PL EN DE FR ES IT PT RU JA ZH NL UK TR KO CS SV AR VI FA ID HU RO NO FI

Wikipedia:Requested moves

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves


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

Knownlyx encyclopedia image

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

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

The current article title is probably in place because "Comeback" is grammatically incorrect in English, and it probably resulted from faulty translation from the Korean title. Per this request, it does appear that most English services use "Comeback" as one word, but what might really matter is a reliable translation from the official song title in its original Korean. The Korean characters can be seen at the associated album article here (second track). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a grammatical error; it's intentional wordplay for a band trying to stage a comeback. I therefore support this. The above-cited Billboard article says the album "made their overdue return" after a "long wait [that] was unsurprising given the circumstances of a drunk driving scandal" – a wait of "almost two years" – and said they "seemed to test the waters for a comeback by announcing at the top of the year they would return to Korea soon" (emphasis added). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing so much momentous meaning in a misspelled word but I am not opposed to moving the article title. Just thought some more confirmation was needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

Unless @Saftgurka who moved it more recently agrees, it would be a good idea to have an RM discussion as moving this again could result in a move war - especially as you were the requester for the previous RM/TR request. Multiple back-to-back moves generally imply some level of controversy.
I know that adding "The" is a literal translation, but I'm not certain if that's the common name and whether "Swedish" would be appropriate natural disambiguation, artificial phrasing or best titled as just "Agency..." - which might best be settled with a discussion. (also pinging @Doomsdayer520 in case we can agree here without need for a full RM, I won't hold this up otherwise.) ASUKITE 15:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault. Please move it back to the Agency for Financial and Public Management. Saftgurka (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the original request that I completed back on Jan. 20, it was in the "Contested" area of this page for a while with some additional discussion of how the Swedish term should be directly translated, and what to do if the English version of the Sweden government website used a different translation. See here. The anonymous user who made that request provided an explanation that I found convincing so I completed the move. But if that person and Saftgurka have differing opinions on how to translate the Swedish name, it should probably be straightened out in a fuller discussion at the article's talk page as suggested by Asukite. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - I can see the benefit of an RM and I'll even open it, if the anon editor wants help with that. If I'd noticed you were just processing a request to move the page I'd not have bothered pinging you, but thank you for replying anyway! ASUKITE 01:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USENATIVE is there sufficient coverage in English-language sources that we shouldn't be using the native name Statskontoret? AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a little complicated, however, before January 1, 2026, there were two agencies - Statskontoret (Swedish Agency for Public Management) and Ekonomistyrningsverket (Swedish Financial Management Agency). On January 1, 2026, the Swedish Agency for Public Management (i.e., Statskontoret) did incorporate into the Swedish Financial Management Agency (i.e., Ekonomistyrningsverket) while Ekonomistyrningsverket changed its name to Statskontoret. In English, the new name for the new agency are Agency for Financial and Public Management. Therefor, I still request that the article should be called by its new name (and not the old name). Don't you agree on that? Here [2] you can see for yourself what the agency are using for name in their English communication. ~2026-12654-54 (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangocove The WP:COMMONNAME includes the hyphen, but the bigger issue is that I don't see where it says they changed their name. Archived version of their site in February 2024 shows the same logo without the hyphen, and their URL is still at the hyphenated title. HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This request may indicate a larger issue that needs to be cleaned up. Wikipedia appears inconsistent on article titles in the "highest mountain" realm. See List of the highest major summits of the United States vs. List of highest mountains of Germany, among many other examples. There are also a lot of redirects in all directions for these terms plus others like "tallest" and "most prominent". The term "major summit" in this request for Azerbaijan also has a distinct scientific meaning that includes a peak's height, prominence, and isolation (seen here). I recommended checking out this whole realm of articles at the group level. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurcke Per the above comment, I think a WP:RMPM should be opened to clear up this large-scale inconsistency. HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is it literally a canal meaning that it is man-made, or is it a natural waterway connected to a nearby river? If the second is true, "Channel" is the relevant term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's the second case. Henrydat (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your comment is a bit unclear. If you're saying it's a natural channel and NOT a man-made canal, you can withdraw the request. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Henrydat contesting, please clarify what you mean in your earlier comment. HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we also have an article on Waldemar Chmielewski (archaeologist). Your request would require some evidence that your Waldemar is more important than that one, or that he is the primary topic in Wikipedia terms. I really don't see the need to have that debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, actually, I stand corrected. I found out it’s Wikipedia. Thanks! But I guess that depends. Inajd0101 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Inajd0101 I've undone the move of the archeaologist's page. There's a plausible argument here that there's no primary topic at all, but that's something for an RM. HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneZeta @Doomsdayer520: So, does it not matter if a person is well-known for the assassination of Father Jerzy Popiełuszko just because of an outrage of roughly 1,000 people? If an article is created first, does it not need parenthetical disambiguation? But if another article has a same name and it comes last, then should it always have a parenthetical disambiguation?
Tldr; so if an article comes first, it does not need a parenthetical disambiguation, but if the article of the same name comes last, it needs to have a parenthetical disambiguation, regardless if it is associated with a well-known 1980s assassination in Polish People’s Republic? Thanks! Inajd0101 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that Waldemar Chmielewski (Polish officer) could be merged into Assassination of Jerzy Popiełuszko. He does not appear to have notability outside of this event. See WP:BLP1E. 162 etc. (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of my first comment above, I had no personal opinion on whether the archeologist or the assassin was more important. But given the ensuing discussion I must side with the archeologist. As User:162 etc. said above, the assassin may not even qualify for his own article at all because there's not much notable about him outside of the assassination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffrey34555 Knownlyx archive image On hold until the AfD finishes per WP:AFDEQ. HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed


Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 26 February 2026" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 26 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 26 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 26 February 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2026‎ (UTC)[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 26 February 2026

– why Example (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 26 February 2026

– why Example (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion. Most requested moves should be open for seven days (168 hours) but can be withdrawn under specific circumstances as per WP:RMEC.

Alternatively, the opener of a discussion can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious, the requested move has not had any comments yet, or the request was initiated via block evasion. As per WP:WITHDRAW, an opener of a discussion should use strikethrough on the nomination statement when it is prematurely closed through withdrawal.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 120 discussions have been relisted.

February 26, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Operation Northwoods → "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba" – The current title and lede refers to "Operation Northwoods." The issue is that Operation Northwoods did not exist. From an article by Ken Hughes in The Conversation:

    After the meeting, “in response to direction,” Mongoose operations chief Edward G. Lansdale asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for “a brief but precise description of pretexts which the JCS believes desirable for direct military intervention.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff responded by drafting the document now known as “Operation Northwoods.” Fun fact: No one called it “Operation Northwoods” at the time. “Northwoods” was just a code word the Joint Chiefs of Staff used on Mongoose documents. In the 21st century, however, historians mistook the code word for a code name and gave the pretexts their unhistorical handle. There was no “Operation Northwoods,” but that didn’t stop it from getting its own Wikipedia page.

