Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests
If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help 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 "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."
- To list a technical request: the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
- If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
- If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.
Technical requests
Uncontroversial technical requests
- Kandivali → Kandivli (currently a redirect back to Kandivali) (move · ) – undiscussed move 2409:40C0:6B:794:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am seeing three different spellings of this city's name in English sources: Kandivli, Kandivali, and Kandivili. See also Kandivli railway station which uses two of those, including in an image file. This is probably the result of poor translation over the years, as errors were repeated among media sources. The correct spelling can probably be obtained from a local resident, or... maybe this is the answer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is a tough one... The long-term title for 15+ years until 2023, was the present one, Kandivali but then there was a bold (and unexplained) move followed by a reversion, and then another bold move by the same editor (who's since been blocked) four days later, which wasn't spotted. As such, despite Kandivli being the name for almost two years, I think the Kandivali has a definite claim to be the stable title based on the fact that a challenge was ignored back then. — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- That is a purely procedural analysis but reality might be simpler. The article title that was stable for 15 years may have been wrong the entire time and nobody noticed. Instead of trying to determine what was right or wrong for how many years and who got blocked for doing what, perhaps we can consider how the city spells it own name. That picture from the train station seals the deal for me, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doomsdayer520: Adding to the complexity, 1 2 and 3 images of local post offices with Kandivali. And this google search shows about 6-7 images of train stations with the same spelling. Maybe the one you linked was a typo itself. Also the Hindi and Marathi spellings have a slight pronunciation of the a sound as well. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- That is a purely procedural analysis but reality might be simpler. The article title that was stable for 15 years may have been wrong the entire time and nobody noticed. Instead of trying to determine what was right or wrong for how many years and who got blocked for doing what, perhaps we can consider how the city spells it own name. That picture from the train station seals the deal for me, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is a tough one... The long-term title for 15+ years until 2023, was the present one, Kandivali but then there was a bold (and unexplained) move followed by a reversion, and then another bold move by the same editor (who's since been blocked) four days later, which wasn't spotted. As such, despite Kandivli being the name for almost two years, I think the Kandivali has a definite claim to be the stable title based on the fact that a challenge was ignored back then. — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am seeing three different spellings of this city's name in English sources: Kandivli, Kandivali, and Kandivili. See also Kandivli railway station which uses two of those, including in an image file. This is probably the result of poor translation over the years, as errors were repeated among media sources. The correct spelling can probably be obtained from a local resident, or... maybe this is the answer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- BA CityFlyer → BA Cityflyer (currently a redirect back to BA CityFlyer) (move · ) – As per Cityflyer logo and British Airways website, for example [1] flight BA8720 from LCY to GLA cagliost (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- CityFlyer appears in lots of sources, including some from the airline itself... I'm not sure this is uncontroversial, should probably be discussed. — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Some sources from the airline using "Cityflyer" (lowercase f): [2] [3] [4]. If a "tie-break" is needed, how about the logo, which uses a lowercase "f", and as an image and a high-profile source should be immune from errors. cagliost (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The logo doesn't count for anything, that's just a stylistic decision. It's WP:COMMONNAME which matters here. If we're not sure, we just retain the status quo. — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree the logo is irrelevant. See also the UK CAA which uses lower case. See also the discussion on the talk page. It appears the article was incorrectly moved 17 years ago! cagliost (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- For some quality third party sources, City AM, a firm of solicitors discuss a legal case, Which, and FlightGlobal. cagliost (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also for consistency with BA Euroflyer. cagliost (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The logo doesn't count for anything, that's just a stylistic decision. It's WP:COMMONNAME which matters here. If we're not sure, we just retain the status quo. — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Some sources from the airline using "Cityflyer" (lowercase f): [2] [3] [4]. If a "tie-break" is needed, how about the logo, which uses a lowercase "f", and as an image and a high-profile source should be immune from errors. cagliost (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- CityFlyer appears in lots of sources, including some from the airline itself... I'm not sure this is uncontroversial, should probably be discussed. — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- WXAJ → WCVS-FM (currently a redirect instead to WIKC) (move · ) – WXAJ became WCVS-FM today, May 5, 2025. The previous WCVS-FM became WIKC on April 9, 2025 StrikerforceTalk 14:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Requests to revert undiscussed moves
Contested technical requests
- Template:Ancestral Pueblo Periods → Template:Ancestral Puebloan Periods (currently a redirect back to Template:Ancestral Pueblo Periods) (move · ) – This template was recently moved (today or yesterday, depending on time zone) without discussion. This terminology change was contested for another page, Ancestral Puebloans (also moved by the same editor, to Ancestral Pueblos), and that other page was moved back as well. Pinchme123 (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The main page Pueblo peoples was already renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective or noun. Do we call Ancient Greeks Grecians or Greeks? Encyclopedia Britannica now uses the correct terminology, and so should Wikipedia. Plumber (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. (Someone watching here has my support to combine these into a single contested discussion). --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The modern, and living people are Pueblo peoples, the dead ancient peoples who were the predecessors were the Ancestral Puebloans according to hundreds of reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct people from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [5] move request closure that specifically states
Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation.
