Wikipedia:Requested moves

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

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
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

[edit]
Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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:..."

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.

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • 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

[edit]

Uncontroversial technical requests

[edit]
@QINGSHAN XUE do you have any sources for this change? Per WP:NAMECHANGES we will give extra weight to independent, reliable sources reporting on or even using the updated name after the change. That would help us to move forward. ASUKITE 21:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

[edit]

Contested technical requests

[edit]
@Ben Carpendale I oppose this move. In the United States, the terminology used is license plate, and is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. cyberdog958Talk 17:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note however that "license plate" is the WP:COMMONNAME in Canada, but that article title is Vehicle registration plates of Canada. 162 etc. (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more specific guideline that should be applied here is WP:TIES, where an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the standard English in that country (compare List of soccer clubs in the United States versus List of football clubs in England, for example). In this case, "license plate" seems more common in American English. As for Canadian English, that is a different issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19 There seems to have been some discussion in the article's talk page concerning this. This should probably go to a discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 03:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asika → Aska, Odisha (move · discuss) – The town is officially known as Aska in Government of Odisha notifications, in the Census of India, and in the records of the Election Commission of India. The alternative spelling Asika is also used in some local and media sources, often as a phonetic rendering into English, but it is not the standardised form adopted in administrative usage. For this reason, Aska is the preferred spelling in formal contexts, while Asika persists as a common variant in informal and older references. Chalter8122 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chalter8122 The sourcing situation here is not clear to me and the proposed move may conflict with WP:NATURALDAB, so I will please ask you to take this through a move discussion (you can click the "discuss" link in your request). Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SkywalkerEccleston This was boldly moved back in 2015, then reverted in 2017 as undiscussed. To avoid going through that again, please open a move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link in your request. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not uncontroversial. No evidence that when the name of this language is discussed within English-language sources, it is rendered in an accented form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Roman Spinner, when you oppose a request like this, you can move it down into the "Contested technical requests" section, as I have just done. User:Eejit43/scripts/rmtr-helper.js helps with this. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kepler-1229b notifying you that this has been contested. Please click the "discuss" link in your request to open a move discussion if you would still like the page to be moved. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aesklepion While I am sympathetic to your situation, we must base our titles on reliable sources, and currently all the sources in the article appear to use the singular title. I recommend that you open a move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link in your request and mention plenty of reliable sources that back up your argument. Toadspike [Talk] 12:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that he went by simply James Mackay during his professional career, as shown in a preponderance of news sources and Congressional records. Given other people of the same name at the James Mackay disambig page, this one should probably be James Mackay (Georgia politician). Note that there are a bunch of confused redirects with various spellings and disambiguators for his name already. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FloridaArmy Are you okay with moving to James Mackay (Georgia politician) instead? Toadspike [Talk] 12:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think James Armstrong Mackay, his full name, is preferable to James Armstrong (Georgia politician). FloridaArmy (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if Armstrong is his middle name, but if it is, WP does not use a middle name as a disambiguator or in an article title unless the person uses their middle name professionally. Again, my assessment is that he was known as simply James Mackay professionally so that should be his article title plus a disambiguator patterned like those at the James Mackay disambig page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the very small number of people worldwide who are going to automatically know who that is, without looking at the article for confirmation. Even in the United States, there are probably some people who've never heard of him, and a very large number who wouldn't be sure just by the name.
In article titles, being sure who you're finding counts for a lot. I agree it's nicer when a person is known by just their name, but here, there's a good chance he's regularly being "not-known" by his name instead. I think it's easy to forget that Wikipedia articles need to be set up for those who DON'T already know who someone is - for those who do know, it matters far less. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, 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 27 September 2025" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

[edit]

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

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 27 September 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2025 (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 27 September 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2025 (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 27 September 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2025‎ (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 27 September 2025

– why Example (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2025 (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 27 September 2025

– why Example (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

[edit]

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

[edit]

Shortcut

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

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 95 discussions have been relisted.

