Wikipedia:Requested moves

Closing instructions

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 is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion 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 discussion (especially no recent 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 such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. 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 page 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=reason for 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

This isn't actually my request. When I went to add a request I noticed this one had a bracket missing, so I added it, then didn't notice that it was listed as my request. I think it was from Greghenderson2006. I have no opinion one way or the other. Tom Radulovich (talk)
Yep, it was Greghenderson2006's. The template automatic puts the signature of whoever subst the template, you will have to backtrack and edit in original editor's signature and timestamp after subst-ing. – robertsky (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doing that now. Hope it all gets sorted! Tom Radulovich (talk)
@Greghenderson2006: See my PCM note above. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 8 June 2023" 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, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

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.

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 8 June 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 8 June 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 8 June 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[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 8 June 2023

– why Example (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 8 June 2023

– why Example (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 is transcluded into 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. 36 discussions have been relisted.

June 8, 2023

  • (Discuss)Alpha hydroxy acidΑ-Hydroxy acid – The current forms of the titles, with the Greek letter prefix spelled out, may be more WP:COMMONNAMEs, given their use in skin care products, but actual use of the Greek letters in the compound class names is how they are written in scientific contexts, in line with WP:CHEMPREFIX. I am not sure whether we should weight the common spelling heavily here, as being more recognizable, or attempt to use the more properly written versions as the titles. The consideration is to what extent the commercialized use has found itself into reliable sources. Obviously, redirects can be used for versions not chosen as the article titles. The uppercase Greek letters are used in the proposed titles, as all WP pages must begin with a capital letter, but {{lowercasetitle}} is used to display the lowercase Greek letter correctly. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)X & Y (film)X&Y (film) – The cover art and IMDB both suggest the title does not contain spaces. X&Y currently hosts the Coldplay album, which likely is primary over this film for this spelling, so the disambiguator should be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Piano Quartet (Schumann)Piano Quartet, Op. 47 – This was Schumann's second effort in the genre. Hopefully I'll get around soon to creating an article for the earlier quartet in C minor, and think that giving each work's Opus number in the title is a good way to disambiguate between two. There are three options besides Opus number as far as I can see: # Leaving this article where it is, and naming the new article "Piano Quartet in C minor (Schumann)"/"Piano Quartet, Op. WoO 32". There is an asymmetry here which seems potentially confusing to me. # Naming both articles with numbers (e.g. "Piano Quartet No. 1 (Schumann)"). The trouble here is that numbering like this is not used frequently used in the literature, and so might be somewhat confusing. # Naming both articles according to their keys ("Piano Quartet in E-flat major (Schumann)"). I can't see anything recommending this approach over using Opus numbers, but it is certainly more cumbersome. Would be interested to have people's thoughts. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)EFA League CupEgyptian League Cup – The competition, currently known on Wikipedia as the EFA League Cup, is in fact not organized by the Egyptian Football Association, but by the Egyptian Professional Football Clubs Association. The current title is wrong, as the only cup competition organized in Egypt by the EFA is the Egypt Cup; the main football cup competition in the country. All sources in the article confirms what I'm saying, with only the first cited source by Al-Ahram referring to the competition as the EFA League Cup. I believe that the name I proposed is the best for the article. For the other competition, which is currently tilted Egyptian League Cup, I'm not sure which is the best possible title, but I'm sure there are better alternatives. Ben5218 (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 7, 2023