    The erroneous name of the article is not the only error present. The article does not mention Robert F. Kennedy, who is closely tied to the proposal by Hughes in the same article. RFK repeatedly proposed to "sink the Maine again," and he led the "Special Group (Augmented)" that requested the report "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba." I hope changing the incorrect lede and article name will be accompanied by other changes to improve the accuracy of this article. Pipoin (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Amdavad Municipal Corporation → Ahmedabad Municipal CorporationAhmedabad Municipal Corporation – The article was created as Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, and moved without discussion on 31 December 2017. The reason for the change was probably a change of the official, English-language name - though there is nothing in the article about this. Virtually all the sources in the article use the "Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation" spelling. The corporation's Facebook page calls itself "AMC-Amdavad Municipal Corporation", but uses "Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation" in most of its posts, because that is the commonly recognised English-name. For news stories between 1 January 2025 and 19 February 2026, "Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation" is about six times more common than "Amdavad Municipal Corporation". The policy at WP:NAMECHANGES is that: if "reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". *"Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation" 278 *"Amdavad Municipal Corporation" 45 -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 25, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Verkhniokamianske → VerkhnokamianskeVerkhnokamianske – The national system transliterates "ьо" as "o". See Law 55-2010-п that establishes the current version of the national transliteration system (the source of WP:UKRTABLE) as well as Law z0957-14 that lists out the official transliterations and translations of certain toponyms (including Нижньогірський → Nyzhnohirskyi and Верхньодніпровськ → Verkhnodniprovsk). The previously used "io" is incorrect transliteration (even though it phonetically makes more in accordance with iotated letters that have similar sounds but I digress). The law explicitly states that the soft sign is not reproduced in Latin. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Chams → Cham peopleCham people – Using Chams with a plural -s and without people is somewhat indistinct and confusing. First-time readers might wonder whether it refers to a thing, a concept, or a group of people since the Cham are not as well-known a people as Koreans, Germans, Swedes, or Canadians (see examples at WP:ETHNICGROUP). A demonym is "a word that identifies a group of people (inhabitants, residents, natives) in relation to a particular place." Meanwhile, Champa was a multiethnic society, and Cham was not its sole ethnic composition. Furthermore, many Cham people today live outside the territory of the former Champa. Thus, Cham is not strictly a demonym, and the title Cham people is simply the natural way to refer to the group and less vague. Hence, the proposal is based on the criteria of Naturalness and Recognizability per WP:TITLE. --Greenknight dv (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rhomaioi → Romaioi (Byzantine period) – To align with Byzantine scholarship usage (Kaldellis, Stouraitis use "Romaioi") and to better align with Wikipedia policy on WP:TITLE, WP:PRECISION, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation for articles of the same people but in different eras. "Byzantines" is common usage for the Romaioi during the Byzantine period but scholarship in the Ottoman period does not have as much consensus and in the modern era they are still called Romaioi (Greeks in Turkey) though this is more complicated. This is necessary as readers should not think of these are different people but as the same people in different eras. Usage of Greeks as an identifier pre-1821 (versus Greek speakers) is also not neutral as was debated before for Byzantine Greeks and is similarly an issue for Ottoman Greeks as multiple Balkan ethnicities emerged from the Romaioi Biz (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 04:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 24, 2026

