Select Page

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

Shortcuts
This page 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. 169 discussions have been relisted.

April 25, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Kumbha of Mewar → Rana Kumbha – Rana Kumbha is more common than Kumbha of Mewar WP:UCRN [1] [2] [3] and there is no other notable ruler with the same name from other regions. All other articles of rulers of Mewar are Named this way. 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. Wikiwizardinho (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Wikiwizardinho (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 24, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Use of restraints on pregnant women → Shackling of incarcerated pregnant people – I propose a name change based on these Wikipedia criteria for article titles: recognizability, naturalness, precision, and concision. First, using the word "shackling" is more recognizable because leading academic and journalistic publications---NPR, Springer, AMA, Columbia University--consistently employ the word "shackling" in their headlines. These articles are how most people would find out above this issue. Secondly, "shackling" is more precise that "use of restraints" because restraints can also include chemical restraints. Furthermore, "people" is more precise than "women" because those identifying with other genders besides women can still get pregnant. It is widely accepted that biological sex and gender are different. Many academics and medical professionals are actively pushing for the use of more gender inclusive language to honor this fact. Third, using "shackling" in place of "use of restraints" is both more natural and more concise. Using three words where one easily suffices is unnecessarily clunky and long, which goes against Wikipedia policy. Again, the frequent use of the word "shackling" in major press releases and publications is a testament to its effectiveness as a title. AudreyExplores (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – List of Mewar (Sisodiya)–Delhi conflicts → Kingdom of Mewar - Delhi Sultanate Conflict(1326 to 1518) – This was the article's original name and it was the best it could have or specifically for this type of article where more than two dynasties are involved as the original lead suggested: "Kingdom of Mewar - Delhi Sultanate Conflict(1326 to 1518) were a series of war fought between the Kingdom of Mewar under the Sisodiya Dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate from the regime of tuqlaq dynasty to the succeeding ones". The original name shifted the coverage or focus of the war from dynastic-centric (Sisodiyas vs Tuqlaq, Sayyids, and Lodis) to Period centric(1326 to 1518), and more frankly this is the reason why it was accepted and the user who had filed previous two deletion request didn't do the same with this. Hence the article name should be changed and reinstated to its original Rawn3012 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Variola caprina → Goat pox – "Goat pox" is much more common than "Variola caprina", which is a rare synonym of goat pox / the goatpox virus. But I am opening this discussion to get opinions on whether the title should be "Goat pox" with a space or "Goatpox" without a space. "Goat pox" is the more common of the two, but it seems like all of the pox disease articles use the space-less form regardless of which is more common. E.g. "Sheep pox" is more common than "Sheeppox", but the space-less form is the article title. Velayinosu (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kissufim massacre → Kissufim attack – WP:NCENPOV states that massacre should be used in titles if it is the "generally accepted word" used to refer to an event in scholarly sources, or if it's part of the WP:COMMONNAME. This is due to the POV connotations. It doesn't appear as that standard is satisfied right now nor was it satisfied at the last requested move. Specifically, since the last requested move, WP:ARBPIA5 happened and inconsistencies in article titles relating to the word "massacre" were a major part of that case. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 23, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Rafah paramedic massacre → Rafah paramedic killings – Per WP:NCENPOV, "killings" are preferred to "massacre" unless massacre is part of the WP:COMMONNAME or is a "generally accepted" used to refer to the events. "Generally accepted" means the one among reliable sources, according to WP:NCENPOV. I sampled the first ten sources in the article to avoid selection bias and can infer majority of sources used in the article do not use the term "massacre" to refer to the event in their own voice. Out of the 10, 8 discuss the subject of the article. 4/8 mention the word massacre, while 4/8 do not mention the word (2 of them don't mention the paramedic killings). Out of the 4 that mention the word, 3 of them use it as a quote from the Palestinian Red Crescent. Only one source actually uses the term "massacre" in its own voice.
Source analysis
*Avoids "massacre" ** "Rescue workers Israel killed found in mass grave in Gaza: What to know" -- Al Jazeera doesn't use massacre ** "Palestinians forced to flee as Israeli forces continue destruction of Rafah" -- Al Jazeera says its medic who has been missing since an Israeli assault on Rafah last month that killed 15 aid workers ** Palestinian paramedics shot by Israeli forces had hands tied, witnesses say -- The Guardian * Israeli troops killed 15 Palestinian medics and buried them in a mass grave, UN says -- Associated Press *Mentions "massacre" ** 'I heard them take their last breath': survivor recounts Gaza paramedic killings -- The Guardian Headline says "killings", body text uses "killings" and "massacre" ** "Red Cross outraged over killing of medics by Israeli forces in Gaza" -- BBC. Uses killings in its own voice, but quotes the Palestinian Red Cross as calling it a massacre ** CNN Quotes Palestinian Red Crescent as "massacre", does not use in its own voice ** 15 first responders killed in Rafah, U.N. says; IDF orders mass evacuation -- Washington Post Does not use the word "massacre" in its own voice, quotes Palestinian Red Crescent. * Neither ** [11] doesn't mention the killings. ** [12] doesn't mention the killings
Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sidus Ludoviciana → Sidus Ludovicianum – As proposed above. There was an attempted cut-and-paste move; I've redirected the duplicate article to here. The correct process to rename an article is with a requested move (or a manual move if assumed uncontroversial, but that's no longer an option with the other page in the way). Both names are used in sources, but the argument that "Sidus Ludoviciana" is an error is reasonable. Alternatively, the form listed in SIMBAD is Stella Ludoviciana, or the naming issue could be avoided by using the HD designation, HD 116798. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 22, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 1967 Oak Lawn tornado outbreak → Tornado outbreak of April 21, 1967 – Yes, this is an awfully notorious outbreak, but the majority of coverage I see using the "Oak Lawn tornado" is specifically referring to the tornado in Oak Lawn itself, not the outbreak as a whole, which is subjected to weasely phrasing a lot like more contemporary outbreaks. I've also heard it referred to as as the "Belvidere tornado outbreak". As it's clear to me at least that there is no common name, I'm proposing a move to the technical name of April 21, 1967. Departure– (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Quadrature (geometry) → Quadrature (mathematics) – This would revert a move done without discussion by Fgnievinski on 25 September 2023. After the move, they removed the part of the article devoted to the use of the term in integral calculus, probably because they consider unrelated the two uses of term (area conputation and integral computation). I edited recently the article, and the new version shows that the two meanings are deeply related and deserve to be explained in the same article. So, the present vesion of the article is no more restricted to geometry, and this makes the article title confusing. Also, AFAIK, the article covers presently all uses of "quadrature" in mathematics, and the proposed title is thus the most correct one. D.Lazard (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Greenfield tornado → Greenfield tornado – Per Greensburg tornado and Jarrell tornado. This one is a lot