Wikipedia:Requested moves

❧

Wikipedia

Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

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

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.

  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

@TryKid It's been nearly 2 years since that move, so I believe it's been too long to revert per WP:RMUM. HurricaneZetaC 17:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
The punctuation of the title seems incorrect, as if describing a slaughter riot that is anti-cow. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
It is normal. If there were no "anti", then the hyphen would be between "cow" and "slaughter". But with an "anti" before it, the hyphen goes between "anti" and the next word:
  • "3,000-year-old fable tweaked to suit anti-cow slaughter bill". Pune Mirror. 28 January 2013.
  • "No proposal to repeal anti-cow slaughter Act: Minister K Venkatesh". The New Indian Express. 6 July 2023.
  • "Qureshis demand repeal of anti-cow slaughter law". The Hindu. 17 April 2025.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
@Mr slav999 Actually, after looking at this, I reverted the undiscussed move on the main article since there was some disagreement in 2018 to moving the page (WP:RMUM #2). No objection to opening an RM about this, since it's been 7 years since that last discussion. HurricaneZetaC 20:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
@Killgirlswatch Hi, I believe this is discouraged by WP:NCPLURAL since it doesn't look like titles like this are in one of the exceptions. HurricaneZetaC 21:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
arm warmers are items though? and you wear them in pairs so it makes sense
you wouldnt just say "arm warmer" because you don't just wear one kgw :3 ♡ talk to me! ♡ contributions i've made :0 06:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Two similar actions started by the same requester are currently being discussed at Talk:Leg warmer, where the consensus leans toward keeping the title singular due per WP:NCPLURAL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
@Spiny Alligator 321 The page was moved to 'Type C3 class ship' in 2009 and then to 'Type C3-class ship' in 2013 with the last moving editor quoting WP:NC-SHIP. This should go to a full move discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 02:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
I know this sound strange but WP:NC-SHIP can not be applied to the Type C3 ship because it is not a ship class at all, but a type of cargo ship (keyword “type”), with multiple different ship classes based on the hull of the C3, such as Bayfield-class attack transport and the Bogue-class escort carrier. As such the C3 ship should not be classified as a ship class. Spiny Alligator 321 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Dorton House → Wildernesse House (move · discuss) – Building has been renamed back to its old name by new owners Paulmenage (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    According to this it's still Dorton House. Is there RS showing a move? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    My Dad just moved into the retirement community there, and "Wildernesse House, Wildernesse Ave" is the postal address. And reference 5 on that page indicates (third paragraph from the end) that the new owners renamed the building back.
    I don't know for sure that all the right legal channels were followed to change the name back (e.g. in the listed building registry) but that's the effective name of the building now. Paulmenage (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
@Paulmenage Contest per above, can't find any reliable sources for this change but I'm not very familiar with this. HurricaneZetaC 22:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
@Aschiff-emco There was an RM which didn't move to this title in 2022, so this needs a full discussion. HurricaneZetaC 01:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
@Jprg1966 MOS:DATERANGE says that it may use the full year, but there's no need to revert back to a title that was previously contested (see move history). HurricaneZetaC 01:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
That said you can open an RM about this, since the page also says that such titles are preferred. I would err on the side of caution when moving pages relating to controversial topics as well. HurricaneZetaC 01:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, 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 23 December 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

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 23 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 23 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 23 December 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2025‎ (UTC)

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



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

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
    Requested move 23 December 2025

    – why Example (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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

    {{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
    Requested move 23 December 2025

    – why Example (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)


    Commenting on a requested move

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

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

    When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

    Closing a requested move

    Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions 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

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

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

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

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

    Notes

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

    Current discussions

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

    This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 44 discussions have been relisted.