  • (Discuss) – North Warwickshire and Hinckley College → ? – This situation is a little bit complicated because I'm not sure which page needs to be moved or which page needs to be merged with the other. So roughly 9 years ago these two colleges merged and formed North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College. The former is apparently the Hinckley Campus while the latter is now the Wigston Campus. However, despite the two campuses now being part of the same entity, the Wikipedia articles treat them as two different ones while duplicating some of the information. So I need community input to decide on the right course of action. Should we move one page and merge the second one into it or keep these two pages for historical purposes and create a new page covering the college that resulted from their merge? Keivan.fTalk 19:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2025 Alvarado ICE facility incident → 2025 Prairieland ICE detention center shooting – Per WP:COMMONNAME. New stories about the trial from KERA, KDFW KXAS, the Denton Record-Chronicle, and the Dallas Observer all use some version of "Prairieland ICE detention center shooting" when discussing the event. Supporters of the defendants have prominently branded them as the "Prairieland 19", not the "Alvarado 19". When I google "Prairieland", the first three hits are "Prairieland shooting", "Prairieland ICE detention center shooting", and "Prairieland defendants", and all of the stories on the first page of Google and DuckDuckGo news search results include "Prairieland shooting" in their titles rather than "Alvarado incident". The WP:COMMONNAME is clearly leaning towards "Prairieland shooting". IMPORTANT NOTE: I proposed the previous RM, which was rejected on WP:NPOV grounds due to the word "shooting" versus "incident". The main thrust of this RM is to replace "Alvarado ICE facility" with "Prairieland ICE detention center". I stand by my earlier argument that "shooting" remains a factually accurate title that satisfies WP:PRECISE; however, if the word remains contentious, I would prefer 2025 Prairieland ICE detention center incident over the current title, even though I find "incident" to be needlessly vague. Carguychris (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Brandeis International Business School → ? – The institution formerly known as “Brandeis International Business School” has been officially renamed **School of Business and Economics** in 2025 as part of a broader academic restructuring at Brandeis University. This is reflected in official university communications and the institution’s own branding. The current Wikipedia page title no longer matches the school’s formal name and mission; updating it improves accuracy and aligns with Wikipedia’s naming conventions that article names should reflect the *current* and *most commonly used* official name of the subject. Reliable university sources verify the name change and the consolidation of business, economics, and finance programs under a single school identity. ArtVandelay23 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zetland (company) → Zetland (online newspaper) – I believe "company" is too generic to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, per WP:PRECISION, and I think "online newspaper" is the the best alternative. # It is the title of the Wikipedia article on this type of outlet. # On its front page, the outlet refers to itself as (directly translated) "a newspaper you can listen to". # On Danish Wikipedia, the equivelant description is "online media" ("netmedie"), with the first sentence referring to it as a "digital newspaper" ("digital avis"). However, other similar alternatives exist, such as "digital news outlet". # This is, for example, how it is referred to in this Journalism.co.uk article. # Indicates that it is not a traditional online newspaper. More general descriptions, such as "news outlet" or "media company", are also an alternative. # Specifying "online" or "digital" could be unnecessarily specific. # Zetland does own the small subsidiary "Good Tape", a speech-to-text transcription tool spun off as a separate entity. # It has also launched offshoot outlets in Finland and Norway. # However, I still believe it to be primarily known as one, distinctly digital Danish newspaper. "News website" could also be considered. # However, I do believe it limits the scope of the article too much, as the service is available e.g. through native mobile apps and third-party podcast providers as well.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  17:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vincenzo Annese → Vincenzo Alberto AnneseVincenzo Alberto Annese – Per WP:MIDDLENAME, this is the more appropriate title; the most common format of the subject's name in reliable sources is the full name including the middle name. I appreciate Google hits are not definitive but "Vincenzo Alberto Annese" has approximately 52k hits and "Vincenzo Annese" has 15k hits. A news-only search gives 59 results for the former and 16 for the latter. In addition to many of the sources cited in the article itself, I would highlight: * Vulpio, Carlo (26 July 2025). "Vincenzo Alberto Annese, il mister italiano che allena candidandosi via mail: dal Tibet all'Afghanistan". Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Retrieved 24 February 2026. * Menon, Anirudh (26 March 2021). "Coach Annese wants Gokulam Kerala to stick to attacking philosophy in virtual final". ESPN UK. Retrieved 24 February 2026. * "Players' inexperience a major challenge for new football coach". The Kathmandu Post. 15 March 2023. Retrieved 24 February 2026. * "Annese il giramondo, dall'Afghanistan al Burkina Faso di Traoré: "Qui sono direttore tecnico ma in realtà alleno io"". Corriere Dello Sport (in Italian). 