more discrete than a lot of other tornadoes as it only hit Greenfield - not Nodaway, Corning, or Villisca, as some initial reporting had it. As for other tornadoes in Greenfield, a quick search only brings up results for a tornado in Greenfield, Indiana - and another near the Iowan Greenfield. This tornado has become one of the most notorious tornadoes in recent memory - not quite on the level with Mayfield, El Reno, Moore, and Joplin, but as close as we've gotten in recent memory - so I don't see why this shouldn't be moved as of now. We'll get another reporting burst on May 21, on its first anniversary, to quell any doubt. Departure– (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – St. Peter's Basilica → Saint Peter's Basilica – The abbreviation "St." in the current title is considered to be American and Canadian English, but whenever the article isn't naming the basilica (and on a few occasions when it does) it uses British English with Oxford spelling, where the abbreviation would be "St" without a full stop. I propose spelling "Saint" out in full, as that's an area of MOS:COMMONALITY between varieties of English. It's also WP:CONSISTENT with the two other major churches in Rome whose English Wikipedia article titles use English, not Italian names: the Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran and the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. In practice we seem to have no particular naming convention for which form of "Saint"/"St."/"St" to use for churches which aren't in English-speaking countries. While we use "St." and "Saint" for some basilicas in Rome, as already noted, for St Mark's Basilica in Venice we use "St". MOS:SAINT (a guideline) says "If the word "saint" is included in an article name, the standard formula is to keep it unabbreviated except when referring to a name with typical abbreviation (e.g. St. Louis, United States)." That is followed by the section MOS:PARTSAINT more specifically dealing with church buildings, which lightly implies that "{Church building} of Saint {X}" is the default, but allows for "St" and "St." as variations. However, WP:CHURCH (an essay) rather contradicts that by saying that an abbreviated form should be used, even though it cites MOS:PARTSAINT. Standardising to "Saint" for churches without WP:TIES to a variety of English would have some slight practical advantages over abbreviated forms, because the article titles would automatically sort alphabetically in categories without the need for a sort key spelling out "Saint", and links in the body text of other articles which copy the article title with "Saint" would never break with the variety of English in which they're written. Ham II (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Soviet Army → Soviet Ground Forces – As has been mentioned in an earlier talk page section, the name for this article is slightly misleading, as "Soviet Army" in Russian/Soviet military parlance refers to all the land and air services of the Soviet Armed Forces (as is made clear on Russian Wikipedia, where and refer to two different things). The Soviet Ground Forces was the official name for this force and is more accurate, since the article only refers to the land warfare service. Additionally it will be in keeping with the article for the Russian Ground Forces. Pave Paws (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Burzenland → Țara Bârsei – WP:COMMONNAME. The last RM was rejected for no particular reason, no policy was invoked against WP:COMMONNAME that I argued applied here, I will argue more elaborately my RM now and ask for any opposing users to base their rationale on Wikipedia policies. "Țara Bârsei" is the Romanian name for an originally German ethnographic region today in Romania. "Țara Bârsei" is overall more common than "Burzenland" (the German name) in English-language sources in Google Scholar, it has 577 results vs. 477 results for Burzenland. We can see that the Romanian name has sharply increased in use in the past, showcasing a shift in academia: only 19 English-language sources from before 2000 use Țara Bârsei, vs. 89 for Burzenland, the ratio became 1:2 in 2010 (79 vs. 151), Burzenland was surpassed in 2019 (353 vs. 347), and more than double of sources since 2023 have used Țara Bârsei (75) compared to Burzenland (35), completely reversing the situation. Not only is Țara Bârsei overall more common, it has never been used as widely as today in English. Romanians form today an ethnic majority everywhere in the region (based on the #Towns section of the article) except for Apața, where they are a plurality. Having quickly checked all settlements listed there, I don't think I saw a single one where Germans reached even 2% of the population (the German population of Romania has decreased very sharply, from 786,000 in 1939 to 22,907 in 2022, info on why here [20] [21]). The region is named after a tributary located fully in Romania, the article of which uses its Romanian name: Bârsa (Olt) (Burzen in German). Opposers of the previous RM stated that this article's topic mostly covers the historical moment when this region still had a German majority, but the name of Țara Bârsei sees widespread modern use (e.g. a local magazine that had published as recently as December 2023 [22], a 2024–2027 development project co-funded by the EU [23], a 2025 cultural event [24] or really just rather regular local news [25] [26] [27] [28]). Țara Bârsei is more common both by English-language academia and by the native population, which has not abandoned the name, and it also follows the language of the namesake tributary it is named after. Previous policy-based arguments were dismissed without an appeal to policy. Super Ψ Dro 00:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 13:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Done (The Band Perry song) → Done. – While the all-caps doesn't seem to be necessary for title conventions, almost all references I could find to this song at least use the period at the end (including the Joel Whitburn books, which generally avoid stylized punctuation). Also, the MLA Style Guide cites this song as an example of how to punctuate around titles ending in periods (while notably not using all-caps), which I think lends creedence to the inclusion of the period. I also feel the period is by itself enough to disambiguate from other similarly titled works called "Done" without a parenthetical; compare Don't! versus any other "Don't" titles, or Jeopardy! versus anything else called "Jeopardy". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 21, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 2024 Amhara offensive → Amhara offensive (2024-present) – I think we should rename this article to "Amhara offensive 2024-present" as the actions part of this offensive extend into March 2025, and it is still ongoing as military acts are still being done by Fano and the ENDF counteroffensive has largely failed apart from re-capturing Gondar, As of March 2025, Fano is still launching offensives, notably in North Wollo, and claims to have encircled Woldia city. This alone is enough to support a "present" label, and there is no indication of a ceasefire, de-escalation, or end to hostilities. Fano operations continued without a break from 2024 into 2025, showing one continuous campaign. RossoSPC (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 20, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Fetal rights → Prenatal rights – This article covers the proposed or conferred rights of embryos (incl. zygotes) and fetuses. The term "fetal" only accounts for part of that, as it refers to a stage of development after ~8 weeks of development, thus excluding major parts of what this article is about. Per WP:PRECISE, article titles "should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." As it stands right now, the current title, "fetal rights," is a more precise and narrow version of prenatal rights, and excludes much of the article's scope and content. Further, per WP:CONSISTENT, titles should be consistent with other articles of a similar nature. Examples of titles already utilizing the "prenatal" classifier to refer to unborn humans include prenatal development, prenatal care, prenatal memory, prenatal testing, prenatal hormones and sexual orientation, and prenatal perception. In order to properly reflect the scope of the article and align with relevant policies, this article should be renamed to "Prenatal rights" and be adjusted accordingly. DocZach (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Under-19 Women's