. This does not rise to any level of consensus for other pages. Do I need to formally contest that move to stop this madness? --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)- The page in question is about the ancestors of the Pueblo peoples. The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not Puebloans. Drawing an arbitrary distinction between them contradicts the DNA evidence, oral testimony, and archeological and anthropological evidence found throughout the article. We do not call the Ancient Greeks the Ancient Grecians, for example. WP:C2D is very clear here. --Plumber (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [5] move request closure that specifically states
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct people from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The modern, and living people are Pueblo peoples, the dead ancient peoples who were the predecessors were the Ancestral Puebloans according to hundreds of reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. (Someone watching here has my support to combine these into a single contested discussion). --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The main page Pueblo peoples was already renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective or noun. Do we call Ancient Greeks Grecians or Greeks? Encyclopedia Britannica now uses the correct terminology, and so should Wikipedia. Plumber (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- List of Ancestral Pueblo dwellings in Arizona → List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Arizona (currently a redirect back to List of Ancestral Pueblo dwellings in Arizona) (move · ) – Same as above, same contested term change Pinchme123 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Pinchme 123. The modern, and living people are Pueblo peoples, the dead ancient peoples who were the predecessors were the Ancestral Puebloans according to the vast majority of reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct people from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [6] move request closure that specifically states
Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation.
. This does not rise to any level of consensus for other pages. Do I need to formally contest that move to stop this madness? --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)- The page in question is about the ancestors of the Pueblo peoples. The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not Puebloans. Drawing an arbitrary distinction between them contradicts the DNA evidence, oral testimony, and archeological and anthropological evidence found throughout the article. We do not call the Ancient Greeks the Ancient Grecians, for example. WP:C2D is very clear here. --Plumber (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [6] move request closure that specifically states
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct people from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Pinchme 123. The modern, and living people are Pueblo peoples, the dead ancient peoples who were the predecessors were the Ancestral Puebloans according to the vast majority of reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ancestral Pueblo dwellings → Ancestral Puebloan dwellings (currently a redirect back to Ancestral Pueblo dwellings) (move · ) – Same as above, same contested term change Pinchme123 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The main page Pueblo peoples was already renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective or noun. Plumber (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- If the article is about the structures/dwellings/villages Ancestral Pueblo dwellings is correct, but if it is the ancient peoples/cultures who are being discussed Puebloan is correct according to the sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct people from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [7] move request closure that specifically states
Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation.
. This does not rise to any level of consensus for other pages. Do I need to formally contest that move to stop this madness? --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)- The page in question is about the ancestors of the Pueblo peoples. The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not Puebloans. Drawing an arbitrary distinction between them contradicts the DNA evidence, oral testimony, and archeological and anthropological evidence found throughout the article. We do not call the Ancient Greeks the Ancient Grecians, for example. WP:C2D is very clear here. --Plumber (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [7] move request closure that specifically states
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct people from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- If the article is about the structures/dwellings/villages Ancestral Pueblo dwellings is correct, but if it is the ancient peoples/cultures who are being discussed Puebloan is correct according to the sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The main page Pueblo peoples was already renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective or noun. Plumber (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- List of Ancestral Pueblo dwellings in New Mexico → List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in New Mexico (currently a redirect back to List of Ancestral Pueblo dwellings in New Mexico) (move · ) – Same as above, same contested term change Pinchme123 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The main page Pueblo peoples was already renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective or noun. Do we call Ancient Greeks Grecians or Greeks? Plumber (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Again, if it is the physical dwellings/villages/ruins/structures that are being discussed, then Ancestral Pueblo is correct, however if it is the ancient people/cultures being discussed then Ancestral Puebloan is correct. This is backed up by volumes of academic sources, as well as more mainstream sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct peoples from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Do we call Ancient Greeks Grecians or Greeks? Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [8] move request closure that specifically states
Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation.