7 November 2025. Retrieved 24 February 2026. * Barillà, Antonio (29 August 2025). "Vincenzo Alberto Annese: "Il mio calcio senza confini a Kabul"". La Stampa (in Italian). Retrieved 24 February 2026. While there are other examples that use his name without the middle name, e.g. this article on Amu Television (headline only, article body has the middle name), there are not so many of these. The move would also be consistent with other language Wikipedia pages, such as . I would say this was a non-controversial move, but the page was previously moved from Vincenzo Alberto Annese in December 2023 so I thought an RM would be sensible. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 23, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Getter Love!!: Chō Renai Party Game Tanjō → Getter Love!!Getter Love!! – "Chō Renai Party Game Tanjō" ("A Super Fun Dating Party Game is Born") appears only on the box, suggesting it may only be a tagline or descriptor rather than a proper part of the title. The title screen [11] says "Getter Love!! Panda Love Unit", which is reflected in some English sources. [12][13] These Japanese sources [14][15] use the subtitle "Chō Renai Party Game", dropping the "Tanjō", with even a logo reflecting this. (This is also the name used on the .) And the other sides of the game box [16] and the soundtrack album cover [17] just use "Getter Love!!" with no subtitle. Given these various discrepancies, I think it makes the most sense to just simplify the title to "Getter Love!!", as it's the common phrase between all these variations and is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME as a result. (All the sources I linked earlier only refer to their chosen full title like once before shortening it to just "Getter Love", reinforcing this.) Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Parotta → South Indian parotta – "South Indian parotta" is the term used by most reliable sources; the specific phrasing is used to distinguish this food from Paratha. For example, this paper lists "South Indian parotta", while the North Indian equivalent is referred to simply as "parantha". The term "parotta" on its own is not adequate for specifying the subject. Some sources (including this and this) use the spelling for both "South Indian parotta" and "North Indian parotta", indicating that this term is ambiguous. Since the word "parotta" may be used to refer to the more general category of foods, it would be more clear to readers to use a specific term. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Regulation of radio broadcast in the United States → Regulation of radio transmission in the United States – The very regulatory body that is at the center of this article, the FCC, makes a distinction between transmission and broadcast and defines both terms in its regulations. While definitions vary between regulations, FCC part 97 (this just deals specifically with the regulation of amateur transmission, so not otherwise general) offers a good definition of "broadcasting" that generally accords with other definitions and is useful to highlight the distinction. It defines broadcasting there as: "transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed." Hopefully this makes clear that "broadcast" is a subset of "transmission". The FCC regulates both. On that basis, as there is currently no article covering the regulation of transmission, I propose this article be renamed to "Regulation of radio transmission in the United States." Pietrus1 (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 22, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Tibeti → Tibetan teaTibetan tea – Per a previous discussion, it appears that "Tibeti" is a dated adjective that simply means "Tibetan", as in "Tibeti chá" (ie. "Tibetan tea"). If Tibetan tea (bod ja བོད་ཇ) in general is intended, the more modern "Tibetan tea" is the common name (WP:COMMONNAME) for that topic. The article provides 藏茶 (Záng chá) as the Chinese name for the topic, and this also simply translates to "Tibetan tea".
    The oldest revision of the article stated "Tibeti is an unique black tea that original in Yaan,it is a kind of tea brick that has been centuried considered as the most important merchandise between ancient Chinese empire and Tibet Local government. in chinese,the name is "ZangCha",means"Tibetan tea"." Based on this, Tibetan brick tea (Záng zhuān chá 藏磚茶) was the original intended topic of the article. Regarding the Chinese name, Kāng zhuān 康磚 (lit. 'Kang brick') also often comes up when searching externally, and my understanding is this is just a historic brand/variety of brick tea that was traded from China to Tibet (via Kangding).
    Curiously, one of the sources (from 1908) refers to "finest green tea", whereas my understanding is Tibet is mostly known for dark tea (ja nag ཇ་ནག or hēichá 黑茶) as described at Butter tea, typically in the form of brick tea (ja bag ཇ་སྦག or zhuān chá 磚茶). This make it somewhat unclear as to whether it originally referred to a distinct preparation of Tibetan tea, rather than the common preparation or Tibetan tea in general. It could simply be that this old source is just mistaken, as it also refers to "Tibeti" as synonymous with "tea as made in Tibet".
    Regardless, I'm unsure whether the best solution is to rename via a technical move to Tibetan tea, rename via a straightforward move to Tibetan brick tea (a vacant title as of proposing this), or merge (with Tibetan cuisine § Tea) so I'm initiating this discussion. – Scyrme (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 21, 2026