    December 23, 2025

    • (Discuss) – Jumanji → Jumanji (film) – With a fifth film in the series announced for next year, it seems increasingly untenable to say that the original film (itself an adaptation of a book by this name) is the primary topics of the term, as taken against the whole of the franchise together. BD2412 T 03:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Mercury glass → Silvered glass – My limited research gives me to understand that "silvered glass" is the most common term for this stuff today. Often it's found as "silvered (mercury) glass." Some sources say that "mercury glass" per se is just the stuff with actual mercury (tin-mercury amalgam) involved, which would make the silver-nitrate stuff off-topic for this article, and I don't think we want that. I think we want an article on all silvered (mercury) glass, with subsections on the amalgam and silver-nitrate subtypes if needed. (FYI, I got onto this topic while looking for information on "mercury mirrors," which as I understand it now refers specifically those mirrors made with actual tin-mercury backings.) --Quuxplusone (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

    December 22, 2025

    • (Discuss) – Jolene → Jolene (disambiguation) – The other topics with the exact name "Jolene" are a film, a band, and the album containing the Dolly Parton song, with the song being overwhelmingly in the lead for page views among those. While multiple famous people have the first name "Jolene", and some have substantial daily page views, I seriously doubt that most people typing in "Jolene" without any added words are looking for anything other than the Dolly Parton song. All of the people named "Jolene Lastname" are sufficiently disambiguated at Jolene (given name), which even has secondary sources confirming that the name rose in popularity after the song came out (and indeed, most of the famous people by that name are younger than the song). Just entering "Jolene" into Google without any other key words returns almost exclusively the Dolly Parton song or covers of it, and I found this to be the case long before Beyoncé's version existed. I got similar results in other searches, where typing "Jolene" by itself showed an overwhelming favor toward the Dolly Parton song. In short, I feel like anyone just searching "Jolene" by itself is almost unquestionably looking for the Dolly Parton song. And if they are looking for anything or anyone else, then Jolene (disambiguation) and/or Jolene (given name) should suffice. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Camryn Magness → Camryn (singer) – : It appears based on sources her common name is simply Camryn, she is best known by her first name only/this is how she identified as during her career and other Wikipedia language article also have her listed as Camryn. Thoughts? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Sandbox → Sandbox (disambiguation) – With the topic of the "sandbox" located at the article "Sandpit", this ends up being a disambiguation page that is even formatted with the bold lead suggesting the primary usage of the term is that at the article. Sandbox should therefore redirect to Sandpit and this article be moved to Sandbox (disambiguation), with the hatnote {{Redirect}} applied at the article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 16:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Kabyles hadra → Kabaile al-Hadra – "Kabaile al-Hadra" is the WP:COMMONAME. While the subject is non-notable, the few sources that refer to it in Google search, Google books and Scholar are more numerous for this name (or one of its variants, such as Kabaile el Hadra) than the one currently used. Being precise and less prone to misinterpretation, it also has the added benefit of making the above issue of the Gallicised term moot. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Leg warmer → Leg warmers – Following a recent undiscussed move to pluralize the title by @Killgirlswatch that has now been reverted, I'm neutrally opening this move request for the sake of putting that request through the proper channels. The original rationale for the move was that the subject is most commonly referred to in plural (and as far as I can tell the article has used the term "leg warmers" right from the lede since before the original undiscussed move). As such, it can be seen as an exception to NCPLURAL somewhat due to the plural form being commonly favored over the singular. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Oberon (operating system) → Oberon System – The official name of this operating system is "Oberon System" (as per many of the cited references, and even the start of the article). I suggest renaming to "Oberon System" to avoid having to disambiguate from the language, and other uses of the name "Oberon" Vt320 (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