September 27, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – T-pop → T-pop (disambiguation)T-pop (disambiguation) – From Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_7#Category:T-pop singers
  • (Discuss) – Imperial Seal of Korea → Imperial coat of arms of Korea – This is not a seal, so it is misleading to have it labelled as such. A more accurate title should be used. Across Wikimedia, this symbol is predominantly known as the coat of arms (see the following categories: Imperial seals of Korea (most files, other than those called seals, are called coats of arms. Those files are clearly the same symbol), Coats of arms of Korea). This is further explained by the article itself, which says it was originally an emblem, but then used as a coat of arms. Searching up for the imperial seal yields results about the actual seal (alongside this erroneously labelled symbol). Imperial coat of arms is both a common name and a correct name. notadev (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Arby's Classic → The Classic at Tennessee High School – Arby's is no longer the presenting sponsor of this tournament as of 2024. The tournament is now named "The Classic at Tennessee High School" - all other information about the tournament including founders, location, host school,and results remain the same. arbysclassic.net redirects to the new tournament site, thsclassic.com. Further, thsclassic.com hosts information both on previous tournaments including the "Arby's Classic" up to 2023 and the newly named "The Classic at Tennessee High School" for 2024 and the upcoming tournament in 2025. The tournament is hosted and owned by Bristol Tennessee City Schools who has held the tournament in Viking Hall since the original "Mountain Empire Classic" in 1983. MSOInfinite (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Life on Mars (song) → Life on Mars?Life on Mars? – The name of the song is "Life on Mars?" with the question mark in the title. In previous RMs, it was removed because the question mark does not appear in the single artwork's title, but the single artwork was likely made by RCA Records without David Bowie's input. The question mark appears on Davidbowie.com, the back of the Hunky Dory LP (as seen here), and in practically every Bowie book published. I understand there is inconsistency in punctuation on artworks and LP labels, but this likely has nothing to do with Bowie, rather with the individuals making the pieces themselves. The single release itself came a year and a half after the song's initial release due to its popularity on the Ziggy Tour. However, since I can't find any reliable sources (web or book) that explicitly discuss the question mark (or lack thereof), I have reached out to davidbowie.com for more clarification on the matter. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 23, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Hangul orthography → Hangul orthography (South Korea) – I'm not sure what's the best title; proposing this target for now, I may update it later. Reason this title should be changed is because it's misleading; "Hangul orthography" implies it'll be the orthography of the script as a whole, but this article is specifically about South Korea's official orthography, when there's also North Korea's and past orthographies to think of. Does this system have an official English name? I couldn't find one on quick search. I'll research more soon. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Imperial Seal of Japan → Imperial Crest of Japan – All across Wikipedia (including some, but not all, foreign language pages, such as German and French) these symbols are called seals. A seal is a specific object. Seals in the Sinosphere are used similarly to seals in the West, where they are used to authenticate documents. While the impression of a seal can serve to identify a certain individual, it possesses additional legal and technical functions which are not seen either in Japanese Mon or Western heraldry – whose use is simply in that of identification. It is also worth briefly noting that in the United States of America facsimiles of seals are often used in lieu of heraldry, and as such emblems may be incorrectly referred to as seals when they do not actually function as such (most seals, such as the Great Seal of the United States or state seals are real or based on real seals however). The Wikipedia page for seals elaborates on this at the end of the lead. It is important to distinguish from this so that foreign terminology is not used inadvertently. For ease of reading, I will refer to everything using its current name on Wikipedia. In the Japanese language the difference is clear. The Privy Seal of Japan (御璽, literally "imperial seal"), State Seal of Japan (国璽, literally national or state seal), and ' (Japanese Wikipedia link) (内閣印, literally cabinet seal) are seals. They are used in the traditional manner, by having ink applied to the matrix and then being impressed onto a document. The Imperial Seal (菊紋, literally chrysanthemum crest (in Western heraldry a crest is the part of the coat of arms which appears above the helm and shield, however as the English Wikipedia page for mon explains, they are often called the crest) or chrysanthemum mon (it has some additional names which all mean essentially the same thing, and make no mention of it being a seal: 菊花紋, 菊花紋章, and 菊の御紋)) and the Government Seal of Japan (this symbol commonly refers to the the 5-7 Paulownia (五七桐, literally five seven Paulownia), which is one of the many paulownia mon (桐紋, literally Paulownia crest(s) (also sometimes known as 桐花紋)). The latter two symbols function only as mon, and the former three seals function only as seals. I believe there is no dispute about this, and all pages individually make that clear. I have myself made that clear on the page for national seals of Japan before I had the idea of requesting this move. It is now worth looking into how these terms are translated into English from Japanese. For the State and Privy Seal, there is a general consensus that these are always called as such. Some information from outside of Wikipedia can be found on the Imperial Household Agency's page. There is little information about the Cabinet seal, however its use can be observed on various documents uploaded to the internet, such as the document seen on the following page, appointing Makoto Oniki to be deputy minister of defence, where it is seen alongside the larger Privy Seal. This too can be accurately referred to as a seal. The English names for the two mon is more complicated. On Wikimedia projects, we can observe that various names are used, including Imperial seals and Kiku mon (Japanese crests of chrysanthemum). These categories themselves are part of categories which refer to mon as crests (Japanese crests of flowers and plants) or by their literal name (Mon by name). The former category is within Mon (emblem). The Imperial seal's file names usually refer to it as either a seal or crest, while the Government seals (plural as many different paulownia crests exist) file names always