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.
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 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.
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.
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 admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
To list a technical request: the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.
"Sam Shapiro" has now been redirected to its extended-name DAB page. You can remove this request now as and when the nominator is ready for RM enactment. Intrisit (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As Amakuru stated above, "Sam Shapiro" should be targeted to the longer-name DAB page — I'm even as surprised as what that you deem Amakuru's target suggestion controversial. Like... Even if I list this at RFD, this ain't my request. Reply this to Amakuru directly and not me! Intrisit (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: do you have any rationale for reverting the above change of redirect beyond "it's redirected to the Illinois politician since 2005"? I personally can't see any particular evidence that he's the primary person associated with that name, or even that he's commonly called "Sam" at all (his obituary in the article doens't do so). We can go to RFD if you really insist, but I'd like to at least have a solid reason why you're objecting... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish National Financial Management Authority→Swedish Agency for Financial and Public Management(move · ) – Since January 1 this year, the Swedish Agency for Financial and Public Management (in Swedish: Statskontoret) has been merged into the Swedish National Financial Management Authority (in Swedish: Ekonomistyrningsverket). The agency has also changed its name to the Swedish Agency for Financial and Public Management. Therefor, I suggest the article's headline should be changed to the new angency's name. /~2026-33773-6 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC) {{{sig}}}[reply]
The English version of the Sweden government website still uses the original name: [3]. That may be a translation or workload issue; if the real Swedish name of the agency has changed in recent government documents, I can't see it due to uncertain online translation. ----DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible it is a little bit confusing what is going on since the changes were implemented just some weeks ago. Therefor it is possible that the new name has not been visible at every single page on the Swedish government pages. However, the agency who previously in Swedish was named 'Ekonomistyrningsverket' (in English: the Swedish National Financial Management Authority) is from January 1 this year now called in Swedish 'Statskontoret' (in English: Swedish Agency for Financial and Public Management). Therefor, I believe that the article should change its name based on that facts. There are several sources on the page who proves that the name change is real. /~2026-40830-5 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Behavior suggests that this user is based in Korea (he makes edits to Korean text) but I don't see much resemblance to the pattern described in the LTA report on Scottish12345678. At present a full move discussion is running on the article talk page. I suggest that the technical move request be closed. The article is not bad. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sv (disambiguation)→Template:Sv(move · ) – I know the latter page is salted because it has been repeatedly recreated; however, I think that making it a template disambiguation page could be better for users. That said, it does appear to have been a redirect to {{Sv icon}} (now deleted) from 2012 (?) to 2020, and then a redirect to {{Sock vote}} from 2022 to 2023, so maybe making it a template disambiguation page would be more surprising for those looking through old page revisions? Duckmather (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves
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.
To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:
{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}
Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 19 January 2026" 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:
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.
}}
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:
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)andCricket. 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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 "• SupportOppose".
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. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as per WP:RMEC.
Alternatively, the opener of a discussion can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the requested move has not had any comments yet, or the request was initiated via block evasion. As per WP:WITHDRAW, an opener of a discussion should use strikethrough on the nomination statement when it is prematurely closed through withdrawal.
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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
(Discuss) – Stepanakert → KhankendiKhankendi – Per WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Two years on after the fall of Artsakh and exodus of the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, keeping this article as "Stepanakert", and generally in a state of not being updated to reflect the fact Artsakh no longer exists, is getting rather ridiculous - I'd say they're akin to insisting on Stettin and Breslau in 1947. I think it's better to make the move now in a way that respects NPOV than to keep this article as Stepanakert until pro-Azerbaijani editors force the move in a completely biased way. Glide08 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Namesco → names.co.uk – The company rebranded as namesco.co.uk in 2013 [4] and the press has been identifying it by that name ever since. E.g. [5][6][7]. It is also the name the company uses to identify itself: [8] Please note I have a COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the company.
