Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:BOLDMOVE)
Project page listing requested page moves
For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
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 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

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 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

Project page to request technical page moves


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.

  • 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: 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=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, edit 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

CopperyMarrow15 I requested the G6 - error speedy deletion of that page since I don't think my normal workaround (moving it to userspace without redirect and U1'ing it) is feasible here since it has actual content. It can be moved once it's deleted. Hurricane Zeta C 01:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Dark humor Black comedy Black comedy (currently a redirect back to Dark humor) (move · discuss) – The move from Black comedy to Dark humor may introduce inconsistency with related articles and reliable sources, as "black comedy" is a well-established term in academic and critical usage. Retaining the original title may better support consistency, recognizability, and alignment with commonly used terminology across the encyclopedia. DasKlose (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

@TenPoundHammer Can you link to me the where the consensus is? veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/him] 19:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
For the time being, I'm going to object to this move. In this current state this seems to be a controversial primary topic grab. I'd feel more comfortable moving this once there's consensus for not only redirecting the episodes, but for cases like this, there is also consensus that the episode is the primary topic over the film. This may require a RM.
Also, from what I see, you're a page mover already. Any reason why you're requesting technical help when you seem to be capable of moving it already? veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/him] 20:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
There is a thread at Talk:Only Fools and Horses which was started yesterday, suggesting that the articles should be BLARed. I don't think "consensus" is quite the word I would use to describe it at this point. 162 etc. (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Yeah, I saw that one and I agree, it doesn't seem like a consensus really, or a strong one at that. veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/him] 21:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
@162 etc.: @Veko: The consensus was reached on Talk:The Green Green Grass to redirect that series' episodes. As Green Green Grass is a sister series to Only Fools and Horses, the consensus seems to be consistent among the related shows. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
It appears that you've gone ahead with the BLAR. Although my first instinct would be to wait while consensus forms at Talk:Only Fools and Horses, I won't object to that.
User:Veko correctly points out that as a pagemover, you don't need WP:RMT to move any of this for you. 162 etc. (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
@162 etc.: Is there something I'm missing preventing me from doing it myself? Because as of right now, I get an error message when I try. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
1. Tea for ThreeTea for Three (disambiguation)
2. Tea for Three (film)Tea for Three
3. Clean up the incoming links 162 etc. (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
TIL I can do that. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Administrator needed

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.

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.

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 8 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 request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.

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 (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:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1

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 8 January 2026

It has been proposed in this section that Wikipedia:Requested moves be renamed and moved to new.
This proposal is for a cross-namespace move from Wikipedia to (Main/Article) namespace.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.


Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Wikipedia:Requested movesnew – why Example (talk) 10:07, 8 January 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 8 January 2026

It has been proposed in this section that Wikipedia:Requested moves be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.


Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.
Links: current log

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 10:07, 8 January 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 8 January 2026

It has been proposed in this section that Wikipedia:Requested moves be renamed and moved to new.
This proposal is for a cross-namespace move from Wikipedia to (Main/Article) namespace.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.


Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Wikipedia:Requested movesnew – why Example (talk) 10:07, 8 January 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 8 January 2026

    It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

    A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.


    Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

    – why Example (talk) 10:07, 8 January 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 8 January 2026

    It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.

    A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.


    Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.
    Links: current log

    – why Example (talk) 10:07, 8 January 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 "• (削除) Support (削除ここまで) 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. 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 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.
    This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
    Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed.
    To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 50 discussions have been relisted.

    January 8, 2026

    • (Discuss)Sonic the Hedgehog (character)Sonic (character) Sonic (character) – I think the character is more commonly referred to as simply "Sonic", and several citations in the article also support that usage. On the other hand, it's also better for concision. Also, a thing I noticed is that multiple sources that use "Sonic the Hedgehog" in their titles don't use that term further and just go with the usage of "Sonic" in the rest of the paragraphs. My other point is that searching for "Sonic character" on Google will mainly pop up results related to this character. So, keeping all that in mind, I don't think it would be that much of a problem. Kazama16 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    January 7, 2026