    December 21, 2025

    • (Discuss) – Swindon Stadium → Abbey Stadium, Swindon – The stadium opened in 1949 as Abbey Stadium. Swindon Stadium appears to be a 2000s–2020s trading name adopted by its owner, Gaming International, while Abbey Stadium has remained the name used in planning applications, redevelopment proposals, and press coverage. Third-party sources (such as the BBC) frequently use "Abbey Stadium"; "Swindon Stadium" is less used, and is even absent entirely in some publications. As the venue is due to close in December 2025, the article title should reflect its full historical identity, not a relatively recent branding period. Per WP:COMMONNAME, reliable sources (including the BBC, Swindon Advertiser, The Link, and Greyhound News) consistently refer to the venue as Abbey Stadium, particularly in coverage of its closure. "Swindon Stadium" is used far less frequently in reliable sources, if at all. Per WP:PRECISION, Swindon Stadium is ambiguous given other stadiums in Swindon (notably the County Ground). Abbey Stadium, Swindon is precise and unambiguous. Per WP:OFFICIALNAME – Wikipedia does not require article titles to follow an owner’s trading or corporate name when it conflicts with common usage. Therefore, I believe this move better serves readers after closure, when historical coverage will outweigh contemporary branding. Icaldonta (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Indian hegemony in Bangladesh → Indian influence in Bangladesh – The current name with "Indian hegemony" does not show up in any of the cited sources I looked at, thus constituting original research. Additionally, it creates NPOV issues. Many of the sources do mention Indian influence in Bangladesh though, making it a suitable name. Ummonk (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Trump Gold Card → Trump Card – Seeing there are many variants. (Personal) Gold, then Corporate Gold, (Personal) Platinum, and TBD Corporate Platinum. I request this article should be renamed to more generic "Trump Card". In his McD-drivenfueled wisdom I would not be shocked when he next announces Trump Black Card: "citizenship and never pay taxes anymore for life, for only 100M, get it now before there will be a never ending waiting list!"Foerdi (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC) Foerdi (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Anedjib → Adjib – Within this article, Anedjib is referred to only as Adjib, with the exception of the first paragraph and the gallery, the former of which claims that the more correct version of his name is Adjib. Additionally, the royal titulary section has his name listed as ˁḏ-jb (Adj-jb) with no "n" in sight. The name of the article should match the name used within the article. Veristune (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 11:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Michele Singer Reiner → Michele Reiner – Cf. discussion above, many sources refer to her as Michele Reiner as opposed to Michele Singer Reiner. , , and are all news media sources that call her by this name, and I could easily find at least ten more. Given that per above, the CNN obituary states she dropped "Singer" as her surname, I think it would make sense for the article to be at this title. Appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Word play → Wordplay – WP:COMMONNAME per Ngrams . "wordplay" as a single word is the most common way to spell this term. This is also not an issue with WP:ENGVAR; Ngrams shows that "wordplay" dominates in both American English and British English . American English dictionaries and British English dictionaries all spell it as "wordplay". Malerisch (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

    December 20, 2025

    • (Discuss) – Meeker Massacre → Meeker Incident – “Meeker Massacre” shows implicit bias and disregards facts that do not support it being a “massacre.” History is always told by the winners and this was no different: Governor Pitkin campaigned on the removal of the Utes from their lands, and inflammatory press statements were being made frequently… long prior to the Meeker Incident. They were negotiators, first and foremost. Both Thornburgh and the Utes intended to negotiate with Meeker. This type of conflict and tension had not happened with prior agents… Meeker wasn’t the first agent they had, simply the first that had such issues, and that is due to the political climate and pressure he was under. Further, at the incident, various primary sources show that Meeker and the employees engaged the Utes first, as the women and children were told to hide in the milk house. Much of this information is found in already-cited secondary sources, and of course, I can find more of these sources. There is little, factual and proven information that the Utes attacked and massacred the agency. The main title being termed “Massacre” implies that the employees were defenseless and that the Utes were the primary aggressors, which is a largely disproven narrative and factually incorrect version of the story that has, for some reason, remained the primary naming of the incident. Aprilrbchistory (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Kisii people → Gusii people – This page has been edited to remove mentions of Kisii people, with Abagusii preferred. The name of the people in their own language is Abagusii, with the prefix "aba" being a common Bantu prefix in many Bantu languages (and in the term "(A)bantu" itself) for plurals, especially people, so it literally means "Gusii people". There is a strong case for moving the page, but WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, and how the people are referred to in English is what is required on English Wikipedia. On that score, Google doesn't give good evidence. Kisii gets 8 million hits, but many / most refer to the Kisii district. The locality is Kisii, but the people are not, except in Swahili and (perhaps) English. Gusii gets over a million results and Abagusii gets 250,000. I believe Google-fu is not reliable to answer this question. Thus I have conducted a source review of all sources used in the article, plus Encyclopaedia Britannica as a tertiary source. The result of this review (collapsed below) is that Gusii is clearly the COMMONNAME in sources. 24 sources unequivocally prefer Gusii / Gusii people, 3 unequivocally prefer Abagusii and one unequivocally prefers Kisii (and that one is old). The COMMONNAME in modern English language sources is Gusii.
    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission → Nuclear espionage in the Indian Himalayas – I wasn't able to find the phrase "Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission" in major sources, "Plutonium Mission" is a very vague idea and gives the wrong ideas about Pu-238 vs Pu-239 and the actual espionage purpose, "Mission" fails to indicate the article scope as multiple separate climbs, "Nanda Devi" fails to indicate the successful mission on Nanda Kot, I believe "CIA espionage in the Indian Himalayas" would also be appropriate as while it was a joint mission it was clearly initiated and led by the CIA. Doeze (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Sydney RiverCat → RiverCat – I don't see why the city name needs to be included in the title considering that "RiverCat" is not a title used by any other Wikipedia article. The disambiguation part of the title makes it unnecessarily difficult to search for this type of ferry. For these reasons, the title goes against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

