Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

  • I would like to contest this as the space appears to be present in the sources. Bensci54 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 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 11 December 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.

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 11 December 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:59, 11 December 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 11 December 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:59, 11 December 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 11 December 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:59, 11 December 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 11 December 2023

– why Example (talk) 17:59, 11 December 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 11 December 2023

– why Example (talk) 17:59, 11 December 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. 49 discussions have been relisted.

December 11, 2023

  • (Discuss)NioNiō – (and redirect Nio to NIO) There is interest above in renaming this article for several reasons. Chief to them may I add primary topic concerns: this does not clear Nio Inc. in a year of pageviews, and Google Scholar and Books searches for nio -author:nio largely give results for Nickel(II) oxide (NiO) (while searching macroned niō gets Buddhist topics). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)The Walt Disney CompanyDisneyWP:COMMONNAME, by an overwhelmingly wide margin; Disney has already long redirected here, and even our lead sentence says the common name is just Disney. This has been RMed before, but the general response has always been a bogus claim that it is "too amgibuous" and could refer to Walt Disney. This is not a valid argument per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If Disney were too ambiguous, it would go to (or would have the contents of) Disney (disambiguation) and could not redirect here. Disambiguation hatnotes exist for a reason, and all we need at this article is {{About|the company|its founder|Walt Disney|other uses|Disney (disambiguation)}}. Hardly any independent reliable sources go to the trouble of spelling out "The Walt Disney Company"; they just write "Disney". Google News for "Disney": "About 17,100,000 results"[7]; for "The Walt Disney Company": "About 43,700 results"[8]; for just "Walt Disney Company": "About 41,700 results"[9]. This is orders of magnitude of a difference, and only a tiny sliver of the "Disney" results are about Walt personally or about something other than this company. Aside: If anything's ambiguous, it's "Walt Disney", since it's also in the full name of the company.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kremlin PlotKremlin Affair – The article should be renamed "Kremlin Affair" instead of "Kremlin Plot" because other resources on the topic and other parts of Wikipedia referred to it as the "Kremlin Affair" before it was changed. "Kremlin Affair" is more recognizable and consistent with other sources. Padlocks (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 10, 2023

  • (Discuss)Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto AlegrenseGrêmio FBPA – I am nominating this move for several reasons. Firstly, it's hard to argue WP:COMMONNAME for "Grêmio FBPA" because the club is almost always referred to as just "Grêmio", so it's not like I can find many examples of the FBPA being included in online sources. A previous move to just "Grêmio" was rejected. But in general, it's more common to see "Grêmio FBPA" than "Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense". Proof of this is that the club refers to itself as "Grêmio FBPA" on its own Twitter page here and Instagram page too. It's clear that this is the way the club is presenting itself, not with the full name. We usually abbreviate club full names, and this move would be in line with that standard. Lastly, the logo itself says "Grêmio FBPA", not the fully spelled out version. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Local Access AlertEmergency override system – Reviewing newspaper articles and other documents discussing these particular systems ([12], [13], [14]), Local Access Alert does not appear to have been an official name used for them, with "emergency override system" or "cable override" appearing to be the preferred terms. While I do need to find a reliable source for this claim, according to this YouTube comment, the Local Access Alert term is apparently only used by some Emergency Alert System encoders, and usage of these override systems predates the EAS. I am personally fine with the page being moved to either term. TinglesFrickinMap (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)2023 Quran burnings in SwedenQuran burning crisis – Since the recent criminalisation of desecration of religious texts in Denmark, I think more weight should be given to Denmark and changing the title would help this. "Quran burning crisis" and "Quran crisis" were terms raised in the last discussion (as opposed to "2023 Quran burnings in Sweden and Denmark", which was my preference), but there was no consensus. If editors have a better title please let me know. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tītī / Muttonbird IslandsTītī Islands – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. Searching Google News (1, 2, 3, 4) we find: *30 using just "Tītī Islands" *17 using just "Muttonbird Islands" *3 using just some form of the dual name *1 using both the "Muttonbird Islands" and some form of the dual name *3 using both the "Muttonbird Islands" and "Titi Islands" *1 using "Muttonbird Islands", "Titi Islands", and some form of the dual name. It is clear that the COMMONNAME is now "Tītī Islands", with the current dual name title being widely rejected by reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)War crimes in the Russian invasion of UkraineRussian war crimes in the invasion of Ukraine – Almost all of this article is only about war crimes by the Russian government. There are some sections on war crimes by the Ukrainian government (such as the Mistreatment of Russian POWs section), but the entire lede and virtually every other section exclusively discuss Russian war crimes. My suggestion is simply to split off the parts of the article that discuss war crimes committed by Ukraine into an article called Ukrainian war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine- and rename this article to reflect what the overwhelming majority of it is already. We won't even have to rewrite a word of the lede, as the very first sentence only mentions Russian war criminals. If not, then at the very least the lede/other parts could be rewritten to have some mention of Ukrainian war crimes. Not that I'm implying that there is a deliberate omission of their existence, but rather that the article as it is, simply is about Russian crimes only. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 9, 2023

  • (Discuss)Right-bank UkraineRight-Bank UkraineWP:COMMONNAME. The names are fully capitalized in most sources according to Google Ngram.[15][16] Surveying the standard histories, we see the following in their index: * Orest Subtelny 2009 [1988], Ukraine: A History, 4th ed.: Left Bank (758), Right Bank (770). * Paul R. Magocsi 1996, A History of Ukraine, 1st ed.: Left Bank (752), Right Bank (767). * Serhy Yekelchyk 2007, Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation: Left-Bank Ukraine, Left Bank (272), Right-Bank Ukraine, Right Bank (275). * Andrew Wilson 2015, The Ukrainians, Unexpected Nation, 4th ed.: Left Bank (404), Right Bank (406). * Serhii Plokhy 2021, The Frontline: Essays on Ukraine’s Past and Present: Left Bank Ukraine (393), Right-Bank Ukraine (396) [I used this book because the terms don’t appear in the index of Plokhy’s Gates of Europe; yes, only one is hyphenated in the index].  —Michael Z. 18:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Blue ballsEpididymal hypertension – Hello. I've recently restructured and added information on how the phenomenon manifests in women. As such I think that it is appropriate to rename the article to the official name, "Epididymal hypertension", as it is gender-neutral. Normally I don't really mind "gender neutrality", but since epididymal hypertension occurs for both women and men it seems more logical to use the gender-neutral name for it. Sprucecopse (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 8, 2023

  • (Discuss)Mos DefYasiin Bey – It has been over a decade since Bey announced that he would no longer be using the Mos Def stage name. In 2012, he said "I began to fear that Mos Def was being treated as a product, not a person, so I've been going by Yasiin since '99. At first it was just for friends and family, but now I'm declaring it openly." Since then, he has exclusively used the name Yasiin Bey as his artist name, with both his acting and musical credits referring to him as Yasiin Bey since 2011. A review of recent reliable sources shows that most outlets now refer to him as Yasiin Bey and only mention Mos Def in parentheses or alongside a "formally known as". Per WP:NAMECHANGES, If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. gobonobo + c 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tsujido Seaside ParkTsujidō Kaihin Park – The park name seems to be possibly fabricated by the translator? As can be seen in the external links if I am not mistaken etc this park is named "Tsujidō Kaihin Park" (kaihin means seaside/seashore, but Tokyo means Eastern Capital but we don't translate that when writing on English wikipedia, etc) Nesnad (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Global warming controversyList of global warming controversies – This article has now been reworked to be a list article. It's basically a landing page to show people where they can look for this kind of content. Most of the previous content has been moved to climate change denial. I think it is important to change it to plural (i.e. controversies, not controversy). My previous proposal to change it to "climate change debates" achieved no consensus. Setting this up as a basic list article is a good compromise solution, I think. EMsmile (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 7, 2023

