This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
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.
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 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.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My character encoding converter is currently indicating that the second and fourth letters that you just typed here and are using in the article, ь, is actually the soft sign letter in Cyrillic, not the b letter in Latin. If it is suppose to be Latin b, as in Qbzbl Armies, you should also be able to move it there normally. If it really is suppose to be the soft sign ь in Cyrillic, then no such page move. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both I with bowl#Encoding and the second paragraph of the lead section of Yañalif discuss this issue that the letter is not included in character encoding methods like Unicode, and therefore most computer systems substitute it with similar letters like the Cyrillic soft sign. That is likely why both my system and the Wiki software do detect it as the soft sign and not the obsolete Yañalif letter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat surprised that @Soman would put in this RMTR request just before putting the article up for DYK [1] which seems risky. It would seem wise to defer one or the other for now, as we wouldn't want this to be posted at DYK and then have a page move occur in the middle of it with the necessary cleanup required. Nor does it even seem like a full RM would make sense. TiggerJay(talk)17:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer of that nom here, I had approved it because I was unaware it’d be controversial; I thought it’d be moved shortly after being approved. EF517:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this to its prior long-term title of Battle of Shklow, which also matches the article on the town itself at Shklow. This should probably be discussed as it doesn't seem uncontroversial at least, given uncertainty over common name and that the locality is in present-day Belarus rather than Poland. — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet These sorts of moved have been seen as particularly contentious recently. This should require either a full RM, or perhaps better yet, a discussion over at WP:NCKO to help clarify the issues causing great contention. TiggerJay(talk)17:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet These sorts of moved have been seen as particularly contentious recently. This should require either a full RM, or perhaps better yet, a discussion over at WP:NCKO to help clarify the issues causing great contention. TiggerJay(talk)17:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Archivalbrowser Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES we don't necessarily use their full legal name, but rather the WP:COMMONNAME. And while looking through both the first 20 article citations -- aside from legal documents -- the majority of sources simply use Bet Tzedek. Furthermore their website and social media sources point towards the shorter name as well. TiggerJay(talk)19:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I felt unsure considering the article’s creation begin with the title originally as Bet Tzedek - House of Justice, so I contacted the organization and they stated the legal name of their organization is in full Bet Tzedek Legal Services. Archivalbrowser (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Archivalbrowser - yes the House of Justice in the title is also probably not ideal, so I'm glad you did some work to sort things out. But yes, common name is still preferred here, which I think the current title is at the best place. But you can disagree with me, and start a full RM by clicking "discuss" next to your request above and bring it to the article talk page. TiggerJay(talk)20:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem non-controversial. I'd certainly reject this article if it was at AFC - stuff like [5] or [6] are passing references not primarily on the topic. They're "events / things to do this week" type stories not primarily about the group. There needs to be a strong secondary source about the group itself, not about events organized by it. (Disclaimer: I am a member of Wikimedia NYC, but opposing just myself, not as an official action or anything.) SnowFire (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that this is sort of an AFC move-to-article-space request, I've posted an analysis of the current sourcing of the article in this diff, for support of my above contesting. SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust: I'm familiar. I'm also saying that per NOTBURO, if someone nominates an article unready for main namespace anywhere, it's valid to contest it, even in an unusual location. Let's avoid a stressful AFD and get a well-sourced article first, then do an uncontroversial move out of draftspace. (This is basically the equivalent of AFC rejects - yes, an editor in good standing can stick them into the main space anyway, but it's a lot better to solve the issues first, unless the AFC reviewer was clearly out of step.) @Another Believer: It looks like SilverLocust is asking for your input. I'm not trying to "threaten" you or anything, but per above, I'd strongly recommend waiting here, the article is not that close to showing notability currently. Would you be willing to withdraw for now and wait? SnowFire (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no point in moving to the main space if you are you just going to flag it for deletion. I was looking for collaboration but I'll turn my focus elsewhere for now. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk)13:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Royiswariii - are you contesting this? I think it's safe to move, but your reply is slightly unclear as it mentions an RM, which looks like you might be calling for a discussion. ASUKITE15:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't realize it was a cover, and for some reason thought that we had a convention for not including punctuation, but was never able to find it because it probably doesn't exist. I'll move this over to contested. ASUKITE14:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the redirect DoDah so it now points to the disambiguation page Doodah, like other variants of this title. To be honest I think DooDah! sho0uld probably be moved to a disambiguated title and that should also redirect to the dab. I think many renditions of this have an exclamation mark so it's not a unique WP:SMALLDETAILS feature. — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") 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 7 February 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:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
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.
}}
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.
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)andCricket. 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:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
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 "• SupportOppose".
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.