T20 World Cup → ICC Under-19 Women's Cricket World Cup – This move is being requested by Aniketkhan14. The current title overly specifies the format ("T20"), while there is no separate U19 ODI World Cup or similar competition. Since there is only one ICC U19 Women's World Cup, the simpler and more inclusive title Under-19 Women's Cricket World Cup is more appropriate and consistent with common usage. This also mirrors the naming of the ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup (men's edition), which is not named by its format (50-over). The proposed move would make the competition easier to understand for general readers, especially those unfamiliar with format-specific titles. Aniketkhan14 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ghiath Suleiman Dallah → Ghiath Dalla – WP:COMMONNAME "Ghiath Suleiman Dallah" seems to only come up on Google for search results that relate to Wikipedia, so it isn't a common name. Looking at Google search results by putting a possible name in "quotes", I've went through a bunch of spelling variations and combinations of "Ghiath" and "Dallah", and here are the results (sources included are any English website that isn't a social media site (or Wikipedia) or a nearly-identical duplicate to what another site says): * Ghiath Dalla appears on 15 pages and 24+ sources (sources after seventh page not in English) * Ghiath Dallah appears on 10 pages and 18 sources (sources after fourth page not in English) * Ghiath Dala appears on 7 pages and 18 sources (sources after fourth page not in English) * Ghiath Dalah appears on 1 page * Ghaith Dalla appears on 7 pages and 9 sources (sources after fourth page not in English) * Ghaith Dallah appears on 3 pages and 2 sources (sources after first page not in English) * Ghaith Dala appears on 3 pages and 7 sources * Ghaith Dalah appears on 6 pages and 22 sources (sources after second page start to be more non-English) * Ghiyath Dalla appears on 6 pages and 12 sources (sources after fourth page include social media or non-English) * Ghiyath Dallah appears on 2 pages (first page only includes social media sites) * Ghiyath Dala appears on 4 pages and 3 sources (sources after first page not in English) * Ghiyath Dalah appears once * Ghayath Dalla appears on 7 pages and 10-13 sources (sources after second page tend to be non-English) * Ghayath Dallah appears on 2 pages and 11 sources * Ghayath Dala appears on 2 pages (second page not in English) * Ghayath Dalah appears nowhere * Ghayth Dalla appears on 1 page (not in English) * Ghayth Dallah appears on 1 page * Ghayth Dala appears on 1 page * Ghayth Dalah appears nowhere Looking at this, it appears that "Ghiath Dalla" is the most common spelling of his name, and thus should be the new title of this article. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 19, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 → 2nd Japan–Korea Agreement – As many of you may know, the enwiki has had some history of contention between Korean and Japanese writers, which has resulted in a prolonged debate over the naming of the series of treaties between Japan and Korea preceding the Korean annexation. In a mass renaming move, @Tenmei has renamed all of these treaties in a consistent style in terms of neutrality back in 2010.
    However, the primary rule in naming Wikipedia articles is WP:COMMONNAME, and not WP:NPOV. I am certain that almost all of the names we currently have are not comnoms frequently used in academia. Furthermore, I find names such as Japan–Korea Treaty of 1904 and Japan–Korea Agreement of August 1904 to be against Precision in WP:CRITERIA. (The 2010 discussions invoked Google's search results as evidence, which is inaccurate as Google can take specific keywords such as "Japan" and "Korea" from "Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905" and bring up further results) That being said, I suggest renaming the following articles as such: *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876 → Treaty of Kanghwa (or Ganghwa) or Japan–Korea Treaty of Amity *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1882 → Treaty of Chemulpo *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1885 → Treaty of Hanseong *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1904 → Japan–Korea Protocol (of 1904?) *Japan–Korea Agreement of August 1904 → 1st (or First) Japan–Korea Agreement *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 → 2nd (or Second) Japan–Korea Agreement *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1907 → 3rd (or Third) Japan–Korea Agreement *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 → Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty Rationale: *Treaty of Kanghwa (or Ganghwa) or Japan–Korea Treaty of Amity (or Peace and Friendship): sources are scarce on this one–I think Treaty of Kanghwa has a slight plurality([43], [44], [45]) but the latter is seems almost equally prevalent imo ([46]). *Treaty of Chemulpo: ([47], [48], [49], etc.) *Treaty of Hanseong: sources are scarce, but I think we may just have enough to satisfy connom.([50]) *Japan–Korea Protocol: neutral name used officially by both countries: ([51], [52]) *1st Japan–Korea Agreement, 2nd Japan–Korea Agreement, and 3rd Japan–Korea Agreement are all names which are used officially in both countries.([53]). "Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty" may be preferred over "2nd Japan–Korea Agreement" for Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905. ([54]) *Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty ([55]) Again, non-Korean or non-Japanese sources are rare on this topic, and I believe that there could be many possible candidate names for many of these articles. However, I do firmly believe a change is needed here. 00101984hjw (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 08:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 18, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests → 2025 Gaza protests – Many sources indicate that these protests against Hamas are part of wider protests against the Gaza war and Gaza genocide: "Videos verified by The New York Times showed groups of Gazans in the half-ruined streets in the northern town of Beit Lahiya. Some carried more neutral signs that opposed the continuation of the war, while others chanted slogans calling for Hamas to get out. Gazans, at least publicly, tend to blame Israel for much of the death, destruction and hunger the war has brought. But at least some hold Hamas responsible, as well, for starting the conflict by leading the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, abducting 251 people to Gaza and continuing to fight rather than giving up its power in exchange for a cease-fire." – The New York Times "Videos circulated on social media this week of frustrated Palestinians protesting for an end to the war in Gaza, while others chanted anti-Hamas slogans." – The New Arab "Thousands of Palestinians marched between the wreckage of a heavily destroyed town in northern Gaza on Wednesday in the second day of anti-war protests, with many chanting against Hamas in a rare display of public anger against the militant group. The protests, which centered mainly on Gaza’s north, appeared to be aimed generally against the war, with protesters calling for an end to 17 months of deadly fighting with Israel that has made life in Gaza insufferable." – The Associated Press "In conclusion, it's difficult to state with certainty that the protests in Gaza this week were exclusively aimed against Hamas, nor can they be said to represent a general uprising against the group. Rather they reflect a broad range of opinions held among Palestinians in Gaza, including some explicitly anti-Hamas voices, but most of all, a feeling of desperation and war weariness after over a year of an Israeli military campaign directed against the enclave and yet another breakdown in a ceasefire." – Deutsche Welle "For the third consecutive day, Hassan Saad, 38, and hundreds of others took to the streets in Beit Lahiya, demanding an end to their suffering and a halt to the war on Gaza...