  • (Discuss)Ptolemaic KingdomPtolemaic Empire – This page should move for two reasons. First and foremost, "Ptolemaic Empire" is the more prevalent name in the preponderance of sources, when used as a proper name (in upper case) for the state, see Ngrams. The terms are more or less evenly matched when the search is case insensitive (presumably there is roughly even descriptive usage), but since we are looking for a proper name here, that evidence weighs more heavily. On Google Scholar, "Ptolemaic Empire" meanwhile gets 2,440 results, while "Ptolemaic Kingdom" gets 2,030 results. Secondly, the move is supported by historical context. The Ptolemaic Empire is the Ptolemaïkḕ basileía in Greek, i.e. a polity ruled by a "basileus", meaning monarch (not specifically a king or emperor); basileía is the same word used for the monarch of Macedonia (first as a king, later as an emperor), and also in the Seleucid Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc. (my emphasis here being on the latter, as by this junction the supranational Greek polities had much more the flavour of empire than kingdom). In its time, the Ptolemaic Empire, which included the area of modern-day Egypt, eastern Libya, Cyprus and, c. 200BCE, the Southern Levant and southwestern Anatolia, was a direct peer/rival of the Seleucid Empire, so "Empire" is appropriate from a regional perspective – Empires rival each other – and a consistency perspective. Among the many works using the terminology of the proposed term, here is a prominent work that discussed both Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires with that parallel descriptor: Comparing the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires. And for a more general work by an academic publisher using the term, see: A History of the Ptolemaic Empire Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Eunice aphroditoisBobbit worm – Per WP:COMMONNAME, we're supposed to use the common name of a species rather than the scientific name when possible. Most laypeople probably recognize the name "Bobbit worm" more than the name "Eunice aphroditois". Although the species has multiple common names (including sand-striker, bristle worm, etc), "Bobbit worm" is the most commonly recognized one today. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kabuli pulawQabeli Palaw – Kabuli pulaw is all at once a mistranscription, misidentification and mistranslation of Persian (Dari)قابلی پلو. I have added relevant information and sources to the article that deal both with correct translation and romanization of this dish. The majority of google hits that will give you a "kabuli pulao" spelling are from unreliable sources, whereas reliable publications and academic sources favor the spellings "qabeli" and "palaw". By mistranscribing Qabeli to Kabuli a false connection to the city of Kabul is assumed. Please take note for example of: Buell, Anderson, de Pablo Moya & Oskenbay. "Crossroads of Cuisine": "Qabli [not 'Kabuli,' as commonly believed by many foreigners." For romanization of the diphtong in palaw please note: Miller, Corey (2012). "VARIATION IN PERSIAN VOWEL SYSTEMS" (PDF). Orientalia Suecana. 59 (1): 165. "The diphthongs aj and aw are preserved in Dari, e.g. 'find' /pajdā/, 'rice' /tʃalaw/". The Library of Congress hosts a Persian romanization table here: "The diphthong romanized aw. فردوسی Firdawsi". Additinal sources are in the article. Zimistani (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Zimistani (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 6, 2023

  • (Discuss)Wikipedia:1m-PR-en → ? – Anyone want to take a crack at renaming this page? It was created in 2006, was only edited in 2006, and is apparently about an announcement regarding the 1,000,000th article being created on Wikipedia (and for some reason, this page is also fully edit and move protected). Either way, if there is any intent to find this page, the current title is a bunch of random alphabet soup. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 5, 2023