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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – Tailgation → Tailgating (sports) – Tailgation seems an extremely rare word (only one GS hit; with GB using it in some other contexts; it seems like a niche synonym coined by a niche writer (per article, I deroted the link [7])) for what is more often known as tailgating. Tailgating, on the other hand, are a term used in academic literature in this context, although it has another meaning too (Tailgating). Another option would be tailgater or tailgaters, which is also used in this context (Check GScholar). Last note: tailgating+sport, in GS, accounts for 16k out of 18k uses (for tailgating). This might make it a primary meaning for this term? PS. There is also a chance that tailgation is a non-notable concept related to tailgating, but I am currently to tired to look into this - that said, the current stub is possibly WP:TNTable, which would save us the hassle of renaming it... :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Circle of Hope → Circle of Hope (book) – I am proposing that the page "Circle of Hope" be turned into a disambiguation page, with the article for this book being disambiguated. It is my personal opinion that the former boarding school is the primary topic for this phrase (albeit I am somewhat biased, as I created the page for the school), but the book is relatively recent and has been a finalist for a major award, so I believe that the best course of action is to create a disambiguation page and reassess the situation in a year or two. Per Toolforge, the boarding school receives about 50% more views than the book does. There was a spike in both pages on 10/28/2024. Not sure what the original source of that is right now. Other spikes have occurred on the boarding school's page in Nov. and Dec. 2024, but without the coinciding views on the book's page. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-10-10&end=2025-01-22&pages=Circle_of_Hope%7CCircle_of_Hope_Girls_Ranchwizzito | say hello! 04:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk) 05:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – KBS → KBS (disambiguation) – While there's many other KBS-es at DAB page, but South Korean public broadcaster Korean Broadcasting System is a primary topic (aka WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) for the term "KBS". According to pageviews, South Korean broadcaster as "KBS" received 57,173 pageviews in the last 90 days (out of more than 80K total pageviews with similar "KBS" name). So, this page needs to be moved to KBS (disambiguation) while retarget "KBS" base name for the South Korean broadcaster. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mass deportation of illegal immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump → Deportation of illegal immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump – This is not yet a mass deportation. The mass deportation label appears to be, so far, more aspirational than actual. RS coverage that focuses on mass deportation as a term highlights that the actual numbers of deportees are not actually all that high and the term of mass deportation appear to be more relevant to messaging efforts than actual numbers of deportees. All articles from Feb 1 or later to reflect up to date RS coverage when ICE stats were more available. The Guardian discusses how Google timestamps from ICE webpages are seemingly being gamed by updating old releases to create a "mirage" of mass deportation. Politico mentions how there is substantial media coverage of supposed mass deportation, driven by messaging from the WH, but the number of daily Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests, trumpeted each day on X, are still about where they were at times under President Barack Obama., states in their own words: President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan he promised during the campaign has not yet taken hold, and quotes an Obama era ICE director stating: it sends messages that are inaccurate about what ICE has historically done — that this is new. Moreover, the common name appears to just be "deportation", and "mass deportation" when used by RS is typically for referencing political officials, namely Trump. Ex: The New York Times - using deportation in their own words, and only using mass deportation referencing Trump's campaign promise. Associated Press - uses deportation, and mass deportation when discussing Trump's promise. WSJ - similarly uses deportation in own words, "mass deportation" is brought up as Trump's campaign promise. NPR - uses deportation, mass deportation is brought up as Trump's promise. There are a few sources that do appear to opt to use mass deportation, which appear to be from earlier articles before stats were largely available or lack of care in word choice, like this example from Forbes (liveblog?), which breaks up between quoting Trump for the term and using it without quotes in section headers. In which case, it's worth noting: inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; from WP:TITLE. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Martin Peyerl → Bad Reichenhall shooting – The shooting is much more significant than its perpetrator. Existing German and Polish wikipedia articles are titled "Bad Reichenhall shooting". Articles about Peyerl's killings focus more on the shooting than Peyerl as an individual. Nearly all of them refer to the shooting in Bad Reichenhall, not the mass murderer Martin Peyerl. See Amok by Bannenberg in 2010, Amok und andere Formen schwerer Gewalt by Hoffmann and Roshdi in 2018, and Amoklauf und School Shooting by Scheithauer and Bondü in 2011 for references to "Bad Reichenhall shooting" rather than Martin Peyerl as the main subject. Compare Mark O. Barton to 1999 Atlanta day trading firm shootings move for similar reasoning. Rubintyrann (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Mielec) → Grzegorz Lato Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE18:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2009–10 Malmö shootings → Peter Mangs – While this article is very out of date and covers this poorly, the primary topic that the sources focus on is Mangs. Mangs was a serial killer, which we cover biographically as it is not a single event type of crime (imagine trying to cover Ted Bundy as 1970s American serial killings). The better developed Swedish article is written about Mangs. The two books and all journal articles about this topic are about Mangs as a person and structure their information to that effect, we should follow their lead. The very similar Laser Man I (this is Laser Man II) has a biographically based article for much of the same reason: John Ausonius. I want to improve this but as is this article's scope excludes much of his crime spree. It was written after the initial spate of news and just never updated again. This will have to be rewritten but I volunteer to do that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE18:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Miejski Stadion Piłkarski "Raków" → Raków Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE18:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Paradisus Judaeorum → The Kingdom of Poland is... – This is the English-language rendering of the Latin-language title of the first of 5 pasquils, composed between 1606 and 1708-1709 (which are cited in the article in extenso) satirizing Polish society. (The 2nd pasquil was titled "Poland is..."; the 3rd, 4th, and 5th pasquils - "The illustrious Kingdom of Poland is...".) The five pasquils were written in Latin, which in the early modern period was an official language of governance in Poland. In the 19th century, the five pasquils were reduced to a four-member Polish-language saying that described Poland as "heaven for the nobility, purgatory for townfolk, hell for peasants, paradise for Jews." The article's most recent move, to "Paradisus Judaeorum", was an inappropriate instance of "pars pro toto" (the use of part of an entity to represent the entire entity). Nihil novi (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE18:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Landtag Styria → Landtag of Styria – The current title of this article is grammatically incorrect when following English grammar rules. While "Landtag Styria" aligns with German conventions, English Wikipedia adheres to English grammar. Saying "Landtag Styria" is as incorrect as saying "Mayor New York City" instead of "Mayor of New York City." To omit "of", the title would need to be "Styria Landtag". Furthermore, there is no official translation that uses "Landtag Styria", which would be the only valid justification that comes to mind for adopting this unconventional form. –Tobias (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Branding subtitles – Subtitles and possessives used for brand recognition may be omitted for concision, unless they are being used for natural disambiguation.
Branding subtitles – Subtitles and possessives used for brand recognition may be omitted for concision, unless they are being used for natural disambiguation.