[t]he demand for Hamas to relinquish power was not an official goal, Saad clarified, rather, the call came spontaneously from protesters." - Al-Jazeera Thus, I propose the article name be moved to "2025 Gaza protests" as it seems like these protests are not exclusively about opposition to Hamas. Rather, it seems like opposition to Hamas is part of wider protests with a broad spectrum of opinions in opposition to the Gaza war and Gaza genocide. Also, "Gaza" instead of "Gaza Strip" should be used in the title, in line with 2018–2019 Gaza border protests, 2019 Gaza economic protests, and 2023 Gaza economic protests. Geo (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ghana Road Network → Roads in Ghana – I can find no evidence that "Ghana Road Network" is a set phrase used in sources independent of Wikipedia, even searching Goolge for "Ghana Road Network" -Wikipedia almost all the results are actually for "Ghana's road network" and searching for "Ghana Road Network" -Wikipedia -"Ghana's" brings up nothing relevant. That would argue for the title of the article being Ghana road network, but if this isn't a proper noun then the article should use the "Roads in <country>" naming scheme which seems to be the standard. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Manawatu District → Manawatū District – While the official name for this district lacks a macron (and therefore so should the title per WP:NZNC), I believe this page should be an exception to that policy. The district name was officially gazetted in 1989 (ie. before the widespread adoption of macrons in NZ English), and it is a clear outlier in other similar names - the district is the only official name using "Manawatū" without a macron, with the river, gorge, and region all using the macron. The authority for the region refers to themselves with a macron and to the area as Manawatū District. The overwhelming evidence is that the correct spelling of the name has a macron and that the official gazetting of the name sans-macron is a relic of a previous era. Turnagra (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • (Discuss) – Vejce ambush → ? – A recent move made me wonder whether the current title is appropriate. I was also wondering whether a descriptive title like "Ambush near Vejce" would be more appropriate. Thus it would be great to receive input. I will list some sources that use both names as proper names. Vejce ambush:
    • 1 (p. 26)
    • 2
    • 3 (p. 8)
    Vejce massacre: *1 *2 (p. 54) *3 (p. 8) StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Galactic Center → Galactic center – The previous thinly participated discussion didn't come to a consensus on this, so let's try again. Sources appear to be majority lowercase by a good margin (see n-grams), and looking through them I don't find "galactic center" referring to centers of galaxies other than our Milky Way. It's clearly a term describing exactly what the words mean, not a proper name, even if it's understood to be the center of our particular galaxy. Also, the previous closer seems to be expressing a supervote, saying "Not Moved per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES", citing a guideline that doesn't clearly apply, instead of noting the arguments made in the RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mokotów Field → Pole Mokotowskie – Pole Mokotowskie is the common name of the park. If you look on Google Maps or any website such as TripAdvisor, it shows the name Pole Mokotowskie. Wikipedia is the only website that shows Mokotow Field. Therefore, to avoid confusion, it is best to move this page to Pole Mokotowskie. 73.158.229.99 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Berrima Correctional Centre → Berrima Gaol – These three prisons were all built during the 1800s and were originally termed as 'gaols'. In 1992, the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services renamed its operations at each of them as 'correctional centres' as part of a statewide change. In 2011–12, all three ceased operation as correctional centres. Subsequently, Grafton operated as the lower-order Grafton Intake and Transient Centre between 2012 and 2020, while Berrima was briefly temporarily reactivated as a correctional centre between 2016 and 2020. However, by 2021 all three had ceased prison operations of any kind and had their status as correctional centres revoked.[65][66][67] All or part of the land at each site has left government ownership, making future reactivation extremely unlikely. Given that all three were known as 'gaols' for over 100 years each, and that ongoing interest in them is primarily in relation to their broader heritage rather than their period of operation termed as 'correctional centres' for 20 years between 1992 and 2012, common usage seems now generally to have reverted to referring to them by their original names. For example: Berrima: [68][69][70] Grafton: [71][72][73] Parramatta: [74][75][76]. This is also supported by the Google Ngram data, which shows usage of XYZ Gaol dipping off around 1992 while ticking back up around 2011–12 [77]. Meanwhile, no Ngrams at all are found for any XYZ Correctional Centre variant. WP:TITLE says that a good Wikipedia article title should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. I believe that making this proposed move would not only reflect actual usage, but also enhance or maintain standing against these five criteria. In particular, using the WP:COMMONNAME of XYZ Gaol should improve recognizability, naturalness, and concision, while maintaining appropriate precision. The format XYZ Gaol is also consistent with similar articles for other former prisons in NSW, such as Darlinghurst Gaol, Hay Gaol, Maitland Gaol, and Wentworth Gaol. Tomiĉo (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Physician → Doctor (medical) – The title "physician" fails WP:TITLE on two main reasons. Reason 1: Fails WP:CRITERIA on Recognizability and Naturalness This is the main article for the profession most commonly known as "doctor" or "medical doctor" globally, yet it is titled "physician". Outside of the US/Canada, it is unnatural to refer to a medical practitioner as "physician" over "doctor", and even within US/Canada the vernacular prefers "doctor". Learners of English are exposed to the term "doctor" much earlier than "physician". Reason 2: Fails WP:CRITERIA on Precision and fails WP:GLOBAL. The article itself acknowledges that there are significant regional variation of the meaning of "physician", to the point where the two terms ("physician" and "doctor") cannot simply be assumed to be synonymous. For example, in Australia/New Zealand, only internal medicine specialists who are fellows of the RACP are called "physicians" unqualified. Other doctors, such as surgeons, general practitioners and anaesthetists, are never referred to as "physicians". The official catch-all term is "medical practitioner" according to the regulator, while "doctor" is the catch-all term in the vernacular. In Australia at least, using "physician" as a catch-all is akin to using "barrister" to refer to all lawyers: highly inaccurate. The UK is similar; while the BMA does refer to physicians as "a general term for someone who practices medicine", it also conspicuously qualifies this as referring mostly to internal medicine specialists, who receive their training from the RCP, RCPE or RCPSG. Similarly to Aus/NZ, calling doctors in general "physicians" remains unnatural. The regulator also uses "doctor" as the catch-all term. Conclusion: This page's title should be the best catch-all term for medical doctors. So why not just use "doctor"? The term "physician" significantly fails WP:TITLE criteria and is a prime example of why WP:GLOBAL exists. I note a previous move attempt on 8 May 2020 which was undiscussed, so I think it's fair game to launch a new move request with a discussion, as I anticipate some controversy. I imagine some opposition to my proposal may come from editors who live in areas of the world where "physician" might be relatively synonymous with "doctor", and the mapping may feel natural. That's fine, but this proposal is to draw attention to the fact that there are many areas of the world (especially the non-US/Canada Anglosphere) where it's unnatural at best, and inaccurate at worst, to use "physician" as a catch-all for doctors. Wikipedia should strive for the most natural titling as per WP:TITLE, so we must factor in non-American/Canadian systems too. If this move succeeds, I think it's fine for "physician" to redirect to this page still, and for the term to feature prominently in the first sentence and throughout the page. But the term's not fit for purpose as a title. LStravaganz (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Technical University of Braunschweig → Technische Universität Braunschweig – Almost identical case to TU Berlin. *1.- The university has never officially used the name Technical University of Braunschweig. It officially states that the name in English is Technische Universität Braunschweig see here. *2.