    December 19, 2025

    • (Discuss) – List of biggest box-office bombs → List of films with the largest box office losses – The term "box-office bomb" is potentially contentious and not always used when discussing films that lose on budget. Whereas the criteria for inclusion here is more appropriately defined by just looking at the size of the box office loss and thus far less contentious (eg the case like for a critically acclaimed film like the Wolfman above). This also makes it easier for links back into this page, as unless there is sourcing that calls it a "box office bomb", using the current name can be an issue. The lede should still discuss what a box office bomb is (eg that most films on this are considered as such). Note that any other title suggestions similar to my suggested one is fair. I'm using "largest" over "biggest" since the loss of money is a quantifiable aspect. Masem (t) 19:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Popular Army in Rafah → Shawqi Abu Nasira group – Their name refers to Rafah but other sources indicate they are based in Khan Yunis. I understand the existence of Abu Nasira's group has only been revealed recently, and more information has yet to come out, but such an important contradiction like this will likely confuse readers. I propose that both the name provided by FDD and the apparent contradiction be referenced in the lede, something along these lines: "The Shawqi Abu Nasira group is an anti-Hamas Palestinian militant group led by Shawqi Abu Nasira, a former Palestinian Authority officer. His group reportedly operates as part of the Popular Forces and is composed of around 30 fighters. The existence of the group was only revealed in late November 2025, however it has been active since several months prior. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' Long War Journal has reported that Abu Nasira's group is called the Popular Army in Rafah, however other sources have reported that the group is based in Khan Yunis." Evaporation123 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Plum Warner → Pelham Warner – "Plum" was his nickname, true, but it wasn't universally used. In all his books, and in all contemporary sources during his playing and administrative careers, he was called Pelham (or Sir Pelham, and sometimes P. F.). Jack (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Candace Newmaker → Death of Candace Newmaker – Per WP:BIO1E, this child's unfortunate death was notable, but the child herself was not. She was not a famous person and is notable only for what other people did to her. I am surprised this article has remained at this title for so long. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Knock down ginger → Knock, knock, ginger – WP:STABLE. "Knock, knock, ginger" or similar has been the title of this article since 2008. This was recently reaffirmed in a 2023 RM. The title was changed to "Knock down ginger" last year with no discussion. Another RM in 2025 recommending "Ding dong ditch" was shot down on the basis of WP:ENGVAR. It seems clear that this topic can be known in different regions under different names, and any one name is no more common or accurate than another. With that in mind, the best title is the one that was stable for 16+ years. 162 etc. (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Clipchamp → Microsoft Clipchamp – As of November, Microsoft started renaming "Clipchamp" to "Microsoft Clipchamp" across all platforms: they changed its listing on the Start Menu, renamed the link in App Store from "clipchamp" to "microsoft-clipchamp", and every mention to it in the app is now "Microsoft Clipchamp". ―Eduardogobi (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Jesse Green (theatre critic) → Jesse Green (writer) – Subject is no longer working as a theater critic, though he spent 12 years as one, he previously did journalism and is doing it again, and will presumably become better known for his current work as time goes on. either way, theatre is not correct for American English, especially for someone at the NYT (which corrects even proper names to theater). Bringing this up as discussion instead of a bold move for feedback: would Jesse Green (journalist) be better? BrechtBro (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

    December 18, 2025

    • (Discuss) – Piriform → Pyriform – This is the usual spelling; see e.g. OED, where the definition is at Pyriform, and Piriform is listed as a 'variant' of pyriform. MPF (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Kennedy Center → ? – I'm creating a requested move to reach consensus on what the name of this article should be, following the name-change announcement by the Trump admin. Some ideas: * A: Kennedy Center (current) * B: John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (stable title) * C: Trump-Kennedy Center * D: Official name as announced by the Trump administration * Wait Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Romanization of Serbian → ? – Serbian hasn't had to be romanized for over a century now, and this article largely doesn't actually describe the time periods when it did; rather, most of it is about the more recent times when it's been digraphic. The title should reflect that reality (the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe). What's a better title for it - maybe Serbian use of Latin, Digraphia in Serbian, or something else? I tried to get to the bottom of this a few years back in #Article title and scope, but we didn't make progress at the time, possibly also because of an oversized influence of an editor who got indefinitely blocked in the meantime. Here's hoping this discussion doesn't get disrupted. Joy (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. HurricaneZetaC 17:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Republican makeup → Mar-a-Lago face – These pages are already merged, so the question is the post-merge title. “Mar-a-Lago face” is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources and is overwhelmingly the reader search/traffic term (see Pageviews tool and widespread coverage), while “Republican makeup” is less-used and narrower. There is and has been absolutely zero, none, consensus to merge this TO the target of Republican makeup. A handful and tiny minority of editors saying there is cannot make it so, and views by User:Jimbo Wales are also irrelevant except on the level of a lone editor, which has negatively and inappropriately influenced this entire mess negatively. My edit here on Talk:Mar-a-Lago face, which contains all relevant merge discussion unlike the far lower activity/traffic/non-WP:COMMONNAME Talk:Republican makeup, summarizes the actual consensus, which was barely to merge to Mar-a-Lago face but was evolving toward a unique third name. There was no valid reason to turbo rush these merges until our alleged leader put his thumb harmfully on the scales. It's time to do this properly by policy and consensus alone. Rename to Mar-A-Lago face or undo until we do it properly to a WP:RS sourced third name. On Talk:Mar-A-Lago face, at the actual merge discussion, which was closed by @Theleekycauldron:, who wrote:  : Based on the numbers and the strength of the arguments, I find a rough consensus to merge. The discussion seems to lean towards Mar-a-Lago face as the target, and I think the sources and traffic stats given below lean that way as well, but more discussion might result in a different answer that one or both articles could be merged to. Patently what it says, which is what I said. Consensus to merge toward Mar-a-Lago face if there was a merge. The move close misread the consensus and reframed it incorrectly in the exact opposite direction. I cross posted this to Talk:Mar-a-Lago face here and to User talk:Jimbo Wales here for transparency and to notify watchers there who previously weighed in. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Protagonist (Nier) → Nier (character) – This character is referred to as Nier by fans, sources, and apparently even Yoko Taro himself (according to one of the sources in the Concept section). Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL, this article should be renamed and modified to reflect this. The introduction can be rewritten to say that this character's name is player-chosen, but is most often referred to as Nier. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – British colonisation of Tasmania → British colonisation of Lutruwita – Wikipedia routinely avoids applying later or modern place names to historical events where they introduce anachronism. This practice is evident in article titles such as Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire (rather than Iran), Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (rather than Mexico), Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire (rather than Peru), and British conquest of Sindh (rather than Pakistan). Wikipedia’s approach in comparable cases is not simply to prefer colonial-era names, but to use the name by which a territory was known at the time, where that name is historically attested and appropriate to the subject matter. Indigenous names for the island pre-date European contact and were used and recorded during the early period of early British occupation and administration. In 1829, George Augustus Robinson recorded the island’s name as Loe.trou.witter, derived from a Palawa (Tasmanian Aboriginal) language. Contemporary Palawa kani place name spellings, including Lutruwita, are reconstructed from such early phonetic renderings. Using Lutruwita therefore reflects a historically attested Indigenous name adapted into modern orthography, rather than retroactively applying the later colonial name “Tasmania” to a period in which it did not exist. === Policy considerations === * WP:ACCURACY – The current title applies a name not used during the period covered by the article. * WP:PRECISE – Lutruwita refers unambiguously to the island without introducing a later colonial term. * WP:COMMONNAME – Wikipedia does not favour familiar or modern names where they create historical inaccuracy. * WP:NPOV – The proposal does not remove or minimise colonial terminology, which remains fully addressed within the article text. CineBrick315 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – King Buppan Peak → Cerro Mudugndoe – According to the article's description, the references don't clearly show a map or visual aid for its location; however, a map from 1889 helps pinpoint the peak's exact position. Observing nearby geographical features and analyzing them through GeoNames, the peak in question is now called Cerro Mudugndoe, with an altitude of 754 meters. No other peaks in the area reach this height, so there is 100% certainty that it is the ancient King Buppan, but with a Ngäbe name, the indigenous group currently residing in the area. The name appears in Panamanian legal documents (Law 33 of 2012, page 40 of the PDF in "3. Corregimiento San Pedrito (Jiküi)". Taichi (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Fixer (person) → Fixer (journalism) – Moving is step one of cleaning this page up, step two being the removal of large amounts of trivial content. This article as it exists currently is a clear example of a DICDEF covering three separate topics at once, only one of which appears to be notable in its own right; a "person who gets things done" is not an encyclopedic topic and we already have an article on match fixing. The usage in journalism is the only one that appears to have the potential for an article of its own (plenty of sources to be found — , , ), and this, I propose that this article be reshaped to fit that purpose. — Anonymous 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – KEXP-FM → KEXP – The WP:COMMONNAME for this station/organization is obviously "KEXP" without the "-FM" suffix. The Wikipedia:Article titles policy would support to using "KEXP". WP:RADIONAMING is a Wikiproject home page, not a policy document. It links to the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), which states:  :Articles in [...] the United States are almost universally call sign-titled—that is, the title is the current call sign issued by a national regulatory authority. In these countries, all such stations are issued a call sign. There may, of course, be cases where a group of stations has a common name title. (emphasis mine) The guideline has a clear provision to allow common name article titles even in regions where call sign titles are the norm. A move to "KEXP" would use the common name title while still utilizing the shortened, more common form of the callsign. The suffix present in the official call sign is not needed for disambiguation. "KEXP" also better represents the overall parent "arts organization" described in this article that happens to run two radio stations; "KEXP-FM" and "KEXC" could exist as sub-sections in the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies → House of Bourbon – Two Sicilies – or House of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies. The hyphen seems grammatically incorrect. An unspaced en dash would also not be correct, as this is not expressing a "between" relationship, but rather a context of this being a branch of the House of Bourbon that is from the Two Sicilies. I also see the suggested alternative with "of the" in some cited sources. I also found "House of Bourbon Two Sicilies" (with a space and no punctuation) in some sources, but that doesn't seem correct either. Some constructions seem to imply a House that is of a place or lineage called "Bourbon Two Sicilies", but this is not about "Bourbon Two Sicilies" or "Bourbon-Two" Sicilies. It is about a House of Bourbon in the Two Sicilies. There are also 22 other Wikipedia articles that have "House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" somewhere in their titles that should presumably be moved too, but I thought I would just start with the main topic's article title and then worry about the others. I took a look, and the 23 articles seem to generally have almost no English-language sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Filter dryer → Filter drier – The article's name should be renamed from "filter dryer" to "filter "drier", since websites use the term "filter drier". Feel free to share your thoughts below this text. BilltheBison (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – LuniZunie(talk) 03:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Soul on Fire → Soul on Fire (album) – The album Soul on Fire has a daily average pageview of just 3 this year so far, peaking at 35 only because of the film article at Soul on Fire (film). That film came out in early October, and a couple of months later, it still has hundreds of pageviews daily, so it should be the primary topic now. The pageviews for the year can be seen here, and the last 20 days can be seen here, showing the film having a daily average of 540 vs. the album's average of 3. As mentioned in the discussion above, the very similar 2011 film Soul Surfer (film) still has hundreds of pageviews in the past 20 days, also seen here. So it's highly likely the film Soul on Fire will be primary due to readers much more likely to seek that out than any other topic. Only one other topic is called "Soul on Fire", Soul on Fire (EP), which also has very low traffic. There are other non-article items at Soul on Fire (disambiguation). Erik (talk | contrib) 16:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Stephen Marshall (murderer) → Killings of William Elliott and Joseph Gray – Person notable for only one event. As explained in WP:BIO1E, "[t]he general rule is to cover the event, not the person" in a case such as this. It rarely happens that the extraordinary political, social or historical nature of an event can make a single person merit their own page (Crooks, Chauvin, Guiteau), but the event in question here has no more relevance than any other notable true-crime cases that we usually cover on Wikipedia (maybe even less, since this one doesn't even meet WP:SUSTAINED). I see nothing out of the ordinary here that would lead us to go against conventional standards and give this person an individual article that, in this case, overshadows the event itself. V. S. Video (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Dhan Singh → Dhan Singh Gurjar – The current title “Dhan Singh” is incomplete and potentially misleading. The commonly used and legally attested full name is “Dhan Singh Gurjar.” The name “Dhan Singh Gurjar” appears in multiple reliable sources and is the correct full form of the historical figure's name. * Misspellings and variations such as “Dhan Singh” and “Dhan Singh Gurjar” exist, but the fuller and more accurate title is supported by usage. * Additional source for the correct full name (commonly and legally used): https://indianculture.gov.in/node/2801047 Aryansh Jindhad (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – PCAA → ? – The chemical is not a clear primary term; there are only 4 incoming links and 2 are for the sports conference. Not sure where the chemical should be moved to. Ox Melissa (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