refers to it as a crest. It seems clear that for this type of symbol it is accepted that they are called emblems, crests, or mon. It is only for these two particular mon, that is the Imperial and Government seals, which are called seals. There is no other mon which is called a seal. As previously mentioned, the articles themselves make it clear that this is not a seal, but an emblem. The usage of the imperial seal as a banner or coat of arms in Western heraldry exemplifies its primary function, and it is not commonly seen on imperial documents. Outside of Wikipedia results vary. I believe that due to the fact that these names have always been used on Wikipedia there has been some impact on the internet, with other websites following course, not really knowing (or needing to know) what is a seal and what isn't, and as such have started to use these names. However I believe that it should be generally agreeable that it is not appropriate to refer to this as a seal. It is difficult to find authoritative sources on this topic, but I believe the following are acceptable to represent general usage: * Edwin O. Reischauer and others, Japan: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (Kodansha 1993), p 200: "The chrysanthemum has long been considered a noble flower, and the crest of the imperial household is a stylized representation of a chrysanthemum blossom." * "The Chrysanthemum: Flower of Emperors" on nippon.com: "ichimonji (flat blossoms with two overlapping rows of petals, the type of chrysanthemum on which the imperial crest is based)." * Danielle Demetriou, 'Golden phoenixes and 16-petal crests: Japan's Emperor Naruhito to take seat on Chrysanthemum Throne' The Telegraph (22 October 2019): "The golden roof is adorned with 16-petal chrysanthemum crests, crowned by a clutch of mythical phoenix birds in flight. Sitting just next to it is a smaller twin version of the same curtained throne, reserved for the empress." * W. H. Hodge, 'Would You Believe A Chrusanthemum Kabuki' The New York Times (14 November 1971), section D, p 39: "The chrysanthemum, with 16‐ray flowers (or showy petals), is the Emperor's flower and has served as the crest of the Imperial Family for over a century. Actually, the identical chrysanthemum crest has existed as a familiar design in Japanese arts and crafts for over 800 years." * France 24: 'Gold, silk, lacquer: the kit and garb of Japan's imperial ceremony': The emperor's seat sits inside a canopy featuring rich purple curtains hanging from a roof decorated with golden curlicue adornments and 16-petal chrysanthemum crests. There is less coverage on the government seal, as it is just a simple mon used to symbolise various organisations, however there are various databases which can be found on the Paulownia crests, none of which refer to it as seals. They can be found under external links on Government Seal of Japan, one of which actually uses the word crest. Many users have voiced their concerns on various talk pages over the years, I found one example from 2006 on how the imperial seal is not a seal. I believe the reason that these names have endured for so long is simply because no one cares, however I also believe that there is a large potential to inadvertently mislead readers. As such I think it is important that the above pages are changed to more accurate titles. Before I finish, I would just like to take note of the pages for South Korea and Mongolia, who clearly have their emblem labelled as the emblem, and the seal labelled as the seal. National seals of the Republic of China, similar to the page for Japan, includes only actual seals, and not emblems. On Emblem of Vietnam, emblems and seals are clearly distinguished by being titled correctly. For the PRC, the former seal is correctly labelled on its own page, while the usual symbol is the National Emblem of China. Practice across Wikipedia clearly shows that the term 'seal' is only used for objects which are actually seals (seals in the USA notwithstanding). I therefore do not see why Japan should be exempt from this. I apologise for any errors in translation or typography I have made. notadev (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – September (Earth, Wind & Fire song) → September (song)September (song) – WP:PTOPIC. Of the songs listed in the disambiguation, the only other notable entries are "September" (Daughtry song) and "September Song". The former has garnered 3k pageviews this year and 49k since 2016, while the latter has gotten 32k this year and nearly half a million since 2016. Comparatively, the Earth, Wind & Fire song has amassed 139k this year and 2.6 million since 2016. This overwhelmingly surpasses the Daughtry song by a 50:1 ratio for both timeframes, though is only 5:1 for the musical standard. However, the song is not directly titled "September", and would thus not conflict with the Earth, Wind & Fire song. Furthermore, searching "September Song" on Google yields numerous entries about the Earth, Wind & Fire track before the musical standard. Popturtle (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 22, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – The Borrowers → The Borrowers (novel)The Borrowers (novel) – I recently split The Borrowers (book series) from The Borrowers (first novel in the series). It is however not universally clear to me which should be the primary article. The book series seems like the more encompassing topic and a more expected reader’s experience to start with, so it feels like having "The Borrowers" be about the series would be more natural. But the novel is also historically the first with this title, and the more famous book in the series, notably as the main source for the screen adaptations. Internal links are about the same: 45 for the book, 40 for the series, but many places that mention the book could also be written to mention the series. There’s also the possibility of moving The Borrowers (disambiguation) to the main title, as it’s the title of not only the book and its series, but also several of their adaptations, so someone linking to "The Borrowers" might be thinking of any of those. Opening the request to get second opinions and decide of the primary topic collectively. ~ nicolas (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 20:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Aug 2025, "NPL Northern NSW Men's Finals action returns to Magic Park..."
  2. ^ Aug 2025, "...Broadmeadow Magic versus Weston Bears FC played at Magic Park today."
  3. ^ Aug 2025, "The league winners are set to welcome Weston Bears to Magic Park..."
  4. ^ Aug 2025, "...with a 2-0 major semi-final victory at Magic Park on Sunday."
  5. ^ Jun 2025, "Magic will compete with Cooks Hills at Magic Park..."
  6. ^ Jun 2025, "Cooks Hill beat NPL Northern NSW heavyweights Broadmeadow 2-1 at Magic Park..."
  7. ^ Mar 2025, "Earlier today, Broadmeadow got one over it's rivals at Magic Park..."
  8. ^ Jun 2025, "Broadmeadow ended the Belswans six-game undefeated run with a 2-nil win at Magic Park overnight."
  9. ^ Sep 2025, "Australian Championship | R1; Magic Park"