- Technical university is a misnomer/mistranslation of Technische Universität as it refers to a different type type of higher educational institution in the German system (TUs opposite to technical universities can confer all types of doctoral degrees including humanities, social sciences, law, medicine, etc). *3.- Many years ago, the university used officially the (more appropriate) translation "Braunschweig University of Technology". In 2018 the page was boldly (sic) moved from that to the current one based on a discussion in which no sufficient references were provided. *4.- Last but not least (actually, the most important point): "Technische Universität Braunschweig" is currently the most commonly used name in English language references, so this is actually the name that satisfies WP:USEENGLISH. SFBB (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Latium Adjectum → ? – On 21 July 2024, the article was moved unilaterally to "Latium Adjectum" without a formal move request or community discussion (see 2015 talk page comment), and the current title violates Wikipedia's naming conventions in both capitalization and spelling Vineviz (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lazac → Lazac, Serbia – No primary topic. The name Lazac Lokvarski (lit. 'Lazac of Lokve') is also a "Lazac", just like North Carolina is also a "Carolina" (the classical example from WP:PTM). So "Lazac" is the specific part in this case, the part people use ambiguously, hence it is subject to disambiguation. Here's a few illustrations from a quick Google search about how this toponym of Lazac works in the area: The municipality of Lokve has a news section on their website where they use the term Lazac to refer to the place covered in a news article from Novi list about Lazac Lokvarski. We can also observe how the title of the newspaper article also changes the order of words (...do Lokvarskog Lasca instead of ...do Lasca Lokvarskog), because it's assumed that you can refer to the same place with either order. Both orders refer to the subject called Lazac with an adjective referring to Lokve. Also, that article's picture seems to show the place to be signposted as just Lazac, but it's hard to read because of pixelation. I couldn't find the aforementioned article on the Novi list website, but I did find this one where Novi list writers also use it ambiguously on several occasions: ... ona se sjetila Lasca i pred pet godina ..., Tata Željko dodaje da je Lazac zakon .... These are quotes from the locals, but the editors didn't normalize them to be unambiguous, meaning this is a reasonable usage, even if ambiguous. Just in case, I searched for more from the same paper, and found another article which does the same ... Lazac Lokvarski. Iako se iz naziva jasno razaznaje kako je riječ o općini Lokve, morate priznati da je malo tko od vas, uostalom i nas, bio baš u Lascu. Translated, that actually explains the natural disambiguation of the name. The Risnjak National Park website refers to a meadow of Lazac - so a third instance of Lazac, but one that wasn't documented on Wikipedia yet - for some sort of wildlife watching. They have a map at its page which shows that Lazac meadow as well as the nearby Lazačka glavica (lit. 'the little head of Lazac'). And just in case we don't want to trust the partially crowdsourced Google Maps embed, it's easy enough to confirm these toponyms at e.g. the Croatian Mountaineering Association's website trail 1 trail 2 where they include scans of old maps confirming it. Lazac Lokvarski is about 10 kilometers to the southeast of this third Lazac, so it's probably natural that it had to be disambiguated from that. At the same time the Serbian village is quite far away from these other two, so over there they had little need to use e.g. "Lazac Kraljevački". Regardless, it's fairly clear that there's no particular benefit for the average English reader to reading only the stub about one village, and having the information about the other two usages - and possibly others, who knows - hidden from view. There's no primary topic here, they're all fairly minor topics. I will note that we're here because a procedural objection to a move was made despite the fact that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Sigh. --Joy (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zapatista territories → Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities – After the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ) were dissolved in 2023 and reorganised into the Local Autonomous Governments (GAL), there was quite a bit of debate over the scope of this article in its talk page. Discussions were had about possibly expanding the scope of this article and moving it to a different title, with various different titles thrown out, but no formalised discussion was had on that. My opinion at the time was that the scope of the article itself would need to substantially change and expand before any article move was carried out, although I proposed a broader article on "Zapatista autonomy" might be worth creating. On 19 March 2025, LaborHorizontal (talk · contribs) carried out a unilateral move of the article to "Zapatista territories" (diff). Despite the move being carried out ostensibly to expand the scope of the article, most of the article is still specifically about the MAREZ, so all that really changed was the title (creating confusion as to what this article is about). The term "Zapatista territories" also set off alarm bells in my head, due to previous issues with the use of "territory" in other article titles; I searched the term up on Google Scholar, and the term is indeed in use, but it is a largely informal term used to refer to the area controlled by the EZLN (or by Zapata's ELS), rather than any specific governance structures established there (which is what this article is about). As the scope of the article has not meaningfully changed enough to justify a move, in my mind at least, I'm proposing this be moved back to "Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities". I'd also separately propose that anything taking a broader view of the territory controlled by the EZLN be its own article, rather than subsuming this one. Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gran Metalik → Metalik – Per reasons given at Talk:Máscara Dorada 2.0. He hasn't used the ring name Máscara Dorada for almost ten years, while the new one is way more famous during that name. Also this wrestler dropped the "Gran"-part when he left WWE 4 years ago and has gone by Metalik ever since. Therefore, I think Máscara Dorada 2.0 should have priority to the Máscara Dorada name, with a link at the top to Metalik. And this article should use his current ring name, not his old one from WWE 4 years ago. Estrellato (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024–2025 Canadian political crisis → 2024–2025 Canadian government transition – The events leading to the change of Prime Minister from Trudeau to Carney do not qualify as a political crisis, as set out in the Wikipedia article Cabinet crisis (which is where "Political crisis" redirects). The definition there is: "A cabinet crisis, government crisis or political crisis refers to a situation where an incumbent government is unable to form or function, is toppled through an uprising, or collapses." None of those factors applied here. Although Trudeau was steadily losing political support within his own party and ultimately resigned, his government remained functioning, including through the significant political response to Trump's tariff threats. This was a transition due to loss of party support, and resulted in a smooth transition of power under the Liberal party rules and the conventions of responsible government. It was not a crisis. (Yes, Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, but I think we should be internally consistent when using a phrase such as "political crisis" which is the subject of an article directly on point.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Apostasia of 1965 → July events of 1965 – I request for the title of the page "Apostasia of 1965" to be renamed "July events of 1965" or "Iouliana" (the latter is a transliteration of the Greek term "Ιουλιανά" which means "July events"). While technically, I can do it myself (I think), it is prudent to request a consensus decision, given that the topic may be controversial; it was a major polarizing campaign issue in the 1980s that may still echo today, see evidence (more can be provided) on its political nature: *