(Discuss) – Role of Christianity in civilization → Role of Christianity in Western society – As noted earlier, present title simply doesn't reflect the intended scope of the article and its actual content. This scope is well summarised by the opening line of the article: Christianity has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of Western society. The article throughout concerns itself with the Western world. Where it mentions Africa and Asia it does so primarily from the perspective of Western missionaries to those regions, not their own indigenous Christian traditions. Regardless of intentions, to conflate Western society with "civilisation" as the present title does is self-evidently biased and does not reflect a global perspective. It's worth noting that the article has had multiple WP:POV disputes in the past, which are recorded in the archive. While the mismatch between title and content could be resolved by a thorough rewrite to change the Western perspective to a global one (WP:GLOBALIZE), this would take an enormous effort as well as the addition of even more content to cover neglected aspects, adding more to what is already a very long article. The sole exception to the Western perspective is the section on Christian influences on the Islamic world tacked onto the end; this is the closest this article comes to a more balanced, global view. However, that material is a relatively recent addition in terms of the total history of this article (created 2008). It was adapted in April 2021 without attribution (WP:COPYWITHIN) from a whole separate article on about the subject by an anonymous IP editor with revision 1017279567. While I appreciate the effort to globalise the article, it's already tagged as being uncomfortably long (an assessment I agree with) and its length is the product of copying in redundant material from other articles. The simplest solution, short of total deletion (WP:TNT), is to just move to a new title which reflects both the majority of its present content and its always intended scope, trimming down the content which is redundant with other articles. I suggest the title Role of Christianity in Western society, not Role of Christianity in Western culture since the article includes a section on economics which is perhaps a bit beyond the scope of just "culture", and "society" is how the opening lining phrases the topic. Either of those titles maintains some consistency with the previous title, which may be desirable, idk. That said, I'm open to other suggestions (such as Christian influences on the Western world to match Christian influences on the Islamic world) I'm completely happy to go with whatever alternative title other editors prefer. TL;DR — Regardless of its authors' intentions, the current title isn't neutral or representative of intended scope or content. A move is the simplest solution. The article is already long enough; globalising the content to match the title rather than keeping to the original scope would make that problem worse and probably duplicate even more of the scope/material of other articles. – Scyrme (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Campbell Dallas → Azets – Campbell Dallas formally rebranded as Azets in September 2020. Azets is currently ranked as a Top 10 accountancy firm in the UK by fee income. This move ensures the article accurately reflects the current entity and its market position. Roryatwill (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Aya Ogawa → Aya Ogawa (singer) – Ogawa the playwright is likely PRIMARYTOPIC, active for over two decades with widespread coverage in English language sources and multiple major awards, demonstrating long-term significance, while English language searches return few results for the singer except for wiki entries (a Japanese ceramicist appears higher in my search results than the singer). The top page linking to Aya Ogawa is incorrect and meant for the playwright. BrechtBro (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ginza line → Tokyo Metro Ginza LineTokyo Metro Ginza Line – Most of these are restorations of articles to their titles prior to the recent page moves. The format of "Tokyo Metro X Line" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME for each line. Additionally, some other line articles were not moved, creating an issue in regards to WP:CONSISTENT. Each page move received minimal participation so there does not appear to be a strong consensus on the new titles. The editor who proposed the previous moves appeared to express uncertainty with his proposals, and was extrapolating a titling format used to refer to a different system internationally (the Singapore MRT), which does not apply to the Tokyo subway. Additionally, the restoration of the diacritic to the Tōzai Line article title similarly meets WP:COMMONNAME and brings it in line with the other Tokyo subway article titles per WP:CONSISTENT. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 11:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk00:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Italian East Africa → Italian occupation of EthiopiaItalian occupation of Ethiopia – @FuzzyMagma, Yovt, SnowFire, Srnec, CMD, Kowal2701, CtasACT, Flavius Theodosius Augustus, Orientls, and BedVeritas1: I propose that the article currently at Italian East Africa be moved to Italian Occupation of Ethiopia. The overarching content focuses primarily on the history and administration of Ethiopia under Italian Occupation from 1936–1941. Also, a branch of this article was already named Italian Occupation of Ethiopia (see past move discussion), but unfortunately, it was merged under its current name despite consensus. After a year of careful work on this topic, recent conversations made me notice that a common issue when writing about it historically. Although Italian East Africa was the name of the broader administrative entity (encompassing Eritrea, Italian Somaliland, and occupied Ethiopian territories), the article as currently written overlaps largely with the topic of the Italian occupation period of the Ethiopian Empire specifically. The term "Italian East Africa" is a unilateral proclamation by the Italian Fascist government in asserting its rights over East Africa. However, the project failed due to poor management, resistance, and the onset of World War II. Furthermore, other allied nations occupied by Italy are titled as such (e.g., Italian occupation of Corsica, Italian occupation of Majorca, Axis occupation of Serbia, Italian occupation of France, Invasion and occupation of Monaco during World War II,). Context: I think past discussions have covered this well (pointing out that most modern articles use "Occupation of Ethiopia" or "Invasion of Ethiopia"), but I will add one more historical point about the naming. Shortly after Addis Ababa was occupied, a diplomatic crisis emerged over recognition of the new conquest. The first dispute, unsurprisingly, is on the question of who the Emperor of Ethiopia is. To address this issue, Mussolini offered the title to Victor Emmanuel III in a bid for recognition. When the League continued