    • (Discuss)RobustnessRobustness (term) – "Robustness" primarily serves as both a dictionary definition and various related subtopics with no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with the various subtopic pages having more notability than the general term itself. Previous editors unilaterally split the "Robustness" article into the disambiguation page and a broad-concept article, but the latter remains a stub that serves little long-term encyclopedic value for describing the dictionary term. It would more meaningfully serve readers to have the disambiguation page with the generic definitional term and various listed subtopics at the base title. I am also proposing for the history of the original Robustness article to be preserved at "Robustness (term)", which can then be redirected to the new Robustness base article. Red Shogun412 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Electric lightLight bulb Light bulb – Given that the widely-accepted technical terms lamp and electric lamp have (like luminaire) been deemed insufficiently common by the Wikipedia community for use as article titles, I propose that: * the electric light article be moved/renamed such that its title becomes either light bulb (which appears to be more common than the shortened lightbulb), and * the related terms lamp, light, and light source (as well as the explicitly electric versions of these terms) be listed in that article as terms that can refer to a light fixture or one of its light-emitting components (i.e., are not true synonyms for light bulb). The term electric light is recognizable (e.g., as a kind of "artificial" or anthropic light) and concise, but does not satisfy the other criteria for good article titles: * Unnatural – Consider a light fixture that contains multiple light bulbs. If someone asks you to "switch off the light", you probably wouldn't ask which of its light bulbs they're referring to. Some light fixtures have multiple circuits to enable separate switching of their light bulbs, but it typically wouldn't make sense to say "switch off the electric light" if electric light is defined to only mean light bulb. * Imprecise – The term light is ambiguous in that it can refer to visible radiation, a light bulb, or a light fixture. The term electric light is more specific but can still refer to visible radiation (generated using electricity), a light bulb, or a light fixture. * Inconsistent – The existing article titles electric light and light fixture are poorly coordinated. One problem with electric light is that the aforementioned imprecision results in overlapping scope for the two pages. Another issue is its different pattern/structure, namely light fixture (light-emitting fixture) versus electric light (electrically-powered light). In contrast, light bulb would satisfy all of the criteria. I produced the user essay at Jrtuenge/Move electric light to more fully document my rationale; it provides additional explanation and justification for this potentially-controversial requested move. Jrtuenge (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Sanford Brown (writer) → ? – The subject is professionally and commonly known as "Sandy Brown," which is the name used on published guidebooks, publisher materials (Cicerone Press), public appearances, and external coverage. Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) favors the name most commonly used in reliable sources over a legal name. The parenthetical disambiguator distinguishes the subject from Sandra Brown, the American novelist. ~2026-14166-2 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)2023 Egyptian presidential election2024 Egyptian presidential election 2024 Egyptian presidential election – The official and legally recognized designation by Egypt’s National Election Authority is "2024 Egyptian presidential election". Although the vote physically took place in December 2023, the official title corresponds to the constitutional six-year electoral cycle (2018 → 2024 → 2030), not merely the calendar year of the vote. Using the official 2024 designation ensures consistency with the presidential term, prevents confusion for readers regarding the length of the term, and respects the legal and formal authority of the National Election Authority. There are numerous international precedents where events retained their official names despite occurring in a different year: * Africa Cup of Nations 2021 — held in 2022 * UEFA Euro 2020 — held in 2021 * Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games — held in 2021 * FIFA Club World Cup 2020 — held in 2021 * Copa América 2020 — held in 2021 * AFC Asian Cup 2023 — held in 2024 * Africa Cup of Nations 2023 — held in 2024 These examples demonstrate that keeping the official name is standard practice internationally, especially when it is legally recognized and tied to a fixed cycle. Retaining "2024 Egyptian presidential election" reflects the official designation, maintains chronological consistency, and provides clarity for readers. This approach balances Wikipedia’s naming conventions with factual accuracy and official recognition. Aelrhman2007 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    January 6, 2026

    • (Discuss)HMO (disambiguation)HMO HMO – No clear primary topic, Health maintenance organization has 2,675 views but Methyl orange has 2,006, House in multiple occupation has 1,012, Hermosillo International Airport has 674, Human milk oligosaccharide has 593, Hiri Motu language has 390, Hermanus Magnetic Observatory has 7 and Hückel molecular orbital method has 2[Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    January 5, 2026