    In the general election of 1985 the PASOK government had thus plausible grounds for claiming that it had rehabilitated the historic Left and protected its interests. [...] PASOK of course emphasized Constantine Mitsotakis' 'apostasy' from Andreas' former party of the Centre Union in 1965, after the king had dismissed Yeoryios Papandreou as prime minister.
    — Philip Carabott, Thanasis Sfikas, "The Greek Civil War, Essays On A Conflict Of Exceptionalism" Routledge 2004, p 267.

    Context: These events arose from a disagreement between the popular prime minister Georgios Papandreou and the king Constantine II in July of 1965. The king hastily accepted the resignation of the former and attempted to form a government by luring defections from Papandreou's political party, as he feared that Papandreou had designs to undermine the institution of monarchy. Eventually, the king formed a government (the constitutionality of his actions is disputed) with enough defectors. The side supporting Papandreou accused the defectors of "treason" and denigrated them as "apostates." Reason: I think it is clear that the title of the page, "Apostasia of 1965," is based on the derogative term "apostates" used from one side of the conflict. Thus, it violates WP:NPOV policy because it implies the supremacy of one (political) opinion by taking a side in this conflict. The "July events of 1965" satisfies the neutrality policy and is the common term used in the literature (see below), so WP:COMMONNAME. Sources: Notable historians do not use the term "Apostasia" as the label of the events. "Royal Coup" and "Apostacy" are sometimes mentioned in how the side of Papandreou accused the other side and not as labels of the events. Even if there are such sources, they would not necessarily abide by the WP rules. I present some evidence to support my case (bold emphasis added to note the label used). *