  • (Discuss)Seventh Regiment ArmoryPark Avenue Armory – The building itself is far better known as the Park Avenue Armory, as seen in even a cursory search of common sources, like The New York Times. Even the city's Landmarks Conservancy refers to the building as the Park Avenue Armory. The current title may be the building's listing on the NRHP, but those names are frequently not the actual common name but a mere descriptor. More importantly, the term "Park Avenue Armory" refers to the building itself, not the organization that operates it, which is the Park Avenue Armory Conservancy. Just because their logo omits the word doesn't change the group's name to make it most commonly referred to by the building's common name. The lead sentence of that article saying the organization is "generally known as Park Avenue Armory" is unsourced and unfounded. In casual use people will muddle the distinction, but this is an encyclopedia, not casual use. The current arrangement ignores WP:NATDIS and fails WP:COMMONNAME for the building. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Inverted CastleDracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night) – As discussed above but unable to reach any form of consensus, I don't believe the Inverted Castle alone is independently notable, however, there are various other sources from Kill Screen and GamesRadar+ talking about the castle in general from Symphony of the Night that render it notable when the scope is widened slightly, hence the name change. The disambiguation may be long, but it reflects the fact that only the castle's SOTN incarnation is actually notable as a location and level. I am starting a move discussion to see if a specific consensus can be reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 15:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Persistent vegetative stateVegetative state – Vegetative states are a stage in emergence from coma, and can last for short or long periods both; persistent vegetative states are a subset of long-lasting VS. This article covers both (there's no separate article for VS, and IMO it would be inappropriately splitty to write it). More concerningly, the concept of PVS in this article isn't necessarily concordant with current neurological understanding, with current practice guidelines strongly recommending the use of 'chronic vegetative state' over the persistent/permanent terms tended towards in this article. The article needs a fair bit of work, but both in its current state and in any viable future state it handles VS as a whole, and should have a title reflecting that. The current title implies a different and far narrower focus than both our present and ideal article on this have, and not a particularly viable focus anyway (because it's incoherent to talk about chronic VS without talking about VS in general). Vaticidalprophet 09:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Shunga EmpireShunga dynasty – Per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Google ngram data, Shunga dynasty has much more usages than Shunga Empire [54]. (In fact, Shunga empire has too low usages to be even measured by Google ngrams.) Edit – The reason is not just WP:COMMONNAME, the Shunga dynasty or Sunga dynasty, is merely seen as one of the successive ruling dynasties of Magadha, not as a seperate entity like Mughal or Timurid Empires. This is similar to the articles on the Delhi Sultanate at its five ruling dynasties. An article called "Tughaq Empire" or "Lodi Empire" doesn't exist.PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Bahri dynastyBahri Mamluks – As other editors have also noted above, neither of these are "dynasties" in the most common sense. As the articles and any reliable sources explain, Mamluk sultans came to the throne mainly through the support of other Mamluks, not through hereditary succession. While some sultans managed to have their sons succeed them (most notably Qalawun), none of these lines lasted long and obviously not for the full length of either period. "Bahri Mamluks" and "Burji Mamluks" would be equally clear/precise, while avoiding the misnomer and any potential confusion for unfamiliar readers. R Prazeres (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 4, 2023

  • (Discuss)AntrorbisAntrorbis breweri – Genus is no longer monotypic, as there is now A. tennesseensis (Perez, Shoobs, Gladstone, & Niemiller, 2019). This page is better as a species page (with minor amendments). But the page can't be Moved as there is already a (redirect) page of that name Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Creation mythCreation narrative – The current title of this article isn't exactly neutral, I know that technically the usage of the term "myth" in this article is using the far less common definition, "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon", and not the common definition, "something that is false". However, as stated previously, it is the far less common definition, so people may often take the title the wrong way when seeing it. I propose the title "Creation narrative" instead so the title is more obviously neutral to all active religions that have creation stories. It is also much more convenient for editors and readers to not have a lengthy explanation on why the usage of "myth" is neutral, and it allows articles to be more concise as they do not have to waste space with explanations. This naming has already been in use for a while in 3 other articles: Genesis creation narrative (in use for 13 years), Korean creation narratives (in use since article creation 3 years ago), and Tenrikyo creation narrative (in use since article creation 5 years ago). – Treetoes023 (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)M.R.S. (Most Requested Show)M.R.S. – The title seems a bit confusing and redundant. It looks like it is a parenthetically disambiguated title, but it isn't. Information about the topic (a short-lived Philippine television show) is rather hard to find. The article is basically unsourced. It cites only IMDb, and per WP:IMDB, that's user-generated content and not reliable (and it also doesn't say much about the show). It also contained one link to a non-functioning site that has "forums" in the URL – I removed that link (to IMDb indeed uses the current title – including the parenthetical. I found a page about the show on a site that Wikipedia has blacklisted (I don't know why; the URL is https:// mydramalist (dot) com/725273-m-r-s). It titles its page on the subject as "M.R.S. (2005)" but also uses the current title in the description. It also shows the logo of the show. The logo does not contain the parentheses, and separates the "M.R.S." from the spelled-out form visually in the logo. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 3, 2023