to recognize the Ethiopian Emperor, Mussolini withdrew Italy's membership in protest. But this diplomatic crisis sometimes outshines another important strategic and diplomatic crisis for Mussolini. He sought speedy recognition of his victory because the British were eager to control the source of the Nile, located within the Ethiopian Empire. The war created an opportunity for the British to seize part of northeastern Ethiopia, taking advantage of a weakened Ethiopian population. This situation intensified Italy's propaganda, claiming that it had fully conquered Ethiopia, despite conditions in the countryside due to the Ethiopian resistance. This included the restriction of speech in the Italian press, counting Italian troops as settlers, and creating a single administrative unit, which we are referring to here as "Italian East Africa." Furthermore, these issues were finally and officially settled in the Treaty of 1947, which lists Italy's colonies as Libya, Eritrea, and Somalia (art. 23), and the Ethiopian Empire was listed separately as an occupied territory qualifying for wartime reparations (art. 33). Please note that Ethiopian Empire was one of the signatories to Italy's final surrender to the allied forces and were an allied government in exile until their Emperor was restored. This is one reason why post-war literature discusses the "Occupation of Ethiopia" as a subject matter. Historyhiker21:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Furuichi Kofun Cluster → Furuichi Kofun Group – These two kofun groups are regularly discussed together as the Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group, however, when seperate, they appear to retain that format when discussed individually as well, therefore I'm proposing moving the two to the same format for consistently. Unesco uses Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group for the two[19] as does the official website for the Group[20] and Sakai City[21] (though mixed names for the individual groups). There are also some instances of more scholarly sources using this format.[22][23]Erynamrod (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich → Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München – Per WP:COMMONNAME, multiple independent English-language sources (THE, QS, ARWU) overwhelmingly use “Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München”, “LMU Munich”, or “University of Munich”, while I have not found comparable usage of any form of “Ludwig Maximilian University”, also not in the current article [24], [25], [26]. Moreover, LMU's content style guide [27] does also advise against “Ludwig Maximilian University (of Munich)” or variations thereof. Any Google searches on “Ludwig Maximilian University” or “Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich” provide sources that, upon closer inspection, indicate that they either cannot agree on a common name as they give a plethora of different spellings, or they actually refer to any of the three names referred by the reliable sources given above. Alternatively, the names “LMU Munich” or “University of Munich” could be considered, as they are also more frequent in reliable independent English-language sources than the current name. Proof finder (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mahón → MaóMaó – Reposting a malformed move request on behalf of User:Ristando, with the following rationale: The page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is pretty clear: : The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. If not, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used. If Mahon is a "widely accepted English name" then it should be the name of the page, if not then it should be Maó, the official name, it makes no sense that right now it's a third one. Bsckr (talk) :The article name should really be "Maó", since it is the official town name, not "Mahon" or "Mahón" (written in Spanish). :It satisfies the 5 points in WP:CRITERIA: :* It is recognizable :* It is natural, since it's the historical catalan name since 2021 :* Precise, since it is the official town name since :* Maó is shorter than Mahón :* The consistency is no problem, and people who mentioned things like Mahón cheese can also be renamed fairly easily following the same idea. :For the ones that support the name of "Mahon", it comes from that settlement of the english back in the 18th century that lasted only a few years, and it was called "Port Mahon". So it makes no sense from a historical point of view to keep its name "Mahon" or "Port Mahon", not even "Mao-Mahón" :Therefore, I propose the rename of the town to Maó, given that in 2021 it was again made official that the town name is Maó (and not Maó-Mahon). Ristando (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Vestrian24Bio12:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mahón cheese → Maó cheeseMaó cheese – Reposting a malformed move request on behalf of User:Ristando, with the following rationale: Since Maó Cheese is named after the town of Maó, which is the official name of that town since 2021, this article should reflect that name change according to the fifth WP:CRITERIA (consistency) Therefore I propose the name change from "Mahón cheese" to "Maó cheese" to be consistent across the english Wikipedia. Ristando (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Vestrian24Bio12:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Thitu Island → Pag-asa IslandPag-asa Island – Pag-asa Island is the officially used English name in a range of formal publications and is widely reflected in contemporary English-language reliable sources. The current title Thitu Island is less frequently used in recent English usage. For consistency with similar features in the Spratly Islands, Wikipedia titles Taiping Island under its commonly used English name rather than Itu Aba Island. Using Pag-asa Island follows the same approach and aligns with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY. The title Pag-asa Island already exists as a redirect to Thitu Island, indicating established usage and making the move technically straightforward, while alternative names can continue to be noted in the lead. ~2026-37885-3 (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Killing of Renee Good → Killing of Renée GoodKilling of Renée Good – Good consistently used "Renée" in her life. Examples include: * A poem written under the name "Renée Nicole Macklin" (2020).[1] * Her signature in her name change petition written as "Renée N. Macklin" (2023). * Paperwork used to register an LLC under the name "Renée Nicole Macklin Good" (2024).[2] * An Instagram profile made to promote said LLC used "Renée Good" (2024).[3] * Her Instagram profile uses the name "Renée Good" (updated 2025–2026).[4] A bio by ODU also used the accented "Renée".[5] A number of sources have begun adopting the diacritic as well,[6][7][8][9][10] including The Washington Post.[11] Though WP:SPNC applies to name changes, the Milena Kitić → Milena Kitic example seems similar enough to make the point that minor spelling variations, when consistent, should be followed.