    The July events that led to the popular prime minister's resignation were accompanied by massive demonstrations, strikes, and riots giving conservatives a painful sense of déja vu with reference to the turbulent forties.
    — John S. Koliopoulos & Thanos Veremis [el], "Modern Greece, A history since 1821", Wiley, 2009, p. 140

    *

    After much effort, the king succeeded, against a background of massive demonstrations by Papandreou's supporters, who called the July 1965 events a 'royal putsch' to match Karamanlis' 'electoral putsch' of 1961.
    — Richard Clogg, "A concise History of Greece" Cambridge University Press 2013, p. 158 (note that he uses the label of "July events" and separates it from the derogative terms used by Papandreou's side)

    *

    Under the pressure of the great political crisis of July 1965, arising out of the conflict between Papandreou and the young King Constantine, the EK did eventually split, with some 45 out of 171 deputies defecting to support the ‘apostate’ EK government of Stephanos Stephanopoulos, one of the right-wingers whose presence in the EK had always been something of an anomaly. The Iouliana, as the July 1965 crisis came to be known, was to project Georgios Papandreou’s son Andreas to the forefront of the political stage.
    — Richard Clogg, "Parties and Elections in Greece, The Search for Legitimacy" Duke University Press 1987, p. 125

    *

    The stormy consequences are known as the Iouliana (the July events).
    — David Close, "Greece since 1945" Taylor & Francis 2014, pp. 107-108 (also the subtitle is called "July events")

    *

    After Mitsotakis' defection, the characterization of the Center Union defectors as 'traitors' declined in favor of the term 'apostates'. Likewise, the July Events acquired the name of the 'Apostasy', enshrining within historical memory, not the King's precipitating act, but the decision by the Mitsotakis camp that enabled the King's political coup to prevail.
    — Draenos Stan "Andreas Papandreou, The Making of a Greek Democrat and Political Maverick", Bloomsbury Publishing 2012, p. 157

    *

    The so-called Iouliana (July Crisis) pitted the prime minister against the monarchy.
    — Antonis Liakos [el] & Nicholas Doumanis "The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, 20th and Early 21st Centuries" Edinburgh University Press 2023, p. 256

    *

    King Paul died in March 1964 and was succeeded by his son, Constantine II. In the early days of his reign, while the Constitution of 1952 was still in place, another political crisis of major constitutional dimensions took place, known as the "Iouliana" — the Events of July. The popular Prime Minister George Papandreou asked that the King allow him to occupy the post of Minister for Defence as well as that of Prime Minister.
    — Philippos C. Spyropoulos, Theodore P. Fortsakis "Constitutional Law in Greece" Wolters Kluwer, 2023, p. 53