  • (Discuss)Auto Club SpeedwayCalifornia Speedway – "Next Gen California" is not the name of the speedway, it's the name of the renovation/reconstruction project. That's not the name of the place. The previous sponsored name "Auto Club Speedway" is, of course, outdated. This article should be moved back to "California Speedway". oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)AS Val and VSS VintorezVSS (Vintorez) and AS (Val) – The VSS should come first before the AS because the VSS (Vintorez) was produced first. The AS (Val) was derived from the VSS project. Adding the parenthesis on the Vintorez and Val is necessary to let the readers know that these names are distinct and should not be used in unison. Official nomenclature for these rifles are; 'VSS Special Sniper Rifle and AS Special Assault Rifle'. VSS and AS for short. The 'Vintorez and Val' were merely project names given to these rifles during their developmental stage. This was given in order to confuse foreign agencies during the Cold War. It is correct to refer to these rifles as; 'VSS Special Sniper Rifle', 'VSS', 'Vintorez' and 'AS Special Assault Rifle', 'AS', 'Val'. But it is incorrect to refer to it as 'VSS Vintorez' and 'AS Val'. By put putting the parenthesis on the 'Vintorez and Val' it will separate the official name and the project name so readers would know the difference. Guns & Glory (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Epicamused (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Fort LibertyFort Bragg – Procedural request (see also last RM discussion). The page has been moved without discussion, we cannot immediately assess whether the [just effected] new official name is in common usage, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES the title should stick to the old name till the new name is broadly taken up by sources. Gotitbro (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2, 2023

  • (Discuss)Ring—i—RingRing-i-Ring – While I would have moved the page myself, I wanted to get the opinion of other editors. Most sources (found through Google) appear to use the em dashes. I'm not sure what the expression means in Danish (perhaps "ring-a-ring", as in "ring-a-ring-a-roses"?), but I can't imagine the em dashes are necessary and to standardise it, I think it should be moved to the title with hyphens or at least en dashes instead. Ss112 18:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)PoopPoop (disambiguation) – It's been 4 years since the last RM closed with no consensus, and I think this is worth revisiting. Yes, the nautical sense of the term is older, but that is not the standard that decides primary-topic status. It would only be relevant if "poop" to mean feces were a neologism, but after 250 years that sense seems to be sticking around. Yes, "poop" is also a verb, but see Netoholic's point in the previous RM; the more logical search term for someone looking for Defecation is "pooping". Thus neither counterargument from the previous RM seems very persuasive. What is clear is this: In modern English, "poop" overwhelmingly refers to feces. Per WikiNav, in April 59.61% of outbound clicks were to Feces, 12.19% to Defecation, and 6.86% to Poop deck. This page should be moved to Poop (disambiguation), and the redirect should be targeted to Feces, which is both the common-sense primary topic and the subject of an outright majority of outbound clicks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)University at Albany, SUNYUniversity at Albany – The brand identity of Albany states the only acceptable forms are "University at Albany" and "UAlbany". Obviously, this isn't the end-all-be-all, but "SUNY Albany" and "University of Albany" are explicitly called out in the "never use these" section (though not our current title of University at Albany, SUNY). Still, "University at Albany" appears to more common than "University at Albany, SUNY", looking at Google Trends for the last 12 months (this holds up over 5 years as well). A couple of previous discussions on the title for this page (the 2017 RM, the moves in 2008) have stated potential confusions with institutions like Albany State College and institutions in Albany, Western Australia, but the first few pages of google search results under "University at Albany" in quotation marks only show results for this university. The last move request was closed as no consensus with the note that there were more GHits on a generic google search for the SUNY version, which is certainly no longer the case, either with or without quotation marks, even accounting for the fact that University at Albany will include results for University of Albany, SUNY given the fact that it's a part of the string (with quotation marks, it's 3.4mil for University at Albany vs 1.1mil for University at Albany, SUNY, which is over 3x as many). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 01:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 1, 2023