(Discuss) – Mountain Parkway Byway → Mountain Parkway (West Virginia) – The name of this page is a bit ambiguous as to which highway it is pertaining to; "Mountain Parkway" is a bit of a generalized name. Furthermore, this article actually pertains to two separate similarly named highways; the aforementioned "Mountain Parkway Byway," as well as the "Mountain Parkway Backway." The current article name gives undue weight to the former in spite of the fact that it covers both in an equal amount of detail. It can be further argued that the two highways are really just one singular one with two separate designations, therefore having a simpler name of "Mountain Parkway" would much better represent the the topic in an equivalent manner. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Imzadi 1979→08:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Białystok) → Białystok Municipal Stadium – I am submitting this request to revert the article title of the stadium in Białystok to its previous title, Białystok Municipal Stadium in light of recent actions by the user FromCzech. The move to the Polish-language title Stadion Miejski (Białystok) was made unilaterally and appears inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:UE. This guideline encourages the use of English translations where appropriate to maintain accessibility for the global readership. FromCzech has argued for the name change without prior discussion, potentially as a reaction to a naming debate on Lokotrans Aréna that I initiated. This recent move does not reflect a consensus, and it also disrupts the established consistency within the "Football venues in Poland" category, where nearly all stadium names are translated into English. Notable examples include Father Władysław Augustynek Stadium, Gdynia Municipal Stadium, Kielce Municipal Stadium, and Raków Municipal Stadium. I urge that the title "Białystok Municipal Stadium" be restored to uphold Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and transparency, while also preventing this matter from being affected by personal disputes or editing motivated by anything other than Wikipedia's editorial standards. Paradygmaty (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)06:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wu Tao-yan → Wu Tao-yuan – This is the correct and also more common name. his name is 吳道源, the last part is Yuan, not Yan. I did some searches and while Wu Tao-yan is used by some sources, Wu Tao-yuan is more common. ISSF for example uses this. both official Olympic reports and Asian Games reports use Yuan. Sports2021 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Dr vulpes(Talk)05:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Monkey King → Sun Wukong – This article was moved based on a very flawed argument with a response of one vote years ago. The usage of "Sun Wukong" is common in English. In other words, it is a "common English-language form of the name" per WP:UE (a policy drastically misunderstood in the previous move). Secondly, it is certainly the more recognizeable name, supported by the numbers per Ngram (about 3 x higher) while trending even further upwards over time. --Cold Season (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – China–United States trade war → United States trade war with China – I propose this move for two reasons. One because the new page name would be consistent with the way that America/Donald Trump's concurrent trade war with Canada and Mexico has been written (2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico). Two because it would reflect the historical record that it was the United States which started the trade war with China and not the other way around. The current page name not only doesn't make that clear, it gives the impression that the US and China shared responsibility for starting the war or that China was even responsible for starting it. Nghtcmdr (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Persian Caravanserai → List of caravanserais in Iran – As noted above, the recent AfD closed with merging List of Caravanserais of Iran due to content-forking and citation concerns. At the same discussion, I recommended that, after consolidation, we widen the scope of this article into a larger list article for all caravanserais in Iran. For a few reasons: *We don't need an article about the formal UNESCO World Heritage designation; the substantive topic here is the caravanserais themselves. This is true of most other UNESCO sites: we have articles about the sites themselves, not about their UNESCO designations, which is merely something to say about them. * A list of caravanserais in Iran is useful in and of itself, if properly sourced this time. * The current title, "The Persian Caravanserai", is the official name of the UNESCO entry but is not a good title for a Wikipedia article. We don't usually include "the" or uppercase for a common name unless it's the title of a work of art/literature (see WP:THE), and "Persian Caravanserai" on its own is not clear either, either for a list article or for a prose article. The UNESCO site should remain noted in the lead and the individually-recognized UNESCO sites should remain noted as such in the list itself, so not much would change other than expanding the list. PS: In the future, if editors want to turn this into a full prose article rather than a list with a brief intro, we could consider changing the title again, but at the moment the Caravanserai article already covers the topic in more detail. R Prazeres (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Onmyōji (novel series) → Onmyōji (short story series) – Although there are two novels in the series (one of them published across two volumes), there are sixteen volumes of short stories (and counting). Between the two, it is far more a series of short stories than one of novels. However, if there’s a term that encapsulates both, that might be preferable. The Japanese article uses 小説, which can refer to either. Tempjrds (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Burzenland → Țara Bârsei – WP:COMMONNAME. The last RM was rejected for no particular reason, no policy was invoked against WP:COMMONNAME that I argued applied here, I will argue more elaborately my RM now and ask for any opposing users to base their rationale on Wikipedia policies. "Țara Bârsei" is the Romanian name for an originally German ethnographic region today in Romania. "Țara Bârsei" is overall more common than "Burzenland" (the German name) in English-language sources in Google Scholar, it has 577 results vs. 477 results for Burzenland. We can see that the Romanian name has sharply increased in use in the past, showcasing a shift in academia: only 19 English-language sources from before 2000 use Țara Bârsei, vs. 89 for Burzenland, the ratio became 1:2 in 2010 (79 vs. 151), Burzenland was surpassed in 2019 (353 vs. 347), and more than double of sources since 2023 have used Țara Bârsei (75) compared to Burzenland (35), completely reversing the situation. Not only is Țara Bârsei overall more common, it has never been used as widely as today in English. Romanians form today an ethnic majority everywhere in the region (based on the #Towns section of the article) except for Apața, where they are a plurality. Having quickly checked all settlements listed there, I don't think I saw a single one where Germans reached even 2% of the population (the German population of Romania has decreased very sharply, from 786,000 in 1939 to 22,907 in 2022, info on why here [8][9]). The region is named after a tributary located fully in Romania, the article of which uses its Romanian name: Bârsa (Olt) (Burzen in German). Opposers of the previous RM stated that this article's topic mostly covers the historical moment when this region still had a German majority, but the name of Țara Bârsei sees widespread modern use (e.g. a local magazine that had published as recently as December 2023 [10], a 2024–2027 development project co-funded by the EU [11], a 2025 cultural event [12] or really just rather regular local news [13][14][15][16]). Țara Bârsei is more common both by English-language academia and by the native population, which has not abandoned the name, and it also follows the language of the namesake tributary it is named after. Previous policy-based arguments were dismissed without an appeal to policy. SuperΨDro00:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
