Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts

Welcome to Requested moves/Technical requests

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

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

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page, just click the button below.

To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection or click the big blue button and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

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

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

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

@Passepar2: This request has been sitting here for much longer than usual, and I suspect that the regulars here (including me) are avoiding it because both the current title and requested title appear to be legitimate. Consider initiating a "Proposed Move" discussion among experts at the article's Talk page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Doomsdayer520: Thank you for the note - would it help to say that I am an expert in the topic area (genetics PhD) and can attest that the proposed change is consistent with contemporary scientific usage? I didn't mention that above because it feels suspect to claim authority on a topic based on a credential, but mentioning it here in case it helps resolve the move request. Thanks! Passepar2 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, state your credentials on the Talk page to start the process that I suggested, and that will inform the discussion. As another academic myself, I predict some controversy but it should be respectful among scientists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Primary topic grabs are, by definition, not uncontroversial. I've reverted recent changes to the articles in question. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Billboard has is as "Koe Wetzel & Ella Langley", and I'm definitely giving more weight to that. 162 etc. (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Large sections on notable topics may be split to a standalone article. See WP:SPLIT. Creating a new stub article which contains far less reliably-sourced information than what is already on Wikipedia is not particularlly useful. 162 etc. (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Paperswanflourishing We do not use ALL CAPS in titles (unless it's an acronym or something). Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 00:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Alexandrianscrolls No other article exists on Wikipedia that shares the title "BK Stjernen"; there is no need for disambiguation. Annh07 (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
OK cool. Thanks for the help. Alexandrianscrolls (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move [today's date]" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1
  • |new1=New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
  • |current2=Current title of page 2
  • |new2=New title for page 2
  • |currentN=Current title of page N
  • |newN=New title for page N|}}
...where N represents more pages to be moved. Place a pipe ( | ) at the end just before the final set of braces ( |}} )

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

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

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

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

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2026‎ (UTC)reply

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



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

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

    – why Example (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

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

    – why Example (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    Commenting on a requested move

    All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

    • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
    • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
    • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
    • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

    When participating, please consider the following:

    • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
    • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
    • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
    • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
    • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
    • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

    Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

    Closing a requested move

    Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions and the simple guide to closing requested move discussions before actually closing a requested move discussion. Requested move discussions should normally remain open for at least seven days (168 hours).

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

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

    Relisting a requested move

    Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

    Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

    When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

    If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

    Notes

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

    Current discussions

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

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 59 discussions have been relisted.

    October 23, 2026

    October 22, 2026

    • (Discuss) – IT'SUGAR → It'Sugar – Wikipedia generally avoids all-caps promotional styling of article titles. This use of all-caps is purely promotional – not an indication of some abbreviation and not pronounced by spelling it out letter-by-letter. It's clearly intended to be pronounced like a word (or phrase). Several of the cited sources use "It'Sugar". Reading the Confectionery store article today, I also noticed that this source cited in that article uses the suggested styling as well. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 21, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Us Moderates → We Moderates – The current title "Us Moderates" is an ungrammatical, word-for-word translation of the Italian party name "Noi Moderati." In English, the pronoun "We" is grammatically required for a subject phrase like this. Moving the page to "We Moderates" corrects the grammar while providing a proper English translation for readers, aligning with Wikipedia's preference for accurate English styling. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL: If editors prefer to avoid English translation disputes altogether, I suggest moving the page to its native Italian name, **Noi Moderati**, which is widely used by international media and complies with Wikipedia's naming conventions for political parties (WP:NC-PL). Either option is vastly superior to the current ungrammatical title. Theescholar (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Confectionery store → Sweet shop – Apparently the name "confectionery store" was thought to be a sort of compromise between American English and British (or maybe Commonwealth-minus-Canada) English. Unfortunately it completely fails at that purpose. Americans almost never use the word "confectionery" in any context, but rather have a broader definition of "candy" than the British do, one that includes almost all "sugar confectionery".
      There is an established principle, at WP:TITLEVAR, that a name that is less common can be used to avoid choosing between varieties, for example "soft drink" instead of "soda" or "fizzy drink", but I don't see that as the same thing because "soft drink" is highly recognizable. This name seems to be closer to using light naphtha instead of gasoline or petrol.
      The article currently seems to be mostly in British English anyway (for example the spelling "liquorice") so I think we should just go with the British name. -- Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 20, 2026

    October 19, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Atlanta Voice → The Atlanta Voice – As far as I can tell, they consistently use The when referring to themselves, e.g.:

      For more than 60 years, The Atlanta Voice has ably provided a voice for the voiceless. It is the largest audited African American community newspaper in Georgia. Founded in 1966 by the late Ed Clayton and the late J. Lowell Ware, The Atlanta Voice has evolved and redefined its efforts to better connect with the community it serves.[5]

      — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Mandinka → Mandingo – Per WP:DABNAME: The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives. Seven of the 11 entries use "Mandingo". For several entries, "Mandingo", "Mandinka", and other terms are synonymous. However, the page also contains at least five entries which are only ever referred to as "Mandingo": three titles of published works, the racist stereotype, and so-called "mandingo fights" which are depicted in the film Django Unchained. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Nonconformist (Protestantism) → Nonconformist – This is the clear primary topic for the term 'Nonconformist', whilst there is general usage of the term nonconformist there is no article on such a thing and in an encyclopaedia one would expect nonconformist to be about the Church of England nonconformists. Google Scholar has 96,500 results for "nonconformist", if you remove the word "england" from search results it drops to 36,200. Whilst some false positives exist it seems quite clear that in academic contexts the term "nonconformist" primarily refers to the Church of England nonconformists cf. Reformation which is not titled Protestant Reformation despite general usage of the term "reformation" Traumnovelle (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 00:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 18, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Social Outburst (Chile) → Estallido social – Had trouble finding this today because the title is not commonly used in English and instead is a rather wooden translation of the Spanish name for the period of social unrest in Chile from October 2019 to March 2020. Sufficient English language sources exist referencing the name in Spanish and then explaining what it is: , , , , , , , .
      The Harvard article does use the social outburst phrasing as a translation of the Spanish word, but other sources use explosion and social outbreak, showing there’s not a consistent English translation of the phrase, but that sources always use the Spanish. Under our naming conventions, since the convention in English that is most common is to use the Spanish, we should be using the Spanish with a translation to English in the first sentence, as this is what virtually all of the reliable sources do. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Francis Bacon → Francis Bacon (philosopher) – I propose reconsidering the current title in light of Wikipedia's primary topic guidelines. Francis Bacon was a highly influential figure in modern art, and Francis Bacon (artist) receives a substantial number of page views, demonstrating that readers also frequently search for him under this name. Although Francis Bacon (philosopher) receives more views, page-view statistics alone should not determine the primary topic; they should be considered alongside the subjects' relative significance and long-term notability. The previous discussion dates back to 2010, and its outcome should not be treated as immutable. Given the artist's prominence and the considerable readership of his biography, I believe there are reasonable grounds to reassess whether the unqualified title should redirect to a single individual or instead serve as a disambiguation page. The aim is to ensure that the title reflects common usage and helps readers find the subject they are looking for. ~2026-55615-43 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Happy Mistake → Happy Mistake (album) – The current title is ambiguous, as it refers not only to Raphael Gualazzi's 2013 album but also to Lady Gaga's 2024 song of the same name, included on Harlequin. The latter has received substantial coverage in music publications, and readers searching for "Happy Mistake" may reasonably be looking for Gaga's song rather than Gualazzi's album. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the existence of a standalone article for one subject does not automatically establish it as the primary topic. I therefore propose moving the album to Happy Mistake (album) and using the unqualified title as a disambiguation page, unless consensus establishes a clear primary topic. Sricsi (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 17, 2026

    • (Discuss) – Issyk-Kul → Ysyk-Köl – I propose renaming this article from Issyk-Kul to Ysyk-Köl, using the direct romanization of the original Kyrgyz name, Ысык-Көл. Rationale * Linguistic accuracy: "Ysyk-Köl" directly represents the Kyrgyz name Ысык-Көл, whereas "Issyk-Kul" is derived from the Russian spelling Иссык-Куль. The Russian-based spelling does not preserve the original Kyrgyz vowels, particularly Ы and Ө. * Authoritative geographical naming references: The United Kingdom's Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (PCGN), in its Kyrgyzstan Toponymic Factfile (2025), identifies "Ysyk-Köl" as the Kyrgyz romanized form, distinct from the Russian-derived "Issyk-Kul". This demonstrates that the Kyrgyz spelling is recognized by an authoritative English-language geographical naming body. * National naming conventions: Kyrgyzstan's legislation on geographical names establishes the use of the state language for naming geographical features and regulates their representation in other languages. This supports using the original Kyrgyz name as the basis for romanization. * Existing usage: "Ysyk-Köl" is already recognized in international geographical references, including GeoNames and the UK PCGN publication. The Wikipedia article itself also acknowledges the original Kyrgyz name. Wikipedia article title policy I recognize that WP:COMMONNAME generally prioritizes established usage in reliable English-language sources over official or indigenous names. Nevertheless, I believe "Ysyk-Köl" merits consideration under Wikipedia's article titling criteria, particularly naturalness, precision, and consistency with authoritative geographical naming references. The aim of this proposal is not to eliminate the familiar spelling "Issyk-Kul", but to use the original Kyrgyz-based romanization as the primary title while retaining "Issyk-Kul" as a redirect for accessibility and searchability. References * UK Permanent Committee on Geographical Names — Kyrgyzstan Toponymic Factfile (2025) * Kyrgyzstan — Law on Geographical Names * GeoNames — Ysyk-Köl I welcome input from other editors, particularly concerning the use of "Ysyk-Köl" in independent English-language sources and its suitability under Wikipedia's naming conventions. Erkebekab (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Big Three (American television) → Big Four (American television) – I propose moving this article from Big Three (American television) to Big Four (American television) to better reflect its existing scope and the terminology used by contemporary reliable sources. The term "Big Three" is historically significant and accurately describes the dominance of ABC, CBS and NBC during the network era of American television. However, the article extends substantially beyond this historical grouping. Its lead identifies NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox as the "Big Four", and its coverage includes Fox's emergence as a major competitor, subsequent developments in American broadcast television, and the collective market position of the four networks. The proposed title is supported by multiple independent and authoritative sources: * The Federal Communications Commission explicitly discusses the "Big Four broadcast networks" in its 2024 media ownership review. Federal Register, February 15, 2024. * Reuters identifies NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox as the "Big Four" networks in its reporting on broadcast network ownership restrictions. Reuters, September 30, 2025. * Variety uses "Big Four" when discussing the major broadcast networks, distinguishing them from smaller competitors such as The CW. Variety, 2022. * The Pew Research Center's State of the News Media 2008 report contains a section titled "Big Four Networks Dominate", identifying ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC. Pew Research Center, 2008. * Gray Television identifies CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox as the "Big Four" networks in its 2023 annual report. Gray Television, 2023 Annual Report. Under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE, the proposed title merits consideration because "Big Four" is a well-established collective designation for the four leading commercial broadcast networks and more closely describes the article's coverage of both historical and contemporary network competition. This proposal does not seek to diminish the historical importance of the Big Three. That terminology should remain fully explained in the lead and historical sections, and the existing title should remain as a redirect if the move is approved. I recognize that the current title may remain appropriate if consensus considers the historical Big Three to be the article's primary subject. The question is whether the article's present scope is better represented by the broader, reliably sourced "Big Four" designation. ❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ ​Talk 10:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    References

    1. ↑ https://www.turkiyetoday.com/nation/5-kizilelma-prototypes-produced-110-akinci-ucavs-delivered-120-more-by-year-end-bayka-3212440
    2. ↑ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-renames-institute-of-peace-state-department-b2877745.html
    3. ↑ Amari, Micheal (2003). History of Muslim Sicily. Vol. 1. Florence: Le Moné. p. 429.
    4. ↑ Vladimirova, Desislava (2025-01-01). "The Berbers and Arab Rule in Sicily (9th–11th Centuries): Recovering the Missing Voices". Istoriya-History.
    5. ↑ Their website
    6. ↑ https://www.dw.com/en/tracing-the-path-of-funding-for-islamist-terrorist-groups/video-79667536
    7. ↑ https://www.courthousenews.com/american-woman-accused-of-training-with-islamic-state-group-fights-federal-charge/
    8. ↑ https://www.euronews.com/2026/09/21/trial-of-six-french-islamic-state-suspects-opens-in-baghdad
    9. ↑ https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20261013-american-woman-alleged-to-have-joined-is-goes-on-trial
    10. ↑ https://apnews.com/article/nigeria-militants-attack-islamic-state-iswap-3cebadb3e037942384924a24917e2a7d
    11. ↑ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-islamic-state-group-question-surrounding-a-significant-us-departure/2j61n7ewv
    12. ↑ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-is-islamic-state-group-linked-this-weeks-damascus-bombs-2026-07-10/
    13. ↑ https://adf-magazine.com/2026/09/islamic-state-group-expands-into-rural-nigeria/
    A$ianeditorz (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • (Discuss) – Jim Harrison (Australian politician) → Eli HarrisonEli Harrison – Given that I've had my edits reverted by User:Grahamec, here I am. As part of my research not long ago into updating the Opposition frontbenches (specifically Evatt and Calwell's) and verifying dates of when each member of the executive was elected to their position, I noted the discrepancy between how Wikipedia refers to this figure as "Jim Harrison", and the historical newspaper and primary sources of the era in which Harrison was an active political figure. Virtually none of the historical references refer to him as "Jim" - they refer to him almost exclusively as "Eli Harrison" or variations of "E.J. Harrison". Yet for some reason, this Wiki has opted to prioritise his middle name over his first name, despite going against historical evidence. This led me to go out of my way to purchase the 1990 book "The Confessions of Clyde Cameron" on eBay, albeit with the primary intention of trying to ascertain the precise date of when Cameron was elected to succeed the late Sol Rosevear on the Opposition caucus executive in 1953 (which unfortunately did not contain this information; if anyone can give me a helping hand for this, that would actually be highly appreciated as it's holding me back from fully completing the upgrade of the Evatt shadow frontbench page), and as I was reading through the book there was a section where Cameron goes into detailed discussion and summary of Harrison (who he derided as somebody who had a higher opinion of himself than the caucus did of him), he is referred to exclusively as "Eli". I'm actually typing all of this from my IRL workplace on a 12-hour shift, so I don't have the book on hand and cannot at this moment cite the exact page, but I can certainly come back and edit this in after work. Now, you might ask yourself what the big deal is about the naming of this page, and the accuracy of it - particularly of a mostly forgotten about shadow frontbencher from 70 years ago, who has completely faded into obscurity except for the trivia point that he was Paul Keating's immediate predecessor as MHR for the Division of Blaxland. But these things matter for the sake of ensuring that this Wiki is most accurate and true to the historical record of Australia, its history, and the figures who contributed to it. And whether we like it or not, people do rely on Wikipedia for basic surface level research and information. This becomes an issue when reputable modern historians like Troy Bramston records Harrison's name as "Jim" (I think it was in either Bramston's Keating book; his Whitlam book; or both) when briefly namechecking him while discussing Keating's initial preselection for Blaxland. It's a distortion of history, and in my view it's high time that we rectified this in the case of Eli Harrison. EDIT: Here are examples of Trove sources from The Courier Mail and The Age respectively from 10 September 1953, which actually outright says Harrison directly replaced the late Rosevear. Which, if true also means the Evatt shadow frontbench page has been inaccurate for years in claiming that Cameron entered the executive in 1953 (for which I have found no sources at all to back, beyond the Adam Carr source used in the Wiki article - a source in which I have identified and rectified numerous other errors already). TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    October 16, 2026

    Elapsed listings

    Shortcut
    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.

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.

    References

    JoyfullySmile (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. squawk7700 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Sycerion (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply

    Malformed requests

    See "Bot considerations"

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

    References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1381427544"