    • (Discuss)GreenWayGreenWay (Sydney) GreenWay (Sydney) – @Johnorchard gave me the idea to request this move. When I was creating this page, I focused on using the official name for this trail and not using a disambiguation; but as per WP:OFFICIALNAME, we don't have to use the name this trail is officially known as. The current title is not entirely clear and a possible violation of WP:PRECISE. I was wondering whether I should boldly make this move but I think to gain consensus for a major change like this, proper practice dictates a requested move discussion should be the way forward. I think this is a very good title to use as it is less ambiguous than the current title where only capitalisation resolves conflict between other location names. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    January 4, 2026

    • (Discuss)SG Mall → ? – The subject’s full official name is Semanhyia Golden Mall. The current title is an abbreviation. Moving the article aligns with Wikipedia’s article title policy (WP:ARTICLE TITLES, WP:COMMONNAME). The abbreviated name "SG Mall" should redirect to the full name. Sweetabena (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Swindon StadiumAbbey Stadium, Swindon – The stadium opened in 1949 as Abbey Stadium. Swindon Stadium appears to be a 2000s–2020s trading name adopted by its owner, Gaming International, while Abbey Stadium has remained the name used in planning applications, redevelopment proposals, and press coverage. Third-party sources (such as the BBC) frequently use "Abbey Stadium"; "Swindon Stadium" is less used, and is even absent entirely in some publications. As the venue is due to close in December 2025, the article title should reflect its full historical identity, not a relatively recent branding period. Per WP:COMMONNAME, reliable sources (including the BBC, Swindon Advertiser, The Link, and Greyhound News) consistently refer to the venue as Abbey Stadium, particularly in coverage of its closure. "Swindon Stadium" is used far less frequently in reliable sources, if at all. Per WP:PRECISION, Swindon Stadium is ambiguous given other stadiums in Swindon (notably the County Ground). Abbey Stadium, Swindon is precise and unambiguous. Per WP:OFFICIALNAME – Wikipedia does not require article titles to follow an owner’s trading or corporate name when it conflicts with common usage. Therefore, I believe this move better serves readers after closure, when historical coverage will outweigh contemporary branding. Icaldonta (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 11:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)TMSRTMSR (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) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Nanda Devi Plutonium MissionNuclear espionage in the Indian Himalayas – I wasn't able to find the phrase "Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission" in major sources, "Plutonium Mission" is a very vague idea and gives the wrong ideas about Pu-238 vs Pu-239 and the actual espionage purpose, "Mission" fails to indicate the article scope as multiple separate climbs, "Nanda Devi" fails to indicate the successful mission on Nanda Kot, I believe "CIA espionage in the Indian Himalayas" would also be appropriate as while it was a joint mission it was clearly initiated and led by the CIA. Doeze (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath talk 23:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    January 3, 2026

    • (Discuss)DIII-D (tokamak)DIII-D DIII-D – Initially I moved this article to the title DIII-D after a G6 request was made, as the title was an unnecessary parenthesis. This move was contested on my talk page so I am moving it back for a full RM per request. There is a clear primary topic for DIII-D as only one thing is referred to by this title. As such, there is no need for a disambiguating parenthesis per WP:CONCISE. The previous RM above's single vote was a no, but was based upon the fact that DIII-D was not the primary topic at DIII. Whilst correct, this is meaningless as the requested title is not DIII but DIII-D, which is distinctly a different title. CoconutOctopus talk 22:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Meeker MassacreMeeker Incident – "Meeker Massacre" shows implicit bias and disregards facts that do not support it being a "massacre." History is always told by the winners and this was no different: Governor Pitkin campaigned on the removal of the Utes from their lands, and inflammatory press statements were being made frequently... long prior to the Meeker Incident. They were negotiators, first and foremost. Both Thornburgh and the Utes intended to negotiate with Meeker. This type of conflict and tension had not happened with prior agents... Meeker wasn’t the first agent they had, simply the first that had such issues, and that is due to the political climate and pressure he was under. Further, at the incident, various primary sources show that Meeker and the employees engaged the Utes first, as the women and children were told to hide in the milk house. Much of this information is found in already-cited secondary sources, and of course, I can find more of these sources. There is little, factual and proven information that the Utes attacked and massacred the agency. The main title being termed "Massacre" implies that the employees were defenseless and that the Utes were the primary aggressors, which is a largely disproven narrative and factually incorrect version of the story that has, for some reason, remained the primary naming of the incident. Aprilrbchistory (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 04:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath talk 10:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    January 2, 2026