February 4, 2025
(Discuss) – Rashtrakutas → Rashtrakuta Empire – The last RM was based on an ambiguous WP:AT and was no where close to WP:PRECISION, which unironically led to a surge in Ngram hits. The basis of measurement was flawed and shouldn't be taken into account—"Romans" yields more hits than "Roman Empire," but that doesn't mean it's the precise common name of the entity. Moreover, Ngram is not the sole tool for determining a common name. Not to mention, the previous Ngram analysis was limited to the year 2019 and lacked proper filtering for case sensitivity. Considering all factors, the new search provides a slightly different perspective, showing that there isn't a significant gap between "Rashtrakuta dynasty" and "Rashtrakuta Empire" [17]. Additionally, putative publishers tend to reference "Rashtrakuta Empire" more frequently than "Rashtrakuta dynasty.": {| class="wikitable" |+ !Engine !"Rashtrakuta Empire" !"Rashtrakuta dynasty" |- |Oxford Academic |10 |6 |- |Wiley Library |7 |1 |- |Taylor & Francis |29 |28 |} – GarudaTalk!22:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Operation Ten-Go → Operation Kikusui I – Operation Ten-Go was the overall name for Japanese air operations during the entire Okinawa campaign, replacing the previous Sho operations. The Japanese-language version doesn't mention Yamato until the very end. The Yamato sortie was part of one of the sub operations, Kikusui I, as a last-minute add-on. Alternative, 'Last sortie of the Yamato' or a similar title would also be appropriate. Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Fortress castle → Yagura castle – I'd like to propose a (potentially controversial?) reversal of the page moves by user Ish ishwar on 23 July 2019, where they moved the pages "Yagura caste" and "Yagura opening" to "Fortress castle" and "Fortress opening" respectively. This was seemingly done in accordance with WP:ENGLISHTITLE, going by Ish ishwar's edit summaries, which cite Fairbairn as a source for the translation. This seems to refer to John Fairbairn, author of the 1984 book Shogi for Beginners (ISBN4871872017). However, I would argue that: # "Yagura castle" is an English term according to WP:ENGLISHTITLE, and does not need to be translated further. #: It is commonly used in English sources about shogi, including in books. Japanese-English Shogi Dictionary by Tomohide "Hidetchi" Kawasaki (ISBN4905225086) uses "Yagura castle" alongside fully English terms like "Double Wing Attack" and "Side Pawn Picker," as can be seen on this photo. Other sources that use the term include Computers and Games by Jonathan Schaeffer and Martin Müller (2003), and Shogi: Japan's Game of Strategy by Trevor Leggett (2011). #: (On Google Search, the terms "yagura castle" and "yagura opening" also seem to be more commonly used on pages related to shogi than "fortress castle" and "fortress opening," although admittedly the difference is not large enough to be conclusive.) # "Fortress" is an inaccurate translation of the Japanese term. #: For the word "yagura" there is no definition equivalent to "fortress" mentioned in this online dictionary, or on Japanese Wikipedia's disambiguation page at . According to sources quoted on , the name of the shogi formation either comes from it looking similar to tower structures seen on walls and gates of Japanese castles (which are called Yagura (tower) on English Wikipedia), or it is named after a shop named Yagura (やぐら屋) that used to be located in Osaka city (in which case it would be a proper noun of unknown origin that cannot be translated). The fact that "fortress" does not correspond well to the original Japanese term of course does not make it less notable as an English term, and I think it should still be mentioned as an alternative name at the top of the article. However, I do feel that it is an additional argument (alongside the prevalence argument in point 1) for preferring "yagura" over "fortress" in the article titles, and as a primary term throughout the article texts. Spenĉjo (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia14:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Behind Enemy Lines (1986 film) → P.O.W. The Escape – The previous discussion that led to the determination that the film's primary title was Behind Enemy Lines appears to have been in error. The biography of actor David Carradine (Endless Highway, p. 553) states that Behind Enemy Lines was the filming title, later changed to P.O.W. The Escape. Every review and advertisement published at the time of the film's domestic opening (such as a free-to-access Los Angeles Times review by Patrick Goldstein), shows that the title had already been changed to P.O.W. The Escape. The American Film Institute catalog also calls it P.O.W. The Escape and identifies Behind Enemy Lines as a working title. Redacwiki (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk) 16:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia14:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Potamoi → River gods (Greek mythology) – "River gods in Greek mythology" (or similar) would also work fine. I can't find mention of the name "Potamoi" in any Greek mythological reference work (eg., Brill's New Pauly, Pauly–Wissowa, Gantz's Early Greek Myth, Grimal's Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Tripp's Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology) with the exception of Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology (for the quote from Hard, see the section directly above). Brill's New Pauly also has its entry at "River gods". Michael Aurel (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Chris Wright (energy executive) → Chris Wright – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. TimeToFixThis (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC) I propose moving the article Chris Wright (energy executive) to Chris Wright. Chris Wright will be serving as the United States Secretary of Energy, making him the most notable individual with this name. Given his high-profile position, he is the clear primary topic over other individuals named Chris Wright. TimeToFixThis (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Amouda cinema → Amuda cinema fire – The town's name is reported as Amuda in most sources and that is the name that the town's Wikipedia article is under. Adding "fire" makes it more clear that the article is predominantly about the fire, since the theatre is not notable in and of itself. Grumpylawnchair (talk)21:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Timelines of world history → ? – I'm not convinced that this is the best title for this article. World history seems to be more about human history although the term can technically be used for the history of Earth. Another option would be Timelines of the universe, but Timeline of the universe already exists. I'm torn on the title here. What would be a good title that represents the history of everything? I'm looking towards somewhere along the lines of Timeline of everything, but that title would be impractical. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Assemblies of God → World Assemblies of God Fellowship – On 16 July 2007, Assemblies of God and World Assemblies of God Fellowship were merged. Reason was for disambiguation. This request is to unmerge the two pages for the same reason of disambiguation and accuracy. Once unmerge, this page should be redirected to World Assemblies of God Fellowship. The move cannot be made because the name World Assemblies of God Fellowship already exists in the Wikipedia database. It needs to be unmerged first. There is a contention by another author that Assemblies of God is the common name. However, when the average person says, “Assemblies of God,” they are either referring to the Assemblies of God USA denomination or to people in general who belong to an AG denomination. But this page is not about the USA denomination, nor is it about people in general who belong to an AG denomination. This page is about the global cooperative body of over 170 Pentecostal denominations. It self identifies as World Assemblies of God Fellowship, and it is consistently referred to by others as such (per the references cited on the page). Calling this page Assemblies of God does not meet the precision test for article title. Tinihere (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Intrisit (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Maa Manithan → Maa Manithan (1995 film) – Both these films can easily be confused and in fact, the first source from this page [24] doesn't use a space (the 'n' may have been omitted due to size constraints) [25]. The title card from this film doesn't leave enough space leading to confusion [26]. Even if Maamanithan (film) is not moved, I feel this page should be moved nonetheless since it is not the primary topic. DareshMohan (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Foreign Secretary → ? – We currently have the British foreign secretary at Foreign Secretary and a disambiguation page for the other foreign secretaries at Foreign secretary. This distinction is an arbitrary Wikipedia decision, with no basis in the external world. It is unhelpful to both readers and editors. I cringe every time I have to pipe [[Foreign Secretary|foreign secretary]], and I can imagine that the readers are misled or confused by this Wiki-invented distinction. So how do we solve this? Do we: *A) treat the British foreign secretary as the primary meaning, leave this page at Foreign Secretary, and make Foreign secretary redirect to Foreign Secretary, *B) move this page to an unambiguous title and make Foreign Secretary a redirect the Foreign secretary disambiguation page, or *C) leave the circus as it is. Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Park Jun Yong → Park Jun-yong – this is the standard for Korean names, especially for MMA fighters. Want to make it consistent. This page was originally the anglicized version of "Jun Yong Park" but was changed abruptly. Currently, Park Jun-yong is a redirect page. Thanks in advance. [updated information] For the record, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_UFC_fighters all UFC fighters with the name are structured with the hyphen. Choi Doo-ho, Choi Seung-woo, Yoo Joo-sang, Kang Kyung-ho, Ko Seok-hyun, Lee Jeong-yeong, Lee Chang-ho. Park Hyun-sung. So I wanted it to be consistent Marty2Hotty (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – List of tie-breaking votes cast by the vice president of the United States → List of tie-breaking votes cast by the vice president in the United States Senate – There are 3 main reasons for this proposal: * Explicit Reference to the Senate – The vice president's tie-breaking votes are cast specifically in the United States Senate, as outlined in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The current title does not explicitly state this, which could lead to ambiguity. * Consistency with Related Articles – Other Wikipedia articles referencing the vice president’s Senate role (e.g., "President of the United States Senate") include "Senate" in the title for clarity. This move aligns with Wikipedia's style of specificity in legislative and governmental topics. * Improved Readability – The proposed title more clearly conveys the scope of the list, making it immediately evident that the vice president's role as a tie-breaker applies only in the Senate. This move enhances clarity without altering the fundamental meaning of the article. I welcome discussion on this proposal. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Q clearance → Department of Energy security clearances – My overall suggestion is that we move this to a more general article, like the proposed name, then merge in the related L clearance article into it. Both are short stubs that will likely always have limited information available, and tend to remain stubs. Also making it a more general article might make it easier to flesh out and expand. (I know there was a previous suggestion in 2007 to merge with the general Security clearance article. I'm not proposing this, I agree that keeping it separate makes sense.)-- The Navigators (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – United States DOGE Service → United States Digital Service – Per the conversations on the talk page starting 22 January 2025, the two organizations are both notable and different and should be two different pages. There is also precedent for this with the CIA and Health and Human Services. A new page will be created for the new United States DOGE Service content. There was no previous discussion before the first Move. Mathboarder (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Catherine Parr → ? – The woman in question signed her name consistently as Kateryn Parr, with one known example of Katheryn Parr. This has been frequently been converted to Katherine Parr in literature regarding her, though it should be noted that both Kateryn and Katheryn are names easily enough found today, not only in relation to this person. Contemporary sources are unanimous in spelling her name with a K, perhaps most tellingly her grave's plaque using Kateryn. I fear that the age of this article has regrettably led to Wikipedia promoting an error that has later been propagated. It cannot be too soon to correct it. 82.4.73.190 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Shoe tossing → Throwing of shoes – Per the previous two talk page sections, this article should take a more generic title if it's covering contexts where the verb toss isn't, and probably wouldn't, be used. A dictionary definition is "to throw something somewhere lightly or casually", which doesn't apply to protest attacks or sports. Belbury (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Kuwohi → Clingmans Dome – Article was moved, without any discussion I am able to find, in late 2024 following an official renaming by the US government. This was a clear violation of Wikipedia's longstanting policy of using WP:COMMONNAMES rather than WP:OFFICIALNAMES as WP:TITLES. Perhaps Kuwohi will become the common name in time, perhaps it won't, but at the present time there is no evidence Kuwohi has supplanted Clingmans Dome in common use. The move was premature. Jbt89 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – KN-02 Toksa → Hwasong-11 – These cases are similar to Hwasong-7 and Hwasong-10. The Hwasong-7 and Hwasong-10 are commonly referred to using external name given by United States (Rodong/Nodong and Musudan, respectively). These articles using official North Korea desginations. According to a The Hankyoreh article (here), "In many cases, the names given by other countries have entered more common usage than the names given by the countries that actually produced them. This has to do with the practice of most countries declining to give the actual name of missiles in the development stages or actual key use, due to reasons of military secrecy". KN-02, KN-06 and KN-19 have official North Korean designation (Hwasong-11, Pongae-5 and Kumsong-3, respectively), suggesting the revelation of official names. The M142 HIMARS (whose common name is HIMARS), and UGM-133 Trident II (whose common name is Trident II or Trident II D5) using official United States's designations, therefore, it seems unfair for North Korean missile articles to use the US designation (KN-xx) as title, although the official North Korean designations are known. And the common name policy appears to be not suitable for these cases. Therefore, the above articles (KN-02 Toksa, KN-06 and KN-19) should be moved per above. TCU9999 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TCU9999 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ben-Hur → Ben-Hur (disambiguation) – The 1959 film, one of the most influential films of all time, is the primary topic both per all-time pageviews (WP:PT1) and long-term significance (WP:PT2). The only other serious contenders for the primary topic are the novel upon which the film is based: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ; and a 2016 remake of the 1959 film: Ben-Hur (2016 film). Detailed pageview data for these three articles reveal that the surprisingly high pageviews for the 2016 film mostly accumulated at the time of the film's release and have since dissipated due to the effects of WP:RECENTISM. Besides, a poorly received remake is unlikely to surpass the original in terms of notability.As for the original novel, not only are pageviews consistently lower, but the film has arguably left a greater cultural impact and legacy. There is precedent for highly notable adaptations overtaking its source material as the primary topic, e.g. The Godfather vs. The Godfather (novel) and Forrest Gump vs. Forrest Gump (novel). Furthermore, the novel is a partial title match, as it is titled Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ and not Ben-Hur, so it is already sufficiently distinct and naturally disambiguated per WP:SMALLDETAILS, and there is no risk for confusion. We have articles with even more subtle differences that have not had problems, e.g. Airplane vs. Airplane! and 1984 vs. Nineteen Eighty-Four. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – August 2020 Midwest derecho → 2020 Midwest derecho – This far and away outshines any other derechos in the midwest that year - hell, any derecho in general, I would argue. It affected the "midwest" region (a less-than-clearly defined one, I may add) more than any of the others in the Great Plains and Great Lakes region that year, and searching for the "2020 derecho" online brings you here, so I don't think the disambiguators are necessary (a hatnote will be needed, however). I'm thinking of getting this article to GA or even FA at some point so I want to get this move out of the way. Departure– (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Arbitrarily0(talk)17:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – French fries → Fries – 'Fries' is a more generic term that can cover both the subsets of 'french fries' and 'chips' while avoiding/providing a good compromise for the long-standing US vs. UK language differences. From a UK perspective, I'm OK with counting both french fries and chips as subsets of fries, but chips as a subset of french fries seems odd. From a US perspective, I think 'Fries' are in common usage (it's always been 'would you like fries with that?' when I've been visiting the US), at least as a shorter term? Even McDonald's in the US calls them Fries [48]. Curious to hear thoughts! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.estar8806 (talk) ★17:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Claims to the first powered flight → Claims to the first powered airplane flight – Per WP:PRECISE. The current page title does not specify the type of aircraft, while the article description, the lead, and the content make it very clear that the topic is airplanes. However, powered and crewed airships predate airplanes by several decades, which led to recent confusion about the intended scope of this article. Airships are technologically distinct from airplanes and their history is adequately covered in Airship#History; adding airships here would dilute and diminish the actual topic and lead to bloat. Note about spelling: this article is currently written predominantly with the British spelling of "aeroplane", perhaps because this spelling was more universal in the early decades of airplane flight; however, I have chosen "airplane" for consistency with the main Wikipedia article on the topic. Carguychris (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)15:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Kielce) → Kielce Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Nisko) → Nisko Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – MOSiR Stadium (Wodzisław Śląski) → MOSiR Stadium (Wodzisław Śląski) – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Gdynia) → Gdynia Municipal Stadium – This is the lead, this is the English name, this is the practice. Yesterday, my move was withdrawn as un-discussed. Okay? Well, let’s discuss it. From my side, it is as follows – ALL names of Polish stadiums are translated according to the WP:UE doctrine (except for those that were withdrawn yesterday) (cf. Category:Football venues in Poland). As evidence of the formation of consensus, please refer to Kazimierz Górski Stadium (Płock) and Wrocław Stadium (Wrocław). I am counting on your consent, otherwise – I expect the proposal of counterarguments. After all, rejecting this request will mean that we accept a state where some articles on Polish stadiums have English names, and some... Polish. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Bhutia language → Sikkimese language – I am opening this RM on the behalf of User:TseTen10 and several persistent IPs, who have been changing the lede and infobox to list Sikkimese as the language's primary name since October of last year. I've asked to open a proper RM themselves, but I guess they WP:DONTGETIT, From what I've been able to understand of their arguments, they believe in the face of no WP:COMMONNAME, at least judging by n-grams, one should default to the WP:OFFICIALNAME. Hopefully this RM can draw in more discussion than the last one and a more thorough consensus can be reached; I'd rather not spend the rest of 2025 engaging in admittedly a pretty WP:LAME edit war. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes! 11:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)06:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gunnison grouse → Gunnison sage-grouse – Far and away the most common name for this species. A search on Google Scholar for "Gunnison Sage Grouse" returns 1430 results. A search for "Gunnison Grouse" returns just 38, most only barely relevant. For some reason, IOC is using the name "Gunnison Grouse" for this species, and a few other sources that follow their names such as IUCN and Xeno-canto are using it, but I see no evidence that anyone within the United States where the species is actually found is following along. We already use the non-IOC name for greater sage-grouse. This is such a obvious case I considered not even doing a RM but I figure there's no harm in putting this up here for a week or two. Somatochlora (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)06:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2022–2023 Moldovan energy crisis → 2022 Moldovan energy crisis – The current title is the result of an undiscussed move [49] by PoppysButterflies. I've wondered for a while if this was appropriate. It appears in February the energy crisis was already referred to in past language [50][51], and even in late January [52]. Energy prices decreased on 1 January 2023 [53], and they had already been decreasing on November 2022 [54]. The gist of the crisis was the reduction of Russian gas supplies to Moldova in October 2022 and its lack of alternatives. The deal with Transnistria to supply all Russian gas there in exchange of cheap electricity was reached in December 2022 [55], so by then government-held Moldova allegedly no longer used Russian gas [56]. Gas supplies through Romania to Moldova too started on December [57], so alternative supplies had been found by then, but I am not aware if this meant Romania was already supplying all of its gas to Moldova as happens today. There were conflicting reports throughtout 2023 as to when exactly had Moldova stopped depending on Russian gas. Though Moldova did receive EU funds to combat the energy crisis in early 2023, maybe this was just to replenish a depleted government budget, as the government handed over compensations for the increase in energy prices [58] (the system was created in October 2022 precisely). Looking through academic articles rather than news reports was unhelpful to decide on a timeframe for me. I am not sure ultimately because I did not follow this energy crisis in the news like I am following this one, and I am also not Moldovan. Nevertheless, I don't see much basis for keeping the current title, which was never elaborated on to begin with. But I'd appreciate it if other users could look into this and comment their own research. SuperΨDro 14:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – France Bleu Breizh Izel → ici Breizh Izel – The France Bleu network changed its name in 2025, and the regional associate is now known as "ici Breizh Izel" (lowercase "i" intentional). I have not nominated the other regional articles since their status is a little more unclear right now, and I don't know how to bundle nominations. The Web site's home page has been updated to reflect this; [59] and the radio now refers to itself in this way [60], which should confirm the name change. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE16:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Bini → Bini (disambiguation) – This following requested move pertains to a member of the Filipino girl group Bini (group). I believe that all these requested moves are passed on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please read the following explanations: * Bini (group) ** Bini are passed on PRIMARYTOPIC because, the pageviews from January 1, 2024 until yesterday (January 28, 2025) nearly 1.2 Million pageviews. * Gwen (singer) ** Gwen is a member of Bini and she's have 54, 140 pageviews. * Mikha (singer) ** Mikha was also a member of Bini, she's have 110, 715 pageviews since the creation of the article. Not to be confused on Mika (singer). * Maloi (singer) ** Maloi was also a memeber of Bini, her article have 84, 562 pageviews since the creation of the article. ROY is WARTalk!02:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Jafaa (TV Series) → Jafaa – Although the second (below) is currently the primary redirect to its current target, it's been added on so as to convince the admin or page mover post-move discussion so as not to get confused. And although the first was just moved out of the draftspace, pageviews may not be an issue here, especially during the duration of this RM! What do you think? Intrisit (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)05:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Paris Saint-Germain Academy → Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy – A November 2024 RM failed, but it's unclear on what grounds. The current title, "Paris Saint-Germain Academy", refers to a program run by PSG for children across the world, giving them an opportunity to do training sessions under the PSG name and to improve on their game. It refers to this, with an example being the "France" academy here. These "schools" run by this "PSG Academy" program are NOT the actual youth academy this article is referring to. This article refers to the players that are in what is called in French the centre de formation, and by extension, those in the préformation. The article is referring to the players actually in PSG's youth system that ultimately goes up to the club's first team. And this youth system is NOT known by the name "Paris Saint-Germain Academy", both in sourcing and especially not by the club itself. The club calls its youth academy the centre de formationhere, which it itself translates to "Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy" on the same page in English. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)18:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Autonomous university → University autonomy – The article title uses autonomous university as a designation and the examples used in the article are dubious. In Singapore, where it appears to be most used, it seems to be a marketing term that doesn't mean much. Singapore is a less democratic country so it essentially means less state control based on the lost reference used in the article. In Australia, every university is an autonomous university by the same standards but adding that would turn this article into a meaningless list. Same goes with Mexico, which only has one "autonomous" university listed on the article despite being far from the only one. If this article is about a designation, there is nothing to write about and this article loses notability. I am guessing this article may be more relevant to India, but the country doesn't appear to have a designation strictly called "autonomous university". Since this article appears to have no clear purpose, I'm proposing moving this article to university autonomy as on Spanish Wikipedia which would broaden the topic. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tel al-Sultan attack → Kuwait Peace Camp airstrike – The current title is not great: it's not particularly natural, precise or descriptive, but is merely a vague and fairly non-descript geographical handwave. The more natural titling surrounding the event in question has tended to revolve around the nomenclature of "Rafah tent ..." or "Rafah tent camp ..." (with attack/massacre as the operative descriptor) but these options equally lack precision (given there have been numerous tent camp attacks/massacres in Rafah). And yet "Tel al-Sultan" ironically isn't that much of an improvement, since Tel al-Sultan is equally not a specific city block or even neighborhood, but a substantial urban area within Rafah, and the attack also did not even really take place in Tel al-Sultan, but at a temporary tent camp on a previously deserted patch of land to the northeast of some UN warehouses that were themselves located to the northeast of Tel al-Sultan, on the other side of a peripheral ring road. The current title also does not mention either the key words "tent" or "camp" and is entirely obscure, non-descript and wholly unnatural as a search term. By contrast, the "Kuwait Peace Camp" is the precise location of the attack, as first attested by the BBC on 27 May based on the video footage, and confirmed by the Guardian and CNN on 29 May, and used as the principle identifier by Amnesty by 27 August. So this name represents the precise location of the attack and as a bonus contains the keyword "camp", so further specifies the nature of the event. And then "airstrike", because it was an airstrike, so that's precise, and the news coverage largely uses the term "strike". Meanwhile, the use of "attack" in the context is somewhat vague and could be confused with a ground assault, of which there have since been many in the area. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Typhoon Ewiniar (2006) → Typhoon Ewiniar – Out of the three storms (2024, 2000, and 2006, this is the most powerful. (I'm going to exclude 2000, since it doesn't have a page). 2006 has more deaths, damages, and injuries than the 2024 version. The 2006 version affected five countries, while the 2024 version affected two countries. Since the 2006 version has more deaths, damages, injuries, and countries affected, it therefore has more coverage and popularity (and also historical impact). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes! 05:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to alternative title suggestions; my proposal is simply what seems to me to be the easiest way to resolve this. (Renaming this page to BYD Seal would require an alternative name for the article currently at that title.) Sable232 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)07:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Harry Stinson → ? – The musician has almost three times as many page views per day relative to the real estate developer, and considerably more inbound links. I personally think the musician should be the primary topic. However, I am not sure what the most concise disambiguation term would be for the real estate developer, as Harry Stinson (real estate developer) seems long and unwieldy. I don't think Harry Edward Stinson should be considered here, as it's been barely sourced since 2008 and has zero to four page views a day. In short, it seems like the musician is the most searched-for of the Harry Stinsons out there and should therefore be the main one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.TiggerJay(talk)06:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – FAISS → Faiss – The team at Meta has aligned that just capitalizing the first letter is the correct name. That is the way it is named in the original paper. I have updated the references in the page to be "Faiss" already but I cannot change the title to "Faiss". I believe this should replace the existing redirect. The strongest argument I can make is: Even though other sources are using it incorrectly as FAISS, the primary updated research paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.08281 and the actively maintained Github repository use Faiss. At what point do we follow inconsistent