(Discuss) – TMSR → TMSR (disambiguation)TMSR (disambiguation) – I wish to use TMSR for an article on the Chinese Academy of Science's TMSR project (2011-present, with plans to 2035+) which now is working on its third reactor (article TMSR-LF1 is getting a bit big, and I want to make this the main article for what is mostly the background section there. The disambiguation page already exists, but is being used as a redirect... to this page, which is surrently... a disambiguation page. So I tried to 'be bold' and make this an actual page, but was pretty much instantly smacked down. This is IMHO shenanigans. Limulus (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Vestrian24Bio09:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Al-Tabqah → TabqaTabqa – The article is currently titled Al-Tabqah, but several related pages such as Battle of Tabqa, Battle of Tabqa Airbase, and Tabqa Dam use the spelling without the "h" and the article "al-" (Tabqa). I am not necessarily advocating for a move specifically to Tabqa; Al-Tabqa could also be a reasonable option. However, it would be useful to agree on a consistent and correct naming convention for the city article and all related pages (Al-Tabqa, Al-Tabqah, Tabqa, Tabqah). The same convention should also be applied to Al-Tabqah District and Al-Tabqah Subdistrict. –yeagvr ·✉15:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Candidozyma auris → Candida aurisCandida auris – This would reverse the undiscussed uncontested technical move requested by User:Redthreadhx and would align with common usage as well as the content of the article itself. Note that the title should be displayed in italics, as Candida auris. The reclassification and change in the genus name was proposed in 2024.[29][30] The proposal is controversial and has not been widely adopted in the medical and scientific literature. Google Scholar shows 3,480 hits for "Candida auris" published since 2025 and just 388 hits for "Candidozyma auris". Similarly, Wiley shows 113 hits for "Candida auris"[31] and 12 for "Candidozyma auris"[32] published in the last 12 months and Springer–Nature shows 233 hits for "Candida auris"[33] and 40 for "Candidozyma auris"[34] in the past 12 months. While the UK government has apparently adopted Candidozyma auris,[35][36]Candida auris is still used by the US CDC,[37] the Canadian government,[38] the WHO,[39][40] federal and local health authorities in Australia,[41][42][43][44][45][46] APIC,[47] and other institutions. This article uses Candida auris throughout and never explains the discrepancy. Coverage of the proposed revision is probably warranted but the longstanding title and common medical and scientific name should be restored. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Greek Super Cup 2025 → 2026 Greek Super Cup2026 Greek Super Cup – Admin restored the article to 2026 Greek Super Cup, but a user made a move to Greek Super Cup 2025, insisting in his views. This competition was played in January 2026. According to Wikipedia naming conventions and policies, articles about single events should normally be titled by the year in which the event occurred, not by the season per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, other Super Cup articles follow the same rule (e.g. 2007 Greek Super Cup, 2026 Supercopa de España), which satisfies WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:PRECISION and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Furthermore, the previous move to "Greek Super Cup 2025" appears to have been done without a formal requested move discussion, which is contrary to WP:RMUM and the required process for contested or potentially controversial page moves. BEN917 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Vestrian24Bio04:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Endeavor (company) → WME Group – Endeavor has once again rebranded, and is now WME Group. endeavorco.com will take you to the new site with the new name. Notably, on the new site (wmegrp.com), they don't use the name William Morris Endeavor anywhere; just WME Group. violetwtf (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 03:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) → Non-Custodial Parents PartyNon-Custodial Parents Party – This article title currently reads like it has a disambiguation, which is not at all the case. The official title of the party does not need to be used per WP:OFFICIALNAME, we simply need what is most common in sources and recognisable to readers. Considering that brackets are a valid form of disambiguation, we should eliminate confusion. It is really easy to read the full party name in the first mention of the prose. Keeping this disambiguation is like calling the Sustainable Australia Party's article "Sustainable Australia Party – Universal Basic Income", you know what the party stands for but it just serves to make the title longer, they change their name so much that it's not worth changing the Wikipedia article's title every time. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC) Updated at 23:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2020s in United States history → 2020s in the United States2020s in the United States – I have always wanted to see country-specific decade articles such as "2020s in the United States". We have lots of country-specific year articles such as 2026 in the United States, we have worldwide decade overviews such as 2020s, so I think it should be extended to country-specific decade articles such as "2020s in the United States". We already have 2020s in Hong Kong and 2020s in Angola. It seems like year articles are interchangeable with history articles. "2026 in the United States" could also be called "2026 in United States history". These articles titled [decade] in [country demonym] history already seem to have some content which some may not say is strictly history. I know history is very broad so can technically cover anything that happens in a country, hard to define what is a general country article versus a history country article (in other words what is the difference between "2020s in the United States" and "2020s in United States history"), but these articles have mixtures of politics, social trends, disasters, economics, etc. If those two titles are interchangeable, then be consistent with the titles instead of mixing the two different title formats. These decade history articles overlap with the already existing country history articles which have year ranges demarcated by major events, such as History of the United States (2016–present) and History of the United States (1991–2016). Perhaps if you are going to have articles