  • (Discuss)Ultrafilter (set theory)Ultrafilter on a set – There are two similarly named articles: Ultrafilter (set theory) and Ultrafilter From the titles alone it is not entirely clear what the respective scope of the articles are. The article "Ultrafilter (set theory)" is specifically about ultrafilters on a set, that is, ultrafilters on the power set of an underlying set, ordered by subset inclusion; "Ultrafilter" covers ultrafilters on a general poset. But in a recent discussion in, one of the editors was arguing that "Ultrafilter (set theory)" could refer to many more situations having to do with/(expressible in?) set theory. Another editor and I want to remove any such ambiguity by changing the title to "Ultrafilter on a set". Please see the full discussion on the Talk page. One possibility we also considered was "Ultrafilter (on a set)", but that did not seem better according to the the "rarely" guideline of WP:NCDAB. Instead, we could add that as a redirect if desired. PatrickR2 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Wu Ying-huaTu Yinghua – The pinyin spelling (Wu Yinghua) seems to have eclipsed the Wade-Giles spelling (Wu Ying-hua) in most recent literature. ([66], [67], [68]) Several of the major exceptions don't use Wade-Giles, but rather an unorthodox form of pinyin ([69], [70]) which I have never seen elsewhere. Proposed move in line with WP:NCZH. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)EntitativityEntitativity (Social Psychology) – "Entitativity" as a word, on first glance, seems to be a standard nominalization of the most general sense of the word entitative, which implies the page is about the ability of a concept to be considered an entity, and not specifically only the social psychological concept (as the article is now). And, due to the current stub state of the article, upon first viewing this was not immediately clear. I've added a hatnote to clarify a bit, but think that this article should also have the clarifier "(Social Psychology)" to provide "pre-visit clarification" about what the article is about. Perhaps also, after this is done, a disambiguation hatnote pointing directly to Entity (disambiguation) would be beneficial. After reading WP:DAB, it doesn't seem to state clearly if a morphologically derived word should have clarifiers separating it from its root word, when no other articles with the exact derived word's title exist, but in this case I think it makes sense, as this article is linked from that disambiguation page, and the concepts are highly related but distinct. Brubsby (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Chekiang Province, Republic of ChinaZhejiang (Republic of China) – Although the ROC Constitution means that this province *technically* still exists, the majority of this article is (and should be) about the provincial government that existed from 1912-1955. "Zhejiang" is used by the vast majority of modern historians when discussing the province during the Republican period. A few examples: [74], [75], [76]. The use of "Chekiang" is limited to older works and the minority of recent works that use Wade-Giles throughout. I have yet to find a work that uses pinyin as a default but makes an exception for this province. Wikipedia generally and China-related articles specifically prefer the name in common use rather than the official name, so even if the official ROC name of this province is "Chekiang", the pintyin name should still be used. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)2023 Kremlin drone explosionKremlin drone attack – While we can describe this as having been one single attack, we cannot say it was one single explosion, because the number of drones that hit the Kremlin was two. These two explosions can be described as composing a single attack but we cannot do the same with the word "explosion". A new title is needed. Super Ψ Dro 10:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • (Discuss)Stepove, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk OblastStepove, Velykomykhailivka Rural Community – As I noted in the previous deletion discussion, the title of this page is ambiguous with the other (currently populated) village of Stepove in Synelnykove Raion (the naming issue arose following the merger of Pokrovske Raion into Synelnykove in 2015). See and. My proposal is to follow suit with ukwiki on this (but to use commas instead of brackets, which appears to be preferred on enwiki), but there are some other options that also seem sensible to me: * Stepove, Velykomykhailivka Rural Community, Synelnykove Raion – if simply "Velykomykhailivka Rural Community" is too broad * Stepove, Velykomykhailivka Rural Community, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovk Oblast if we want a complete description of the location, although I think this might be excessive * Stepove, Pokrovske Raion(, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast) – to preserve the raion this village was formerly in when it was populated, although to do this I think we would need a source showing that the village was indeed populated when such a raion existed (I looked and found none). Can anyone who knows policy better than me weigh in on this? Either way, I'd like to stress that renaming the article is imperative: currently, it is far too easy to get it mixed up with the currently-populated village of Stepove, also in Synelnykove Raion (on which we do not currently have an article, but that's a project for another day :)). I know it's a sticky situation because we have an article on only one of these villages, but the one which is populated is clearly more noteable (according to GNG, even), and we need to acknowledge that when naming articles. All the best, Akakievich (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malformed requests

Possibly incomplete requests


See also