sources versus the original source of truth? The original paper uses Faiss everywhere, and the Github uses Faiss everywhere, and the authors have said that it is intended to be Faiss. Inconsistent sources: - source 17 "FAISS vector codecs" is not the right title, it is simply "Vector codecs" (from the official Github, which uses "Faiss"). - 27 and 28 ANN bench repositories are inconsistent, some FAISS and some faiss - source 29 "Use a FAISS vector database with Haystack" uses Faiss and FAISS inconsistently. - source 30 "FAISS integration with Langchain" when following the URL actually uses "Faiss" in the title, but uses a mixture of FAISS, Faiss, faiss throughout the page. Sources that use it correctly as Faiss: - 1 through 5, 15 (papers or sources by original authors of Faiss) - 26: "Results of the Big ANN: NeurIPS'23 competition" Sources using it incorrectly as FAISS: - 11: "Quicker ADC : Unlocking the Hidden Potential of Product Quantization With SIMD" - 22: "Amazon OpenSearch Service now supports efficient vector query filters for FAISS" (but this is a web page that can be updated) - 23: "Milvus Knowhere" (but we can work with them to update it, because we meet with them often) Mnorris1921 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mnorris1921 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Help:How to import articles → ? – The current title is quite misleading. The word "import" on Wikipedia has a very specific definition (see Help:Import), but this seems like a guide on how to copy pages from other sources, with no information on actual importation. I don't know a specific title that would be preferable, but the current one is not acceptable. JJPMaster (she/they) 03:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia06:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ella Morris → Ella Morris (disambiguation) – Per historical and past year of page views, Ella Morris (footballer) has become the primary topic for Ella Morris, despite the article only existing for less than a year. For reference Ella Morris (novel) was previously at Ella Morris before disambiguation, so the following calculations for the novel are inclusive of the primary topic at the time. Affected pages have been notified of discussion here and here. * 10Y page views (63% for footballer): 5,328 v 3179 [69]. * Last year page views (96% for footballer): 5,057 vs. 227 [70]. * Summary: the novel has historically had less than 1 view per day, while the footballer has averaged 16 views per day. [71]. CNC (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – GeForce 50 series → GeForce RTX 50 series – Including "RTX" in the titles of Wikipedia articles about recent ray-tracing enabled NVIDIA GeForce generations is important for several reasons: * Brand Recognition: "RTX" has become synonymous with NVIDIA's ray-tracing technology. By including "RTX" in the title, readers immediately associate the product with NVIDIA's specific technology and branding. * Clarity and Specificity: NVIDIA uses "RTX" to distinguish its GPUs that support real-time ray tracing, AI cores and other advanced graphics features from previous generations and competitors' products. Including "RTX" helps clarify which GPUs are equipped with these advanced capabilities. * Marketing and Differentiation: NVIDIA heavily markets its RTX GPUs as superior for real-time ray tracing and AI-enhanced graphics processing. Including "RTX" in the title reinforces this marketing message and differentiates NVIDIA's products in a competitive market. * Search Engine Optimization (SEO): Including "RTX" in the title improves search engine visibility and makes it easier for users searching specifically for NVIDIA's ray-tracing enabled GPUs to find relevant information quickly. Overall, "RTX" is a crucial part of NVIDIA's branding strategy and helps both consumers and enthusiasts identify and understand the advanced capabilities of their GPUs. Casting @4202C @LengthyMer @Maxeto0910 @AP 499D25Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia09:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Friedmann, Yohanan (2011). "The Ahmadiyyah Movement". Oxford Bibliographies. Archived from the original on 14 December 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2019. The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam is a modern Muslim messianic movement. It was founded in 1889 in the Indian province of Punjab by Ghulam Ahmad (b. c. 1835–d. 1908). Having been accused of rejecting the Muslim dogma asserting the finality of Muhammad's prophethood, the movement aroused the fierce opposition of the Sunni mainstream. During the period of British rule in India, the controversy was merely a doctrinal dispute between private individuals or voluntary organizations, but after most Ahmadis moved in 1947 to the professedly Islamic state of Pakistan, the issue was transformed into a major constitutional problem. The Sunni Muslim mainstream demanded the formal exclusion of the Ahmadis from the Muslim fold. This objective was attained in 1974: against the fierce opposition of the Ahmadis, the Pakistani parliament adopted a constitutional amendment declaring them non-Muslims. In 1984, in the framework of Ziya al-Haqq's Islamization trend in Pakistan, presidential Ordinance XX of 1984 transformed the religious observance of the Ahmadis into a criminal offense, punishable by three years of imprisonment. The ordinance subsequently became an instrument of choice for the harassment and judicial persecution of the Ahmadi community. Following its promulgation, the headquarters of the Qadiyani branch of the Ahmadi movement moved from Rabwa, Pakistan, to London.
^"Ahmadiyya Muslim Community – An Overview". Alislam.org. Archived from the original on 16 March 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2012. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace be on him) (1835-1908) of Qadian. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founded the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889 as a revival movement within Islam, emphasizing its essential teachings of peace, love, justice, and sanctity of life. Today, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the world's largest Islamic community under one Divinely appointed leader, His Holiness, Mirza Masroor Ahmad (may Allah be his Helper) (b. 1950). The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community spans over 200 nations with membership exceeding tens of millions.
^Rickershauser, Peter (March 1972). "Jersey Central had a great fall". Trains. Vol. 32, no. 5. pp. 20–28.
(Discuss) – Stanisław Lem and robots → Robots of Stanisław Lem – restore the original title. The article is about robots in the scifi works of Stanislaw Lem and the current title is an unnecessary broadening of the scope. There is nothing else to say about "robots and Lem". And there never will be because Lem is dead and will never have a chance to meet any robot (and he never interacted with robots in the past). I have no idea how this weird title was justified. --Altenmann>talk02:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Matheus Pereira → Matheus Pereira (disambiguation) – It was previously moved via copy-paste so we reverted it and are requesting this move, there's no need to add the suffix "footballer, born 1996" as the player is greatly more known when compared to others of the same name as he's part of the Brazilian national team and was an important player on the English Premier League. Mastertales (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mastertales (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mighty Ducks (disambiguation) → Mighty Ducks – No clear primary topic, the franchise has 11,437 views but the film has 11,928, Game Changers has 7,266, The Animated Series has 3,954, Cincinnati Mighty Ducks has 956, D2: The Mighty Ducks has 7,685, D3: The Mighty Ducks has 5,898 and Anaheim Ducks has 31,831[[72]]. Given some of these meanings are unrelated I think its best to have no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.cyberdog958Talk08:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
![[65]](https://i.postimg.cc/VLSCJd9Q/cbfc.jpg){kind=link}
![[66]](https://i.postimg.cc/g2jmzZ38/title-card.jpg){kind=link}