strictly dedicated to history, then their time ranges should be demarcated by major events and the historical periods defined in history textbooks, not decades. WP:COMMONNAME: If someone wants to learn what the 2020s were like in the United States, they would see existing articles such as 2026 in the United States and they would likely search for the analogous and more WP:CONCISE title "2020s in the United States", not the longer title "2020s in United States history" which also has several other possible phrasings such as "2020s in American history" and "2020s in the history of the United States". It is also a reasonable extension of the existing decade articles such as 2020s. Another possible issue is if you think it is even necessary to have [decade] in [country] articles. My take is that I have always felt that the worldwide decade articles such as 2020s have a very broad scope, and it would be good to have more specific decade articles, since one decade can be very different in different countries. If someone wants to get a feel for what the 1980s were like, it's going to be very different depending on if they want to learn about the 1980s in the United States or in Iran. Often when people talk about "what the 1980s were like", they are overly centric on their own country's experiences without considering the rest of the world. These worldwide scope decade articles are at risk of being too Eurocentric and US-centric. Americans may be nostalgic about 80s music, but someone in Iran may not feel the same way. Vvvvv12345 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gobierno de Aragón → Government of AragonGovernment of Aragon – As per WP:NCGAL (When writing articles on government bodies or offices with native titles not in English, an English translation should be favored, except when reliable sources in the English language commonly use the native title) and WP:ENGLISHTITLE (article titles are written using the English language), and considering that none of the exceptions that could be of application under WP:COMMONNAME exists ("Government of Aragon" is a literal, uncontroversial translation used by English-reliable sources [55][56]). This would also bring the article in line with President of the Government of Aragon (WP:TITLECON for consideration here). While I think this could be a perfectly uncontroversial move (considering that I could not do it myself due to Government of Aragon currently being a redirect to Aragon#Government and politics), the fact that this already had a move in 2024 made me be prudent and seek a RM so that the new title is stable. Impru20talk11:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Kingdom of Eastern Georgia → Georgia under Mongol rule – The dominant political reality of the period covered by the article was Mongol overlordship, which fundamentally shaped governance, taxation, military obligations, and royal succession in Georgia. Eastern Georgia functioned not as a fully sovereign and clearly defined kingdom, but as a vassal territory under Mongol authority. As such, the title “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” implies a level of independence and institutional continuity that does not accurately reflect the historical situation. Moreover, the secession of the Kingdom of Western Georgia was itself a direct consequence of Mongol domination, undertaken largely in an effort to escape Mongol rule. This further undermines the notion of a stable or unified “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” during this period. The article’s content primarily addresses Mongol rule and influence over Georgia as a whole, with particular emphasis on eastern regions where Mongol control was most direct, rather than focusing on a formally constituted, independent kingdom. Renaming the article to “Georgia under Mongol rule” would therefore better align the title with the actual scope and substance of the article. Additionally, there is an existing requested article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)/Requested articles titled “Georgia under the Mongol rule”. The fact that Georgian Wikipedia contains articles on Mongol rule in Georgia but not on a “Kingdom of Eastern Georgia” further suggests that the latter is not a commonly used or well-established historical designation. For these reasons, “Georgia under Mongol rule” is a more accurate, neutral, and historiographically sound title that better reflects both the historical realities of the period and the article’s content. Gergos10 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Grey → The Grey (disambiguation)The Grey (disambiguation) – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PFILM, that's because the 2011 film's considered to be the primary topic with that name in its title over other works and terms combined (both film and in general, either with an 'a' or 'e'), including two with non-redirect articles: the 2004 EP by Agalloch and the restaurant, because there are no other films with that name at the moment, and because the other songs and works with that name besides those two don't have non-redirect articles yet. PK2 (talk; contributions) 09:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). PK2 (talk; contributions) 05:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Muslim conquest of the Maghreb → Arab conquest of North AfricaArab conquest of North Africa – There is a huge RS weight supporting the use of "North Africa", and a further layer of weight supporting "Arab" over "Muslim" as the descriptor of the conquerors. This is very clear from Ngrams, which shows even an undifferentiated "conquest of Maghrib" being soundly kicked to the curb by both the proposed title and its closest alternative. The reasons for this are very simple. The conquest was for the most part against the Exarchate of Africa or Byzantine North Africa, with the term "Africa" being consistently used for North Africa throughout the Roman period, as exemplified by the honorific title "Scipio Africanus" for Rome's conquering general. In a historical context, "Maghrib" is by contrast the terminology of the conquering Arabs for the region – from bilad al-maghrib – but it was not an accepted name in the vernacular of the region or the wider Mediterranean/Old World at the time. It would be rather like retroactively calling the Arab conquest of the Visigoths the conquest of "Al-Andalus", as opposed to Hispania (or Spain/Portugal or the Iberian Peninsula in modern usage). And while the term Maghreb does find some usage as a modern geographical term, it has less usage than North Africa and is quite vaguely defined, much like "Levant", lending it little to justify denying the more prevalent terminology in reliable sources. And looking at the actual sources on page, we see that – in a mirroring of the Ngrams chart – Maghreb and Maghrib appear just one time each in the titles of sources (one in French). It appears around 40 times worked into the page. "Africa", by contrast, despite not appearing in the title and tags, appears 70 times on page, including in about 20 references. This excludes the French "Afrique", which appears in a further two sources, including in Robert Brunschvig's Ibn Abd al-Hakam et la conquète de l'Afrique du Nord par les arabes. In English, a parallel source and a key anchor source for the page is Fenwick & Hitchner. "The Arab Conquests and the End of Ancient Africa?" in: A Companion to North Africa in Antiquity. See also: Walter E. Kaegi. Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa. Also: Ṭāhā, ʿAbd-al-Wāḥid Ḏannūn. The Muslim conquest and settlement of North Africa and Spain. Routledge. Many more titles then use Africa alone, but for obvious reasons, North Africa is clearer, while still consistent with the Exarchate of Africa. As for "Arab", well again the Ngrams speaks for itself and so do the sources."Muslim" appears in the titles of just two sources: Kaegi and Dannun, as above. "Arab" appears in 10 sources, including Fenwick, as above, but also in the likes of: Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Chapter LI (51): Conquests By The Arabs — Part VI. Also: Kennedy, Hugh (2007). The great Arab conquests. Also: Hoyland, Robert G. (2015). In God's path: the Arab conquests and the creation of an Islamic empire. And others. This conquest succeeds the Arab conquest of Egypt and is a part of the Arab-Byzantine wars as its direct parent. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.CNC (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Yahweh → Yahweh (historical) – The unqualified title "Yahweh" is highly controversial as it is simultaneously the common name for the living God of contemporary Abrahamic faiths and the subject of historical-critical scholarship. Moving the historical article allows readers to easily choose between the scholarly topic and the religious topic via disambiguation. Félix An (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk09:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Pipipi → PīpipiPīpipi – As said by @MothmanNZ, there is a macron missing in the title ([[57]], [[58]]) I dont think this move request is necessarily controversial, but there is some inconsistency within the article between the English "brown creeper" and Māori "pīpipi". Perhaps discussion on which name is best for the Wikipedia article is needed. Jonaslamarche (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Highmark Stadium (New York) → Ralph Wilson StadiumRalph Wilson Stadium – With this stadium now permanently closed and destined for demolition, we must now determine the common name over the course of its history. Previous discussions have determined that the best title is not necessarily the name at the time of closure (SDCCU Stadium/San Diego Stadium is an example that comes to mind.) With the Highmark Stadium name being transferred to the new facility, "Ralph Wilson Stadium", a name used in a number of reliable sources, seems like a good WP:NATURAL title for this article. 162 etc. (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Eclipse Special Award → Special Eclipse Award – Not sure if there is a technical reason why it may be named as such, however, the most recent sources and press releases refer to this award as the Special Eclipse Award or the Special Eclipse Award for Career Excellence, not the Eclipse Special Award. For example, Tom Hammond[60][61], Jay Privman[62], and most recently Trevor Denman[63][64] and Bob Duncan[65]. JRHorse (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) → First Congolese RepublicFirst Congolese Republic – Following on from this discussion, this title appears to make the most sense. Periodisation of Congolese postcolonial history is usually split into post-independence (1960-1965) and Mobutu's rule (1965-1997). The country gained independence as the "Republic of the Congo" in 1960, was renamed "Democratic Republic of Congo" in 1964 (1 year before Mobutu's coup), and then "Zaire" in 1971. The scope of Zaire could be extended back to 1965 (with its first sentence saying (Democratic Republic of Congo until 1971) or similar). Proposed title does get some hits on Scholar and Books, and the Encyclopedia of African History uses this periodisation, as does Didier Gongola (but w the terms "First Republic" and "Second Republic") in his bookKowal2701 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.CNC (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula → Muslim conquest of SpainMuslim conquest of Spain – This never should have been moved away from Spain. It's now a lengthy mouthful instead of concise and doesn't follow the predominant language. See Ngrams. Also, it doesn't accurately reflect the name of the geography as it was named at the time when it was conquered. It was Visigothic Spain or Hispania, but everyone knows the Roman term Hispania is what becomes 'Spain', so it gets simplified in literature as the latter. This becomes particularly clear when you look at what actually comes after 'Visigothic' in the literature, and it's not even close: Ngram #2. Finally, 'Iberian Peninsula' only appears on page where it's been inserted, only 12 times and not in the sources. 'Spain' appears nearly twice as much despite being temporarily displaced from the title, etc., and its prominent in sources. Arab conquest of Spain ... Moorish Spain ... Islamic Spain ... Muslim Spain are littered across the source titles. So if it's called Spain before the conquest, and Spain after the conquest, I think we know what it is called for the purposes of the conflict. And yes, Portugal exists, but it didn't at this point in history. See Ngrams or lack therein, for 'Visigothic Portugal'. The clear common name for the relevant territory at this point is 'Spain'. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Atrax christenseni → Newcastle big boyNewcastle big boy – Per WP:COMMONNAME this spider most commonly referred to as Newcastle Big Boy (e.g. Google search yielded significantly more results than its latin name which is the current page title) and WP:CONSISTENCY with articles covering animals such as Black mambaand African bush elephant which go by their common names. Yes the name is silly but it even silly names should be preferred over the proper name. Don't know of an example off the top of my head over articles with strange but common names but please state one if you know one. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Fall of Aden (2026) → Battle of Aden (2026)Battle of Aden (2026) – Most sources use either "fall" or similar, and almost none use "battle". In fact it appears there was no battle yet the city just fell to the PLC without a fight. Per local consensus on this talk page I moved it to Fall of Aden (2026) but got reverted by Samson Ly. A few hours later Panam2014 reverted back the page move, so to avoid an editwar I have started an RM here to figure this out. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Anthony Wong → Anthony Wong (disambiguation)Anthony Wong (disambiguation) – I propose that Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor) should be the primary topic and that the disambiguator should be dropped. Currently, there are three entries at Anthony Wong: Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor), Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, and Anthony Brandon Wong. Firstly, I do not think the page names are ambiguous at all. Anthony Wong Yiu-ming and Anthony Brandon Wong are typically referred to by their full names in RS, while only Anthony Wong the Hong Kong actor is commonly referred to as just Anthony Wong. (For Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, see Reuters,[70], The New York Times,[71], and South China Morning Post.[72] For Anthony Brandon Wong, see SBS Australia,[73], Australian Broadcasting Corporation,[74], and The West Australian.[75] For Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor), see BBC,[76], Time magazine,[77], Wall Street Journal,[78], and South China Morning Post.[79]) According to WP:SMALLDETAILS, the proper approach would be to add a hatnote at Anthony Wong that directs to Anthony Wong Yiu-ming and Anthony Brandon Wong instead of having a separate disambiguation page. Setting aside the article title naming conventions, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC outlines two criteria for determining primary topics: usage and long-term significance. Regarding usage, in 2025, the yearly views for Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor), Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, and Anthony Brandon Wong were 113,974, 5,985, and 20,392 respectively. The Hong Kong actor's views far exceed those of the other two Anthonys by about 19 times and 5 times. Regarding long-term significance, the Hong Kong actor is the first individual to win a Grand Slam (the largest awards for film, television, and theatre in Hong Kong) and is a four-time winner of the Golden Horse Awards (also referred to as the Oscars of Asia), and his career in Asia had even propelled him to Hollywood. With all due respect to the other two Anthonys, I believe the Hong Kong actor possesses much stronger notability and is more likely to be the subject readers expect to find when searching for "Anthony Wong". Therefore, considering all three reasons above, I believe there is a strong case for making Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor) the primary topic. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 00:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Natalie and Nadiya Anderson → Natalie Anderson (Survivor contestant)Natalie Anderson (Survivor contestant) – Natalie is the more significant individual of the two. For the most of the article, Natalie is the focus as she is continuing to do shows solo since debuting with her twin. All sections are just focusing on her (Early Life, TV Appearances, Political views, etc.) There is a mention of Naydia and still can be as she is her twin. This should just be a Natalie Anderson page and if Naydia becomes for significant in future years, her page can be created. JoyfullySmile (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). HurricaneZetaC19:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Zhug → SahawiqSahawiq – There have been numerous discussions on the talk page about moving this article to Sahawiq, and the discussions have been... subpar to say the least. Mostly just people throwing around WP:COMMONNAME by doing a quick google search and calling it a day, but the discussion is actually far more complex. For example, in academic sources Sahawiq is near-exclusively used, while a non-insignificant portion of the zhug/zhoug entries seem to be articles self-referencing or recipe websites that simply copy each other down to the letter. I would like to have a discussion that is not just "WP:COMMONNAME, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:COMMONNAME" over and over, because I believe it to be of only limited relevance due to the following factors: : I believe the COMMONNAME to be invalid due to cultural foods often having their own standards. If you google "soup dumpling" vs "xiaolongbao" soup dumpling is the clear winner. In fact, the gap between soup dumpling or even Chinese soup dumpling is far greater than the gap between Zhug and Sahawiq. Provided, xiaolongbao is more popular in the west than sahawiq as a dish, but this actually plays into my later argument of a lack of "established" common name. Chile con queso is simply called "queso" in common parlance, nearly NOBODY says chile con queso in English yet that's what the wiki article is called. Kebab is extremely widely preferred over kabab or kabob or kobob or any other variant in English, yet when you go to the wiki for Koobideh the name is Kabab Koobideh not Kebab Koobideh. : Not to mention, Sahawiq is relatively niche in the west, it can be argued that there is no such thing as a "common" name yet, so deciding on Zhug based on google hits of all things seems a bit silly when taking the other food articles in mentioned earlier into consideration. Wikipedia is not an SEO index. Google hits can and have played a role in deciding the article names of foods, but they certainly aren't the be all end all, especially when it comes to "ethnic/cultural foods" of a particular peoples. The Wikipedia standard seems to favour the dominant terminology of the culture the food is tied to in a lot of cases, and given that this is a Yemeni dish, Sahawiq is the most commonly used term among Yemenis, so I think we should go with that. Yemeni Arabic (the predominant language of Yemen and Yemenis) favours Sahawiq (as has been noted several times already on this talk page in past discussions) so I think it makes sense to go with that. Articles of cultural foods are not usually bound by Western trends on Wikipedia. Additionally, even in the west, academic western sources nearly universally use Sahawiq: 1) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emrah-Yilmaz-3/publication/344886210_Relationship_between_social_networking_sites_and_modern_marketing/links/5f96c470299bf1b53e45f841/Relationship-between-social-networking-sites-and-modern-marketing.pdf#page=571 2) https://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/77276/1/Mohsen_Yemen.pdf 3) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658361219301325 4) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emrah-Yilmaz-3/publication/344886210_Relationship_between_social_networking_sites_and_modern_marketing/links/5f96c470299bf1b53e45f841/Relationship-between-social-networking-sites-and-modern-marketing.pdf#page=571 5) https://www.proquest.com/openview/aae865c93e5e6f3ba18ce79389859dc3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750) I could not find similar publications for Zhug. Additionally; Zhug is more confusing in general, because even among people who use the term Zhug the spelling is not nearly as standardized, with people spelling is as schug, zhoug, skug, zkhug and a dozen other terms. Sahawiq's main variation is Sahaweeq and that's pretty much it. I would also be okay with a move to Sahaweeq. I really think too little consideration to the fact that this is a Yemeni dish has been given in the past. We don't name the arepa article "stuffed corn-based flatbread," we don't name the paratha article "desi tortillas," and we don't name the Bún bò Huế article "vietnamese beef soup." I see no reason for the Sahawiq article to be the exception to this unwritten Wikipedia food standard/rule. Poundthiswriter (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Orbirail → Orbital railways in London – Orbirail as a name is not used anymore and the article mostly focuses on orbital/circular railways in general, including the Victorian-era Outer Circles. The article itself even states ...coalescing around the suggested name "Orbirail", but it won few friends in the National Rail network for commercial and operational reasons., discrediting the name rather blatantly. The article would have to talk about the current Circle Line (the Inner Circle) a bit more but that's about it otherwise. ~2026-17719-5 (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Jacinta Nampijinpa Price → Jacinta PriceJacinta Price – Per WP:MIDDLENAME, we should only include her middle name if it is used more commonly in reliable sources. Using "Nampijinpa" is just creating an unnecessary disambiguation as I cannot find any other articles on Wikipedia with a similar title. When I first challenged this move, I was concerned with the difficulty to pronounce "Nampijinpa". This name change would make a lot of sense per WP:CONCISE. It's difficult to go by sourcing because her middle name is almost equally used as frequently as only her first and last name in references. Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, we should use the part of her name that is most well-understood. Her middle name is not significant to understanding who she is as a politician. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mistaken identity → Mistaken identity defense – "Mistaken identity" page speaks of a legal defense claiming witnesses wrongly identified the defendant. Imagine my surprize when I saw this wikilink in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. This made me to quickly write a stub Mistaken identity (plot device) and then to slowly go thru Pages that link to "Mistaken identity", to find that 3 dozen (!) mistaken identities are in fact comedy of mistaken identities. Of the remaining backlinks about 100 come from {{Miscarriage of justice}} and of remaining about 50% come from pages where the term actually means "mistaken identification" (wrong animal, wrong ship, wrong killing target, etc.) Bearing in mind that the term "begs for" being wikilinked, I am sure wrong links will continue to proliferate unless we make "Mistaken identity" to be a disambig page. --Altenmann>talk 04:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Inside Out → Inside Out (disambiguation)Inside Out (disambiguation) – The film is pretty clearly the primary topic by usage. The film gets over 65% of pageviews of anything titled something even remotely like "Inside Out" (first ten here), and the pageviews are 7.8 times the pageviews of the franchise, which is the next highest article (please note that I have limited pageviews to the past year to avoid the 2024 surge in results caused by the release of the sequel). The film fulfills the bar required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as it is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be sought. The views out of the disambiguation page also reflect this; the film article gets over 60% of the views out of Inside Out, which is more than everything else combined, and over five times the amount of the sequel, which is again the second highest. Note: Please keep in mind that the primary topic is neither what first comes to your mind, nor is it the dictionary definition. Wikipedia does not have an article on the concept of turning an object so that its inner surface faces out, and such an article could not be viable, because it is not an encyclopedic topic. As a result, it is not a contender for the primary topic; only the articles actually listed at the disambiguation page are contenders. There are a number of articles where the primary topic is a specific subject even though it shares a title with a common word or phrase, including Often, Twice, and Tangled. Ladtrack (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
(Discuss) – Lost Ark (video game) → Lost Ark – This seems to be the clear primary topic with no need for a DAB page. The Ark of the Covenant and Noah's Ark are generally not referred to solely as "Lost Ark". The sources that are there describe it as the "Lost Ark of the Covenant". Thus, any disambiguation attempted would violate WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting.Vestrian24Bio11:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) – The Rocks, New South Wales → The Rocks, SydneyThe Rocks, Sydney – @Oartalbje made a bold page move on 21 February 2025 that does not comply with the existing WP:NCAUST guideline for naming Australian places in Wikipedia titles. I think this suburb is much more closely affiliated with the Sydney CBD region as that's where it is closest to. Having "New South Wales" in the title is weird because tourists may not recognise it as well as the name "Sydney". This change also makes for much better concision. If consensus goes against this proposal then the guideline at WP:NCAUST may need changing via a decision made on its talk page Qwerty123M (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