— AFC Vixen 🦊 15:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss) – Anh Sung-jae → Sung AnhSung Anh – Per WP:KOREANNAME step 2, this appears to be his preferred English name. [3] I think it's also his legal name in the US (American citizen). If we were to include his full name, I suspect it's likely "Sung Jae Ahn" ("Jae" being the middle name), with no hyphen. Note: if looking for WP:COMMONNAME evidence you should exclude results from news articles that have been machine translated without human review. This includes ChosunBiz, Maeil Economic Daily (mk.co.kr), and The Chosun Ilbo (The Chosun Daily). Imo, when we so clearly know his preferred English spelling for his name and he's an American citizen, it makes more sense to use his preferred name. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 21, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – House of Mathrafal → LleisionLleision – The name of the dynasty is properly 'Lleision', i.e. the descendants of Lles Llawddeog, a legendary ancestor of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, and was the name of the dynasty in the Middle Ages. See David Stephenson, Medieval Powys: Kingdom, Principality, and Lordships 1132-1293, p. 24, and note 8 on that page. While the chief court of the kingdom of Powys was Mathrafal, the dynasty was not named after it. Naming dynasties after courts is an Anglo-Norman tradition, and furthermore the "House of Mathrafal" is not used in any scholarly source. Tipcake (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 20, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Cathode-ray tube → Cathode ray tubeCathode ray tube – This is procedural nomination because at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 7#Category:Cathode ray tube there appears to be consensus that Category:Cathode ray tube is the correct name, and so logically the article should follow suit.
Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Port of Gqeberha → Port of Port ElizabethPort of Port Elizabeth – Highly likely that no WP:RS calls it the "Port of Gqeberha". The sole reference in the lead prose: [1] calls it the Port of Port Elizabeth. Here's an article post-name change that still calls it that: [2] Google News shows a steady stream of news articles (whose reliability I haven't checked yet) calling it the Port of Port Elizabeth. As for controlling to make sure that I'm not including results about the Port Newark–Elizabeth Marine Terminal, since the query is "Port of Port Elizabeth" with quotes, it requires that it be that very specific string. Here's an article that calls it "Gqeberha's Port of Port Elizabeth": [3]