. This does not rise to any level of consensus for other pages. Do I need to formally contest that move to stop this madness? --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)- The page in question is about the ancestors of the Pueblo peoples. The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not Puebloans. Drawing an arbitrary distinction between them contradicts the DNA evidence, oral testimony, and archeological and anthropological evidence found throughout the article. We do not call the Ancient Greeks the Ancient Grecians, for example. WP:C2D is very clear here. --Plumber (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pueblo peoples is not the main article for Ancestral Puebloans in this context because scholars specifically use different terminology for that different time period. And a [8] move request closure that specifically states
- Hundreds of reliable sources support contemporary use of Pueblo over Puebloan, a dated archaeological and anthropological term resting from the false idea the Puebloans may have been distinct peoples from the Pueblos. DNA evidence proves that is no longer the case. The main article Pueblo peoples uses the correct terminology, and the name change is correct according to WP:C2D. Do we call Ancient Greeks Grecians or Greeks? Plumber (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Again, if it is the physical dwellings/villages/ruins/structures that are being discussed, then Ancestral Pueblo is correct, however if it is the ancient people/cultures being discussed then Ancestral Puebloan is correct. This is backed up by volumes of academic sources, as well as more mainstream sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In the move discussion that took place for the one move Plumber mentions, the single other participant specifically stated their opposition to moving Ancestral Puebloans, while supporting the discussion. It seems inappropriate to have moved all these "Ancestral Puebloan" pages as if there would be no contention, given that note in their Support !vote, which show that current Pueblo peoples and Ancestral Puebloans likely have distinct terminology according to content experts, thus C2D does not apply. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The main page Pueblo peoples was already renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective or noun. Do we call Ancient Greeks Grecians or Greeks? Plumber (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- List of Canadian federal general elections → List of Canadian federal elections (move · ) – For consistency with list contents (i.e. 2025 Canadian federal election) and consensus on Talk page. BLAIXX 14:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The list is clear that it only includes general elections, where all the seats are up for grabs. The other side of that coin is List of federal by-elections in Canada, which lists those that are not by-elections. If anything, it's the 2025 Canadian federal election cases that are wrong, and also List of Canadian federal elections should be a disambiguation page covering the two types. — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pearl Jansen → Pearl Janssen (currently a redirect back to Pearl Jansen) (move · ) – Her surname is misspelt. This probably originates in a misspelling in a guardian article about her. Other sources, including the film dramatising her role in the 1970 Miss World pageant, spell it Janssen Sapphiraelupa (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- While some sources do say Janssen, there are plenty that say Jansen, including some such as [9] from the time itself. I would like to see more evidence that one or other form is the actual correct one before moving... — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yazidi Genocide (1915) (currently a redirect to Yazidi genocide (1915)) → Persecution of Yazidis (1915) (move · ) – "Genocide" is not clearly supported by sources. "Persecution" is more accurate and neutral, as sources describe killings, displacement, and forced conversions without labeling it genocide. DataNomad (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Contentious topic partially nominated for deletion (twice). Article has only existed for a few days. Spirited discussion on the article's Talk page. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Seems WP:PCM then. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes → 2019 India–Pakistan standoff (currently a redirect back to 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes) (move · ) – Please revert undiscussed move (WP:UNDOMOVE) by user Mistakefinder. The 2019 deadlock between both countries were not just normal skirmshes, but a standoff as used by sources. Standoff is also consistent with other articles, such as Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff, 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, 2008 India–Pakistan standoff, 2025 India–Pakistan standoff etc. Al-Waqīmī (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Al-Waqīmī This was moved in 2019, and subsequently confirmed in an RM (Talk:2019_India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes/Archive_6#Requested_move_27_January_2020). We can only revert recent moves here. Please open an RM by clicking the "discuss" link in your requests if you wish to pursue this further. Toadspike [Talk] 18:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Traitors (miniseries) → Traitors (TV series) (currently a redirect instead to Traitor (disambiguation)) (move · ) – No discussed, reverting back to original name crated in UK format. Halbared (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Halbared This move was performed in February 2024 – the current title has been stable for over a year, which is even longer than it was at the previous title for. We can only revert recent undiscussed moves here; please open an RM to discuss this by clicking the "discuss" link in your request. Toadspike [Talk] 18:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yusuke Suzuki (race walker) → Yusuke Suzuki (move · ) – No need for disambiguation after Yusuke Suzuki (footballer) was deleted. Sahaib (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- But, it doesn't appear Yusuke Suzuki (footballer) was deleted? Mdewman6 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per the logs, it had been WP:PRODded and was undeleted following WP:RFU#Yusuke Suzuki (footballer). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever reason, the footballer article currently exists, so the provided rationale is not currently a valid reason for renaming the race walker article. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per the logs, it had been WP:PRODded and was undeleted following WP:RFU#Yusuke Suzuki (footballer). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- But, it doesn't appear Yusuke Suzuki (footballer) was deleted? Mdewman6 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- JT McNamara → J. T. McNamara (currently a redirect back to JT McNamara) (move · ) – initials should have full stops per MOS:INITS but the article name already exists as a redirect to the current title. Bcp67 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- This was proposed as a G6 in 2016, but an objection was raised by Ghmyrtle at Talk:J. T. McNamara. So while the guideline appears to support the move, this does appear to be a WP:PCM. — Amakuru (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)