    • (Discuss)Matheus PereiraMatheus Pereira (footballer, born 1996) Matheus Pereira (footballer, born 1996) – A year ago this page was moved to Primary with the justification being page views being higher, and while yes it is true that the page views are higher, I don't feel they are that much higher to justify it. An analysis over the past 90 days shows it averaged 105 daily views compared to about 20 for a couple other pages of the same name, but that includes a huge spike meant for another player. Removing that spike drops it back to the 85-90 range. Sub-100 daily views, doesn't really scream Primary to me. Sure 85 to 20 is 4.5x, but it's different than say 4500 vs 1000. Anything sub-100 doesn't really seem like a clear PRIMARY in my opinion RedPatch (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Byzantine GreeksRhomaioi (endonym) – Recent Talk discussion has resolved a year-long dispute and addressed neutrality concerns. To better reflect the main content of this former GA article, it is requested that the article be renamed to Rhomaioi (endonym) and scoped as identity-based. Content on society and population would be split to a separate population-centric article, while Byzantine Greeks would be repurposed as a historiography article covering the modern scholarly label. Biz (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    References

    1. ^ "View map: Ordnance Survey, Flintshire X.15 (Hawarden; Sealand; West Saltney) - Ordnance Survey 25 inch England and Wales, 1841-1952". maps.nls.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    2. ^ "Map of Search results". Streetmap.co.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    3. ^ "Interesting Information for The Croft, Aston, Deeside, Wales, CH5 3BA Postcode". streetcheck.co.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    4. ^ "About Us". flintshire.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    5. ^ "An Archaeological Assessment of the A494 Improvement Scheme, Drome Corner to Ewloe, Clwyd". walesher1974.org. May 1992. Archived from the original on 7 June 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    6. ^ "Seven-lane highway plan abandoned". 27 March 2008. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    7. ^ "Aston (Flintshire) Postcodes". doogal.co.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    8. ^ "Electoral Arrangements for Flintshire". flintshire.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    9. ^ "Aston Park Rangers". pitchero.com. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    10. ^ "Aston Bowling Club". Hawarden Community Council. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    11. ^ "Centres and Halls". Hawarden Community Council. Retrieved 2 January 2026.
    Aoeuidhtns (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Salt flatSalt flat (disambiguation) Salt flat (disambiguation) – Given that Salt pan and Salt flat are synonymous, but that also Salt pan more clearly requires disambiguation, while Salt flat is the more obvious choice for an unambiguous base name. The respective usage has drawn more or less even on Ngrams, without factoring in other uses. As with Salt pan, Salt flat is currently a disambiguation page, but the resident alternative meanings are frankly weak. Neither dry lake nor salt marsh are straightforward synonyms (so should not be there in the first place) and the place names are obviously all derivative of and secondary to the geographical feature terminology. If anything, the place names actually emphasise how 'salt flat' actually enjoys wider practical geographical usage than 'salt pan'. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Jesse Green (theatre critic)Jesse Green (writer) – Subject is no longer working as a theater critic, though he spent 12 years as one, he previously did journalism and is doing it again, and will presumably become better known for his current work as time goes on. either way, theatre is not correct for American English, especially for someone at the NYT (which corrects even proper names to theater). Bringing this up as discussion instead of a bold move for feedback: would Jesse Green (journalist) be better? BrechtBro (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. --Seawolf35 T--C 03:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

    January 1, 2026

    • (Discuss)Boris Knyazev → ? – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCP (Naming conventions for people), the article title should reflect the name most commonly used in reliable secondary sources. Major authority control records, including the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), list the subject under the heading Boris Kniaseff. This form is also used as the primary title in other language editions of Wikipedia and in library catalogues, while Boris Knyazev represents a direct transliteration variant from Russian. I propose moving the article to Boris Kniaseff and retaining Boris Knyazev as a redirect, with both spellings acknowledged in the lead. Nsaa (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    • (Discuss)Kingdom of Eastern GeorgiaGeorgia 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) [reply ]

    Possibly incomplete requests

    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

    The current Wikipedia time is:
    10:07, Thursday, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    To update time purge the cache!
    Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
    General
    Articles,
    content
    Page handling
    User conduct
    Other

    AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /