🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RMB
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 70 discussions have been relisted.

December 6, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Template:Mycomorphbox → Template:Infobox mycological characteristics – Use the standard naming style of infoboxes with WP:TPN (Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization) fixes. Gonnym (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 23:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 07:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 5, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Masha Gessen → M. GessenM. Gessen – Following the June–August 2025 discussion above, significant additional reliable sources now consistently use “M. Gessen” as the subject’s professional and public name. Major RS now using “M. Gessen” include: * The New York Times (current byline): https://www.nytimes.com/by/m-gessen * PEN America profile: https://pen.org/user/m-gessen/ * Bard College faculty listing: https://www.bard.edu/faculty/details/?id=4486 * CUNY Graduate Center faculty page (also using M. Gessen) * MSNBC onscreen graphics and interviewer address These are the subject’s most prominent contemporary appearances in high-quality RS. Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should reflect the name most commonly used in current reliable English-language sources. While book covers and some international outlets continue using the former name for legacy or marketing reasons, the present professional identity used in ongoing journalism and academic contexts is “M. Gessen”. Per WP:BLP and WP:DEADNAME, biographies of living nonbinary individuals should avoid emphasizing former names that are no longer used, except when necessary for clarity. The former name can still be mentioned once in the lead, but the article title should reflect the subject’s current, verifiable public name. Given the clear shift in RS usage since the earlier discussion, I propose renaming the article to align with current sourcing and BLP considerations. Lacanic (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – OKD → OKD (company)OKD (company) – This is a three-letter acronym also used in a wide variety of fields of endeavor, and this mining company does not appear to be the primary topic for it. Per WP:DPT, we can for example look at: * All-time monthly page views comparison between the top two meanings shows that it's unlikely that the average English reader strongly associates this term with the company, when the readership of the article about this and other software is 50 times larger (!) than the readership of the article about the latter * Google Books Ngrams for this and related terms indicate the company is occasionally mentioned, but there's no clear indication that it's the most commonly known topic, let alone more common than all others combined * With a Google Books search for OKD, in the first 10 results I only get 1 that mentions the company, 2 that mention the software, and 7 others I already disambiguated a handful of incoming links and disambiguated it, but the move was then reverted as "potentially controversial". I don't quite see the controversy, but let's have a formal discussion just in case. The other 'issue' was that the OKD software doesn't have a standalone article, but that's not relevant as it meets the standard of WP:DABMENTION. All in all, when even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic, I don't think there can be a genuine discussion about there being a primary topic by usage. With regard to long-term significance, I don't think there can be any substantial advantage for a nationally-known company that is not active in the English-speaking parts of the world, when compared to internationally-known software in English usage. Even if it is technically 10 times older, both are generally recent. Plus the language and the airport in other parts of the world, too. This acronym is simply ambiguous, and we should not risk surprising English readers by presenting them a false lack of ambiguity. Joy (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 4, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Online Safety Amendment → Australian social media ban – The current title is unsatisfactory for several reasons – it is not the common name or the official name, and I can find very few sources that talk about the "Online Safety Amendment" without mentioning the full name of the act. The article is also now about much more than just the enabling legislation but about the wider implementation of the ban through regulations and the resulting reaction. I think "[Australian] social media ban" is pretty clearly the common name, domestic [4][5][6] and international sources [7][8] don't seem to refer to it as anything else. I T B F 📢 23:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cnut's invasion of England → Danish conquest of EnglandDanish conquest of England – Several books centered on the subject use this expression in their titles: * Howard, Ian (2003). Swein Forkbeard's Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England * James, Jeffrey (2013). An Onslaught of Spears: The Danish Conquest of England * Parker, Eleanor (2016). A Short History of the Danish Conquest It is also used within several authoritative books on the period, like The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Renaming the article would also allow it to cover the entire period 1013–1016, including the invasion of Sweyn Forkbeard. As far as I can tell, historians tend to study both invasions together. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Parliamentary procedure → Legislative procedureLegislative procedure – Parliament, a congress-type legislature, and a supreme state organ of power are not the same. A parliament, if we are strict here, implies the fusion of power and exists within a parliamentary system. A congress-type legislature (an article we are currently missing) exists within presidential system and is organised on the separation of powers. A supreme state organ of power exists in communist states and is based on unified power. However, they all have their distinct procedures. A distinct article on parliamentary procedure should and could be created, but this article about legislative procedure more generally in all states, whether they practice the fusion of powers, the separation of powers or unified power. The article title should reflect that. I have a distinct feeling someone will say; not all parliaments are based on the fusion of powers. That is true, in some African states that originally practiced a parliamentary system (with the British monarch as their monarch) have instituted separation of power systems, or that some refer to their legislature as parliament. Therefore, one confusingly has a term that can entail everything and one specific thing (parliamentary fusion of power systems). However, legislature, uncontroversially, encompasses a parliament, a congress-type legislature, a supreme state organ of power or any other form of legislative body. That is uncontroversial. So let's pick a name that is both accessible and most correct. TheUzbek (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 3, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Thuringii → ThuringiThuringi – The name of this people is commonly written Thuringi (singular Thuringus), consistently with Latin nouns of Germanic origin in -ingī (singular -ingus). English-language publications on the subject prefer the spelling Thuringi, such as The Baiuvarii and Thuringi: An Ethnographic Perspective. The Boydell Press. 2014. ISBN 978 184383 915 6. (edited by J. Fries-Knoblach and H. Steuer). See also this Ngram showing that Thuringi is much more common than “Thuringii” in English usage. Auteuil-Passy (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Autonomism → Autonomist MarxismAutonomist Marxism – I have completed a rewrite of the article which added substantial information on the history and key tenets of this school of thought, which clarifies its Marxist lineage. While there is some overlap with anarchist thought, all three major book-length sources used currently (Cleaver, Eden, and Wright) make clear the differences in the practical and theoretical approaches, and introduce and refer to it as "autonomist Marxism" (Wright including it in his title). The treatment is similar in currently unused sources, such as Cyber-Marx by Nick Dyer-Witheford (based on the Google Books preview). There is also the question of whether this is the primary topic for the term "Autonomism" versus the articles listed at Autonomism (disambiguation), which I am not convinced of. — Goszei (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gary Plauché → Killing of Jeffery DoucetKilling of Jeffery Doucet – 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 (Mangione, Kaczynski, Crooks), but the event in question here has no more relevance than any other notable true-crime cases that we usually cover on Wikipedia (most of which have WP:SUSTAINED and international coverage just like this one). 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. The previous move discussion should have been closed as no consensus at best. Two "oppose" !votes (one by a 1-edit account) didn't provide any policy-based reasoning. Out of the three !votes that did, two were the nomination and another "support" !vote. Plauché is clearly not more important than the event itself, given that all of his "notablity" is related to this event and nothing else. V. S. Video (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Konstanty Ostrogski → Konstiantyn Ostrozky – Discussion from this page from several years ago seemingly came to a consensus for moving to the modern Ukrainian spelling of his name (using the national romanization). While the argument could be made that the family itself should be primarily referred to by Ostrogski instead of Ostrogsky due to its role during the period of Polish rule over Ruthenia, I don't see any reason why an ethnic Ruthenian who served the Grand Duchy Lithuania before its union with the Kingdom of Poland should be referred in Polish. He did not serve the Kingdom of Poland, did not live in the Kingdom of Poland, and was not an ethnic Pole. Konstiantyn Ostrozky is also the spelling name used by major reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine [20] and Encyclopedia Britannica[21] Azixw (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Princess Alexandra (born 1936) → ? – "(born 1936)" is only used when disambiguation is needed for two people sharing the same name, and occupation. There is no need for disambiguation here as the subject has a unique name. Now, since there's an issue with this title, maybe it could be moved to simply Princess Alexandra in which case the disambiguation page could be moved to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). Of course, the short description "British princess (born 1936)" would disambiguate it. Spectritus (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Destinyokhiria 💬 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Heterochromia iridum → HeterochromiaHeterochromia – The article states that "heterochromia iridum" is specifically when one has one eye of one color, and another eye of another color, while "heterochromia iridis" is when one eye has two colors (also called "partial heterochromia"). While the former seemingly takes up a lot of the article, it also seems to cover the latter, as well as mentioning that "heterochromia" can also affect the skin and eyes. ★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of Armenia → Arab invasion of Armenia – The current title doesn't follow WP:NPOV with respect to scholarship on the topic, which eschews the language of "Muslim conquest" in favour of "Arab invasion/conquest". This is clear from the Ngram, which producss nothing for the current title, and from the RS that support the page, which reference in turn: "The Arab Period in Arminiyah" (Dadoyan), "The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni" (Nina), and "The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia" (Ter-Ghewondyan). The sourcing (and WP:NPOV) doesn't really support an alternative to "Arab invasion/conquest", with "invasion" seemingly having the slightly greater RS profile of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2, 2025

[edit]
  • (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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Astro Box Office → Astro Thangathirai – As far as I can tell, Astro Thangathirai is the only "Astro Box Office" channel still running. The current channel seems to be formally called Astro Thangathirai, but is still called "Astro Box Office Thangathirai" on that page. According to this article, the current "Astro Showcase" isn't an "Astro Box Office" channel. I couldn't find a sports channel on Astro that calls itself "Box Office Sport," so I don't think any of them would count either. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Libyan civil war (2014–2020) → Second Libyan Civil WarSecond Libyan Civil War – Multiple high-quality academic, policy, and journalistic sources already refer to this conflict as the Second Libyan Civil War, using the same retrospective naming conventions that Wikipedia applies to older multi-phase civil wars (e.g., First/Second Boer War, First/Second Sudanese Civil War, First/Second Congo War, First/Second English Civil War). Numbering civil wars after the fact is a standard historical practice once multiple related conflicts have occurred, and this conflict has fully concluded. At this point, reliable sources such as Brookings, Chatham House, International Crisis Group, RAND, various peer-reviewed journals, and major international newspapers routinely use the “Second Libyan Civil War” terminology. Wikipedia’s current naming (“Libyan civil war (2014–2020)”) is an internally-created date-based disambiguation that was appropriate during the conflict but is no longer consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of comparable cases. Once a sequence of civil wars exists and widely-used retrospective names appear in the literature, Wikipedia typically adopts the standardized proper-noun naming format. Renaming to Second Libyan Civil War improves clarity, aligns with reliable sources, and brings Libya into consistency with Wikipedia’s established naming conventions for multi-phase civil wars. Prestdobmei (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)|2=LLM content}} — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Marthe de Pillecyn → Marthe De PillecynMarthe De Pillecyn – Please Don't delete the target article but histmerge the two instead. The title with capital D is the correct one, this one with lowercase "d" is wrong. I had added a mergeto tag on the article, but the article creator insisted in reverting it away because it was "ugly". So I use the less correct "requested move" instead of the more correct "mergeto", to get this done without further interference (I hope). Fram (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Fixer (person) → Fixer (journalism)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 — [27], [28], [29]), and this, I propose that this article be reshaped to fit that purpose. — Anonymous 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Upton-upon-Severn → Upton upon SevernUpton upon Severn – I want to reconsider the 2019 requested move. I have gathered more data both for and against. I don't want to burden the Requested moves page, so I'll add full analysis to the Talk page. Tl;dr - the town's name, according to the majority of local references, is Upton upon Severn; its addresses are formally Upton-upon-Severn although town businesses' websites often ignore that. I believe the style currently used for its name within the town itself, almost universally, is the more appropriate page title. David Brooks (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – KEXP-FM → KEXPKEXP – 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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mar-a-Lago face → Republican makeup – I merged Mar-a-Lago face into Republican makeup per the discussion at § Distinction from Republican makeup, but the direction of the merge was contested. Since a RM was proposed during the merge discussion itself, and the consensus on the target wasn't clear, i think a proper move discussion is needed. I'm personally open to alternatives but for now I consider Republican makeup to be a better target, as was very nicely explained in this comment by @Herostratus:

    "Republican makeup" is more or less value-neutral while "Mar-A-Lago face" is lowkey insulting, inflammatory, and female body-shaming (even tho "Republican makeup" is intended to be pejorative, it's not that bad; you can certainly envision someone saying "I'm proud of my conservative dress and Republican makeup" straight-up but not "I'm proud of my Mar-A-Lago face" so much except as an asteism (rather than rejecting an insult, transforming it into a badge of honor) which is not the same thing at all).

    [...] I don't care how many sources use the phrase Mar-A-Lago face. [...] If the article was primarily about the phrase (etymology etc) rather than the phenomenon that'd be different. But it's not.

    FaviFake (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Optus blames 'significant' outage in Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula on vandalism". ABC News. 26 November 2025. Archived from the original on 26 November 2025. Retrieved 26 November 2025.
  2. ^ "Rights probe alleges sexual violence against Palestinians by Israeli forces used as 'method of war' | The United Nations Office at Geneva". www.ungeneva.org. 2025-03-13. Retrieved 2025-12-01.
  3. ^ Robertson, Nick (2024-02-19). "UN experts condemn 'credible' reports of executions, sexual assault by Israeli soldiers". The Hill. Archived from the original on 2024-04-09. Retrieved 2025-12-01.
  4. ^ "Video appears to show IDF soldiers sexually abusing Palestinian detainee". Sky News. Retrieved 2025-12-01.
Rockwizfan (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 30, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Street storming → Đi bãoĐi bão – 'Street storming' is one way to translate 'đi bão', but I much more commonly hear 'go storm', 'go for a storm', 'go make a storm', 'riding the storm' and all sorts of variants of that. It would be best for the article to treat đi bão as a proper noun for a global audience and refer to it as such within the article, since there is no agreed upon English term that can be attested, especially outside of Vietnam. It is kind of like 'nhậu' - the best way to refer to it in English is also 'nhậu' since there is no agreement on an English translation that can capture its nuance. QUYE7 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Windows Media Player (2022) → Media PlayerMedia Player – Hello everyone. The current title is problematic for a number of reasons: *The name of the software is simply "Media Player", including in all the menus and the about page. The ONLY place where the prefix "Windows" appears is outside in its Microsoft Store page and only in the title, simply for the purpose of indicating to users on the Store that it is Microsoft's own product. Otherwise read the rest of the page and there is never another mention of "Windows" as a prefix:[3] **"Media Player is designed to make listening to and watching your multimedia content more enjoyable." **"We designed the new Media Player to make listening to and watching your multimedia content more enjoyable on Windows 11" **"Media Player replaces Groove Music" And support articles on the Microsoft website also state simply "Media Player".[4] Anything with the prefix refers to the legacy Windows Media Player, not this. Simply put, the product name with the "Windows" in front is not officially correct. *"(2022)" is not an ideal way to distinguish a software product - to me the title sounds like it's a temporary product or an event from the year 2022 - but more importantly it is not exact anyway and misleading because technically Media Player was first publicly available in November 2021![5] Therefore I think it should be renamed to the simple and accurate 'Media Player'. At the moment that article is a redirect to 'Media player' but because it is merely a capital P and there is no other article with the same exact whole word, it shouldn't be an issue I think.

References

  1. ^ "Al-Qaida in Yemen driven from 2 major strongholds". Deseret News. Associated Press. 2012-06-12. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
  2. ^ Coombs, Casey L. (2013-02-20). "Yemen's Use of Militias to Maintain Stability in Abyan Province". Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Retrieved 2025-11-30.
  3. ^ https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9wzdncrfj3pt?hl=en-US&gl=US
  4. ^ https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/codecs-in-media-player-d5c2cdcd-83a2-4805-abb0-c6888138e456
  5. ^ https://www.ghacks.net/2021/11/18/media-player-windows-11/
~2025-37524-73 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kirk → ? – It seems fairly clear that the term meaning 'church' doesn't have a clear primary topic over the surname or the given name. Further, there are numerous (some very relevant) people with the surname, which further prevents a clear primary topic for the term. It should be noted, though, that according to Wikinav, people who end up on the term's page are, to a decent extent (although not in large amounts), going to the disambiguation page and from there often to people with either the given name or surname. [35]. However, people strictly coming to the disambiguation page are overwhelmingly looking for the surname or the given name. [36] GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 05:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]

November 29, 2025

[edit]

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Killing off → Character death – "Killing off" is an overly vague term that can apply to real life (like "coral are being killed off by global warming"), and also implies a specific form of fictional death in which a character in an ongoing television series that was previously not planned to die was "killed off" due to extenuating circumstances such as an actor's real-life death. This article is about essentially all forms of fictional character death. If moved, "killing off" may have to be deleted entirely due to vagueness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1325968424#Backlog"