    *

    For the Civil War generation, the defeat and the subsequent state repression was a continuously repeated inexpressible trauma; for their descendants, who inherited the burden of working through it, the impossibility of transforming Iouliana into a "revolutionary crisis" and the eventual imposition of the dictatorship hampered further this very process of mourning, relapsing into melancholy.
    — Vasiliki Petsa "Memory, Revenge, and Political Violence: Two Case Studies in Greek Fiction" Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 11:1 (2017), pp. 113-134

    A.Cython (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pow-wow (folk magic) → Braucherei – Pow-wow (folk magic) should be moved to Braucherei, as it is the correct term for the folk-magic practice. Pow-wow is a cultural appropriation from Native American language for the practice that has nothing to do with Native Americans, nor did they participate in this "folk magic". Please see discussion on article talk page for more information. The discussion was unanimous that the article should be moved. There was already a redirect for Braucherei, which I blanked, but Twinkle will not let me move the Pow-wow (folk magic) article to that name, therefore assistance is needed. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). C F A 21:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel → October 7 attacks – No need for additional disambiguation (Hamas-led, Israel) in the title, it just makes it longer without adding enough benefit. Going off Google hits, "October 7 attacks" is five times more common than "October 7 Hamas attack" and almost 50 times more common than the full title. "October 7 attack" is even more common, but as there was clearly more than one attack, so the plural form is the correct title. As it has been established that this is the primary topic for October 7 attacks, this is a pretty routine request, but as there have been prior RMs, this is here and not at RMTR. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Landtag Styria → Landtag of Styria – The current title of this article is grammatically incorrect when following English grammar rules. While "Landtag Styria" aligns with German conventions, English Wikipedia adheres to English grammar. Saying "Landtag Styria" is as incorrect as saying "Mayor New York City" instead of "Mayor of New York City." To omit "of", the title would need to be "Styria Landtag". Furthermore, there is no official translation that uses "Landtag Styria", which would be the only valid justification that comes to mind for adopting this unconventional form. –Tobias (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Assemblies of God → World Assemblies of God Fellowship – On 16 July 2007, Assemblies of God and World Assemblies of God Fellowship were merged. Reason was for disambiguation. This request is to unmerge the two pages for the same reason of disambiguation and accuracy. Once unmerge, this page should be redirected to World Assemblies of God Fellowship. The move cannot be made because the name World Assemblies of God Fellowship already exists in the Wikipedia database. It needs to be unmerged first. There is a contention by another author that Assemblies of God is the common name. However, when the average person says, “Assemblies of God,” they are either referring to the Assemblies of God USA denomination or to people in general who belong to an AG denomination. But this page is not about the USA denomination, nor is it about people in general who belong to an AG denomination. This page is about the global cooperative body of over 170 Pentecostal denominations. It self identifies as World Assemblies of God Fellowship, and it is consistently referred to by others as such (per the references cited on the page). Calling this page Assemblies of God does not meet the precision test for article title. Tinihere (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Intrisit (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy → Princess Alexandra (born 1936) – I've seen Princess Alexandra be simply referred to as Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra on official royal family announcements and social media. Could it be possible that her official title was switched to simply "Princess Alexandra"? I haven't really seen her being referred to as The Hon. Lady Ogilvy except for the royal family members index and older references. This could be possible because when Princess Alice became Princess Alice, it was never really announced. EDIT: I understand the Gazette still uses her husband's title with her name, but I just also want to point out that "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" renders way less results on Google rather than "Princess Alexandra of Kent" and simply "Princess Alexandra"... Rexophile (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Non-League football → Non-league football – I'm on the fence between simply moving this one or splitting some of its contents to a different article, but the current content definitely should not exist under this title. "Non-league football" is a generic concept that can exist in various countries (as is discussed here), while "non-League football" (with a capital L) is understood to refer specifically to English football (as seems to be the main focus of this article. Either the whole article can be moved, or the sections not specific to England could be split away. The former seems simpler and more practical. — Anonymous 02:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  1. ^ https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Rana%20Kumbha,Kumbha%20of%20Mewar,Maharana%20Kumbha&hl=en
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=kumbha+of+mewar&client=ms-android-xiaomi-terr1-rso2&sca_esv=125590fea1908471&udm=36&sxsrf=AHTn8zoR6FHpgTKU_5wlbJoYOXycj_78lw%3A1744946830524&ei=jsYBaNDdH6CXjuMPyqClwQw&oq=Kumbha+of+&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLW1vZGVsZXNzIgpLdW1iaGEgb2YgKgIIADIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFSNBGUKIJWPY1cAJ4AJABBJgB_QGgAbkYqgEFMC42Ljm4AQHIAQD4AQGYAgqgAooRqAIAwgIIEAAYgAQYsAPCAg0QABiABBiwAxgCGJ8BwgIKEAAYgAQYAhifAcICBxAAGIAEGAqYAwHxBQK-_IcPiwehiAYBkAYIkgcFMC4yLjigB687sgcFMC4yLji4B4oR&sclient=mobile-gws-modeless#ip=1
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=kumbha+of+mewar&client=ms-android-xiaomi-terr1-rso2&sca_esv=125590fea1908471&tbm=nws&prmd=ivn&sxsrf=AHTn8zpbV9HMgBSwBtSN-e95AuRCAfddUQ:1744946854895&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVmsDL0eCMAxXKzzgGHUeQA3oQ0pQJegQIAhAJ&biw=406&bih=717&dpr=3
  4. ^ Van Arendonk, C.; Graham, W.A. (1960–2007). "Sharīf". In Bearman, P. J.; Bianquis, Th.; Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E.; Heinrichs, W. P. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.