    December 17, 2025

    • (Discuss) – Festina → Festina (company) – The company has 2,082 views but the cycling team has 205, the Iowa place has 67, lente has 2,906, affair has 685, lente (Pärt) has 101, lente (bridge) has 62, Joventut has 2 and Andorra has 1[]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – WFNZ (AM) → WPZS – The call signs of these stations have all changed since their respective format flips on December 11. The page for the former WPZS was already moved to what is now WLNK-FM with no apparent issues. Also, each page has already been edited to include their new call signs in the article itself along with a note at the top referencing the previous station that used the corresponding call sign. mcy919 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

    December 16, 2025

    • (Discuss) – Maisy → Maisy (TV series) – I formally propose this page be moved to Maisy (TV series), to make it easier for people to see this is specifically about the TV series and not the entire franchise/the book series. There is the note at the top of the page to say this, but I think it would be useful to also have it in the title of the page. Sharktale2000 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – Protagonist (Persona 3) → Persona 3 protagonist – There appears to be no naming conventions for articles about fictional characters who do not have ANY of the following: 1) a singular canon name (or one of many canon names that falls under WP:COMMONNAME, especially when the same character can be different genders and the canon names are not gender neutral as in the case of this character) 2) a singular code name that can be used no matter what the character's real name is (e.g Joker (Persona)) 3) a common unofficial name that fans and/or sources use (e.g. Death Angels (A Quiet Place)) 4) a common noun that the creators/publishers use to generally refer to the character (e.g. Heroes III, IV, and V of the Dragon Quest series, I've never interacted with the series before so correct me if I am wrong on this one. With that in mind, I am not a fan of the title of this article, as it falsely implies that the (common) name of the protagonist from Joker 3 is "Protagonist". Per Wikipedia:NATURAL and the fact that there is no common or canon name, this article should be renamed to "Persona 3 protagonist." Even if this article stays as its currently title, we should have some sort of naming convention for characters like this one. Alternate proposal: Protagonist of Persona 3 Edit: apologies if "Joker 3" comes up at all from this discussion, my mind morphed together Joker from Persona with the Joker movies (despite there only being 2). I did accidentally request the move to "Joker 3 protagonist" at first. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    • (Discuss) – PLA → PLA (disambiguation) – Proposing that the current page PLA be moved to a disambiguation page and that People's Liberation Army becomes the WP:PRIMARY topic. The People's Liberation Army is one of the institutions that is very commonly referred to by just its abbreviation (similar to FBI, CIA and CCP and so on). The only other possible major article that commonly uses PLA as an abbreviation, polylactic acid, consistently gets less page views than the army, and feels to much of a niche topic compared to the other PLA. Readers searching the more technical chemical term would more likely to search it by its full name anyways. The Account 2 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

    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) – Specialty registrar → Registrar (medicine) – PThe current name of this article only refers to the post-MMC StR grade, despite also covering the pre-MMC SpR grade following the merger of that article into this one. It also refers only to the term in the UK context, despite the fact that the position of Registrar is used in health systems in multiple other nations, especially those in the Commonwealth, which could be considered a WP:NPOV violation on the grounds of ethnocentric bias. A move to the more generic title of Registrar (medicine), in common with the Consultant (medicine) article would be easier and more intuitive to search (considering many people call all manifestations of the grade just "registrar" anyway, WP:COMMONNAME), open the article up to cover the use of the term in the global context, and better represent the existing content of the article. The article could then go on to discuss the StR and SpR grades. Dan :] (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

    Malformed requests

    See "Bot considerations"

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

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

        See also