References

  1. ^ "Port of Port Elizabeth". Transnet - National Ports Authority. Transnet. Retrieved 12 March 2021.
  2. ^ "Transnet says it will relocate its contentious manganese ore facility in 2027". News24. 2022-05-17. Retrieved 2025-09-06.
  3. ^ "NSRI's 6th offshore rescue craft arrives at Gqeberha's Port of Port Elizabeth". News24. 2024-10-02. Retrieved 2025-09-06.
- A diehard editor (talk | edits) 01:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

[edit]
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) – Octave twelve → Vox Mando-Guitar – I couldn't find any reliable sources calling this sort of guitar an "octave twelve". The lone source in the article seems to be an unreliable aggregation and might even be a case of citogenesis. Extensive searching for variants of "octave twelve" in relation to guitars turned up only false positives that used the words "octave" and "twelve" next to each other in unrelated contexts, and no hits on GBooks in relation to the Vox Mando-Guitar call it an "octave twelve". I did, however, find books such as this and this which discuss the Vox Mando-Guitar, which suggests that should be the name of the article instead. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 18:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Gojoseon → Old Chosŏn – Per WP:COMMONNAME research below in major Korean history books. Note that Gojoseon is not a significant topic in South Korean pop culture, which tends to use RR. "Kojosŏn": * Everlasting Flower: A History of Korea by Keith Pratt (2007) * Korea: A History by Eugene Y. Park (2022) "Old Chosŏn": * Korea: A Religious History by James H. Grayson (2002) * Historical Origins of Korean Politics by Duk-kyu Jin (2005) * A Brief History Of Korea by Mark Peterson and Phillip Marguiles (2009; note doesn't use diacritic) * A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present by Michael J. Seth (2010) * A History of Korea by Jinwung Kim (2012) * Korea: Outline of a Civilisation by Kenneth Wells (2015) * The Ancient State of Puyŏ in Northeast Asia by Mark E. Byington (2016) * The Three Kingdoms of Korea by Richard D. McBride II (2024) "Old Joseon": * A History of Korea by Kyung Moon Hwang (2022) "Gojoseon" * The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism by Jae-eun Kang (2006) * Korea: A Cartographic History (2012) by John Rennie Short Also, note that McCune–Reischauer works out well per WP:NCKO and WP:COMMONNAME. Significant majority of academic books on Korean history use MR. See WP:ROMANKO#Romanizations used in books for some proof of this; I've been tallying up what various books use. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

[edit]
The current Wikipedia time is:
08:44, Saturday, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!