([28]). The proposed term is also more common in google scholar, with 18k results since 2010 ([29]), compared to less than 17k for "Ph.D." ([30]) and less than 8k for "Doctor of Philosophy" ([31]). Vpab15 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)FortunateFortunate (song) – I don't think this particular song is what most people of when they hear "fortunate". Most likely they are looking for the general concept of being fortunate. We already have a dab for this word, so - even though this article gets most of the pageviews! - I think it would be better to move the dab to the base title. Duckmather (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 23, 2024

  • (Discuss)Sports Direct IrelandHeatons – This page was recently moved from Heatons to Sports Direct Ireland without any discussion. The entire content of the article relates to the former Heatons department store business, rather than the Sports Direct sports business that bought it out. Further, I can't find any instance of a "Sports Direct Ireland" brand - Heatons was simply closed and its shops were reopened as Sports Direct. Gatepainter (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Armenian alphabetArmenian script – This article encompasses more than just the alphabet; it covers the entire script. The alphabet is merely one part of it. I noticed that a move was already requested. Previously, the main argument against this was that the Armenian script is used exclusively for the Armenian language. However, similar articles about native Caucasian scripts are titled Caucasian Albanian script and Georgian scripts, even though they are predominantly used for a single language as well. Moreover, the Armenian script has occasionally been used for other languages, as exemplified by the Armeno-Turkish alphabet and the relevant section in this article. Therefore, to ensure consistency, I propose the move. Aldij (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Who Killed...... The Zutons?Who Killed the Zutons? – or Who Killed the Zutons (without the question mark) – or Who Killed ... the Zutons? – or Who Killed ... the Zutons (without the question mark). This is the only article title I can find on Wikipedia that includes more than five consecutive dots in its title (and I found only four that have five consecutive dots). That's a rather strange form, and it is not supported consistently in the cited sources. Although the album cover does include six dots, most of the cited sources appear to just use "Who Killed the Zutons?" (or "Who Killed The Zutons?", which Wikipedia would not do), with or without the question mark at the end. Some use an ordinary three-dot ellipsis (with or without spaces around the ellipsis). Also, as pointed out in 2012 by nagualdesign, the album cover and many sources omit the question mark. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)American major traditional television networks → ? – This page has been recently moved a bit, without any explanation or reason, from its original stable title, Big Three (American television). I assume it was because the name "Big Three" is more or less an informal term, and therefore the original page mover wanted to have a more descriptive title instead. I tried to make it less ambiguous and subjective. The subjective part in my disagreement in one of the page moves was in regards to the Fox Broadcasting Company, and whether it should also be considered "major" while the other three networks are more "major traditional". But instead of possibly getting into another move war, I'm opening this RM to the community for suggestions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomographyElectrical capacitance volume tomography – This page was originally titled "Electrical capacitance volume tomography" and was recently moved to a page called "Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography". These two terms are not the same. The latter is a broader term as shown in the wikipedia article edit on 5/14/24 in the introduction section. References are given for the distinction between terms. When the page was moved to the new term, it stated that the term ECVT is not widely used. However, in the later 5/14/24 edit of the introduction, citations are given for the term being used in China, Indonesia, and three different research groups in the USA. It is suggested that this page return to "Electrical capacitance volume tomography". A separate page should be made for "Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography", if desired, as it is a distinct term that can include stacking of 2D tomographs whereas ECVT does not. Marashdeh (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)PallarDevendrakula Velalar – Parliament Passes Bill To Classify 7 Scheduled Caste Groups Of Tamil Nadu As 'Devendrakula Velalars', having a page as pallar to refer as devendrakula Velalar is not right. It’s better to move this page as Devendrakula Velalar as it comprises 7 subcastes. The Indian Government parliament ammendment has been given for viewing where pallar and others 6 subcastes don’t exist in the government records. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Page I want to move it to is currently a redirect. worldgiant (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> 09:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Worldgiant (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Caliber conversion sleeveCaliber conversion – Since there are several different methods of caliber conversion covered in this article, and it doesn't actually get to the caliber conversion sleeve until the third section, I am proposing a move and rescope to the general concept of converting calibers. This will also mean a merge of anything suitable from the newly created caliber change (which I feel is a useful redirect, but conversion seems significantly more common). Alpha3031 (tc) 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 22, 2024

  • (Discuss)George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul2020 Minneapolis–Saint Paul riots – The reason why I want to move this page to this title is because there's already a page called George Floyd protests, and George Floyd protests in Minnesota. Plus, some of the information on this page is linked to the three day period of rioting that took place between May 27–30 of 2020. This article also talks about arson damage which wasn't caused by the peaceful demonstrations, as well as photos showing scenes of destruction. The title saying "protests" is the part I disagree with, because in my view, a riot is not a protest. So that is why I am requesting this page to be moved. SpringField23402 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings


  • (Discuss)Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → ? – I'm unsure what the new title should be, but I'm sure that this one has an issue. The Israeli attack on Gaza has gone past 2023 into 2024. So, we can't keep the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" part. Perhaps we could change it to "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war", "Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war", or something different. Note that "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" just redirects to Israel–Hamas war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests


See also