  • (Discuss)Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th CenturyTop 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century – or Blood-Horse Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century or The Blood-Horse Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century or Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. Per prior comments on the article Talk page in 2011 and 2019, the name of this "Top 100" doesn't include "U.S." We should also remove any other words that aren't really part of the name of the list. The list was first published in the magazine (see here: "The Top 100 list first appeared as a special issue of The Blood-Horse magazine, in February of 1999" and this article that says the poll result was published as a list and even republished by others – and that even included Wikipedia for a while) but I have not found a clear name for the list itself. An expanded publication was published as a book named Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century (e.g. ISBN 9781581500240 or ISBN 1-58150-024-6). The full name of the magazine appears to be The Blood-Horse (or to have been that historically, per the quote just above, although it is published by Blood-Horse LLC, without "The", and recent cover art seems to omit "The" and the hyphen as shown here, although those are still included in some text mentions such as at that link where it says "to renew your subscription to The Blood-Horse, without interruption, ...", although on the same page it says "ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION // TO BLOODHORSE MAGAZINE // TABLET AND ONLINE EDITION", without "The", without hyphen). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Bra, PiedmontBra, Cuneo – Should be disambiguated by the actual comune it is in, instead of a vaguely defined region that is not an official administrative division of Italy. The current name is exactly like having an article at "Memphis, American South" instead of at Memphis, Tennessee where it belongs.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Trent Bray (American football)Trent Bray – The American football individual has been an assistant coach in the highest league of American college football for several years; he was recently promoted to head coach. In examining the page views, the coach has been consistently receiving more traffic than the current primary topic for some time, with the swimmer usually receiving single-digit daily traffic. Following the promotion to head coach, he received an expected bump due to the news cycle (with the swimmer receiving traffic looking for the other article), and now continues to receive significantly more traffic. The American football coach should become the primary topic. Esprqii (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 6, 2023

  • (Discuss)ALA Best Fiction for Young AdultsBest Fiction for Young Adults – As far as I know, the title of a published work is ordinarily used directly as the title of a Wikipedia article about the published work, without prefixing it with the name of the author or publisher. The suggested target title already redirects here (and always has since the day the article was created more than a decade ago), so adding "ALA" does not seem necessary for disambiguation purposes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Johnny & AssociatesSmile-Up! – The company was renamed to Smile-Up! on October 17, 2023 in the wake of the sexual harassment scandal revolving around the former founder Johnny Kitagawa who passed away in 2019. The company even received a new logo. The company will be abolished once every victim of the harassment has received compensation. Goroth (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)ShhaHe (Cyrillic) – In no language whatsoever is this letter called shha, which is a Unicode invention. The letter is named ha, or more commonly, he. – anlztrk (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 5, 2023

  • (Discuss)ČičavicaQyqavica – The name "Qyqavica" is the most common name for the mountain today. There is no common name in the English language, yet one is far more prevalent than the other in real life usage. These matters are addressed by WP:NCGN : "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name.". The mountain is surrounded by villages with Albanians, for this reason the name in Albanian is the most used one. So, I suggest changing the name of the article. Typical Albanian (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Rostov, Yaroslavl OblastRostov – The previous move mightily screwed upo Wikipedia. Rostov-on-Don and Rostov are completely different names and should not be confused. For starters, Rostov is 500 years older than Rostov-on-Don and the move disruptedd a huge number of historical articles: Rostov has half-ythousand of incoming links. The move also introduced confusion it lots of bio articles. Rostov the Great and similar (screwed-up by renaming bot) is a nickname to historically great Rostov, not Rostov-on-Don. etc. This is a huge mistake to muve page with long-established usage and with huge number of links. - Altenmann >talk 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Alpine foothillsPrealps – "Prealps" is the term commonly used to refer to them (by official classifications such as SOIUSA/Partizione delle Alpi etc, as well as by mountaineers and the people in the countries were these mountains are located). "Foothills", besides being almost never used to refer to them, seems hardly suitable for mountains that are usually taller than 1,000 meters and in many cases than 2,000, with some exceeding 2,600 meters.--Potionkin (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Doubtful Sound / PateaDoubtful Sound – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:SLASH. Searching Google News, we see that in the past year there have been seven articles using some form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea", but there has been almost 100 using "Doubtful Sound". Google Scholar shows a similar result, with two results for any form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea" and hundreds for "Doubtful Sound". While not all the results here are relevant - for example, one goes The doubtful sound which is used to construct the uncanny island of The Tempest... - the vast majority are, and given the paucity of results for any form of "Doubtful Sound / Patea" leave the COMMONNAME clear. BilledMammal (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 4, 2023

Elapsed listings


  • (Discuss)White IslandWhite Island (disambiguation)Whakaari / White Island is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for White Island, and this should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it; Wikinav shows that most readers are looking for this island, and that the remainder are looking for the eruption that took place on it. Similarly, pageviews shows that none of the alternatives receive many views; this island received 520,000 views in the past year, compared to 14,000 for all other topics directly using the name "White Island" put together. Google News results also support this; in the past month there have been 38 results for the name "White Island"; of these, 18 referred to Whakaari / White Island, 9 referred to other topics ("white island bench" etc), 2 referred to a "White's Island", two referred to a film called "White Island", and only seven referred to other locations known as White Island. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malformed requests

Possibly incomplete requests


See also