  • (Discuss) – HSBC (Hong Kong) → The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking CorporationThe Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation – I would like to propose moving this page back to its original and formal title: The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Rationale: # Procedural Impropriety: On May 31, 2022, the page was moved to "HSBC (Hong Kong)" by user @Boubloub without prior discussion. While Wikipedia policy allows for bold moves, this is strictly limited to cases where the move is uncontroversial. Given the historical and corporate significance of this entity, such a change should have been discussed first. # Corporate Scope and Hierarchy: The current title, "HSBC (Hong Kong)," is fundamentally inaccurate regarding the bank's scope. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is not merely a local branch; it is the flagship subsidiary for the HSBC Group in the Asia-Pacific region. It holds controlling interests in various group members across Mainland China, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Oceania, and as far as Mauritius. Referring to it solely as "HSBC (Hong Kong)" fails to recognize its regional parent-company status. # Historical and Legal Integrity: It is well-known that the acronym "HSBC" is derived from The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Simplifying the title to "HSBC (Hong Kong)" disregards its legal identity and over a century of historical significance. # Clarification of Common Usage: While the bank may occasionally use "HSBC Hong Kong" (滙豐香港) in marketing or Terms and Conditions, this is primarily a functional distinction used to differentiate local services from other global entities. It does not replace the official name of the legal entity, nor does it justify "HSBC (Hong Kong)" as the primary encyclopedic title. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, I request that the community discuss reverting this move to restore the page to its long-standing and correct title. As this involves reverting a previous move, technical assistance from an administrator may be required to oversee the process. Samjai (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 20, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:Recent additions → Wikipedia:Did you know archive – To me, the title "Recent additions" implies that all new articles on Wikipedia are listed on this page, which is not the case. That list is at Special:NewPages. Wikipedia:Recent additions is instead "a record of material that was featured on the Main Page as part of Did you know (DYK)." I can remember being quite confused by the title of this page in the past so I assume that a lot of other people have experienced the same thing. I couldn't find any indication anywhere that this move request has happened before so I apologise if it has and the consensus was to keep the current title. Panamitsu ✨ 22:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Global Connectivity Index → ? – The current article documents a specific proprietary index initiative developed and published by Huawei between 2014–2019, as reflected by its sources, methodology, and historical scope. The title "Global Connectivity Index" is generic and does not clearly distinguish this specific initiative from other uses of the term in broader connectivity or internet measurement contexts. Renaming the article would better align the title with its actual subject matter and help clarify scope for readers. ~2025-42165-26 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 04:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pay-to-stay → Pay-to-stay (disambiguation)Pay-to-stay (disambiguation) – The disambiguation page includes three subjects. My impression is that the primary meaning is the apparently widespread practice in the United States of charging prisoners a daily fee for being imprisoned (and of course also for any healthcare provided during their imprisonment, since this is about the United States). This fee payment requirement is reported to be allowed in 48 states and Washington., D.C., and is actually used in about 40 states, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject [40][41]. Of the other two subjects, one of them – a practice in retailing – is, as far as I can tell, not primarily known as "pay-to-stay". The third is a failed proposal of a housing policy in the UK from about a decade ago that was never enacted. Pageviews show that the imprisonment fee system dominates readership interest and that practically no one is interested in the non-implemented UK housing proposal. Again I emphasize that the retailing system is not primarily known as "pay-to-stay" (and that it doesn't attract the same degree of readership interest). Wikinav data doesn't seem to be available for the dab page. Readers in the United States need easy access to information about the imprisonment subject, since the U.S. has a lot of prisoners and thus has a lot of people who need information about these fees that they may need to pay for themselves and their family members. Currently the article about the UK housing policy proposal is depending on a capital letter and a lack of hyphens for its disambiguation. However, a quick look at the sources will serve to show that the American imprisonment practice is often discussed without hyphens, and the UK housing proposal does not always use a capital letter for "Stay". In fact, all but one of the sources cited in the Pay to Stay article appear to have "Stay" in lowercase (and that one source seems to be op-ed commentary, which Wikipedia is not supposed to rely on). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 19, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Ed Carpenter Racing → ECR (IndyCar team) – The team has officially changed its name for the 2026 season from 'Ed Carpenter Racing' to 'ECR'. This is reflected on both the official IndyCar page and ECR's latest official press release. Archived pages from the IndyCar official website, as late as 4 February 2026, showed the former denomination in the 'Teams' subpage, where it currently does not. While the team hasn't officially acknowledged such change, and the acronym had been profusely used previously, all of their communications and social media accounts only use 'ECR', without the parenthesis that used to accompany them whenever they were used in formal press releases. MasterAlSpain (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Spike and Suzy → ? – Spike and Suzy is the worst possible name for this series. All other names offer at least one advantage, Willy and Wanda two: * Willy and Wanda - original name, largest number of albums * Bob and Bobette - largest time span * Spike and Suzy - nothing * Luke and Lucy - most recent While Willy and Wanda would be the best choice if we know that no extra albums will appear in English, it is quite customary also to use the current name. Bob and Bobette also has an edge. Perhaps the (in English disgraceful) film can be counted to Luke and Lucy's advantage. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 03:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Box-office bomb → Box-office failureBox-office failure – The term "box-office bomb" is a non-neutral colloquialism, the meaning of which is not obvious to those not in the know about the film business and also has changed over time, and may yet change again. Although some may argue that "bomb" is the common name, WP:POVTITLE specifically states that common names may be avoided if they are "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". "Box-office failure" is concise, neutral, and clear, avoiding any potential issues with POV or ambiguity. Additionally, due to the increasingly common occurrence of blockbuster films that boast huge production budgets yet fail to make them back during their theatrical run despite earning significantly large sums, there are an increasing number of films that are considered box-office disappointments but are not described as "bombs" in the media, one such example being Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning. Others, such as The Matrix Resurrections, do not turn a profit in their theatrical run, but do find an audience on streaming platforms. The lede sections of these articles neutrally describe the specific way in which they are considered to have "failed" by sources; "underperformed", "disappointment", etc., rather than "bomb". The article title should therefore be changed so as to recognize that a film can fail financially at the box office, but not necessarily be considered a "bomb" as such. Box-office bomb should obviously remain a redirect, and the true box office bombs (the likes of Morbius, Megalopolis, and Joker: Folie à Deux) can still be described as bombs if the sources warrant it. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lazar Stefanović (disambiguation) → Lazar StefanovićLazar Stefanović – There was an inconclusive RM at Talk:Lazar Stefanovic last year involving this title, and another editor disputed my recent move. So, apparently I have to force a new RM. Sorry. There is no primary topic for the Serbian name "Lazar Stefanović" (with the diacritic), because we know that this was the name of both a 20th century politician, a present-day sportsperson from Serbia, as well as the Serbian name of a person of Serbian descent in North America, whose article title omits the diacritic. A Google Books search for this name, Lazar Stefanović, gives me exclusively information about the politician. Therefore, it would likely surprise readers who are aware of this and then look this up in the encyclopedia to find that that we focus on another topic, esp. one with far less obvious long-term significance. Showing how ambiguous this name is the most appropriate solution. For readers who look up the name without a diacritic, the modern-day American/Canadian person might well be a primary topic, and I'm not arguing for changing that at this time (because I don't particularly care to do the amount of due diligence necessary to do that). What is however apparent is that they aren't the primary topic for the Serbian name. Joy (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 07:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Metal Gear Solid (2000 video game) → Metal Gear: Ghost BabelMetal Gear: Ghost Babel – I've debated making this RM for a while now, but today I felt like going ahead with it in light of recent announcements. While both names are in theory valid, I believe that Metal Gear: Ghost Babel is the WP:COMMONNAME of Metal Gear Solid (2000 video game), and it should be moved to that title, with the original Metal Gear Solid video game moved as well to compensate. My points are as follows: # While a lot of sources do refer to it as simply Metal Gear Solid, it's generally within the context of only talking about that game. But when you look for sources that discuss the series as a whole, you will start to see a lot that refer to it as Ghost Babel. A few examples: [49] [50] [51] [52]. Even sources that do choose to refer to it as just Metal Gear Solid seem to point out that it's also named Ghost Babel. [53] [54] # The game was referred to as Ghost Babel from the beginning in its initial release country of Japan, and by technicality, a bit before it made its way to the United States. This should especially be noted as we have articles where we refer to a release based on what it was originally called. For example, Yoshi's Universal Gravitation is called such because that's the title it goes by in most regions, even if Topsy-Turvy is used sometimes. # Ghost Babel is a more precise, valid name that eliminates the need for a disambiguation. # Perhaps most importantly and what got me to make this request today specifically, a re-release of this game was recently announced as part of the second volume of the Metal Gear Solid Master Collection. Even in the United States (and everywhere, for that matter), the game is now officially being referred to by Konami as Ghost Babel. [55] [56] [57] The move would also allow Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) to be moved to simply Metal Gear Solid (video game) without issue, as the release year disambiguation would no longer be necessary and the 1998 game is the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A disambiguation hatnote could be kept on that article to guide people to this article, if they are still looking for it. λ NegativeMP1 23:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand → He WhakaputangaHe Whakaputanga – My primary reason behind this is per WP:COMMONNAME. It is quite clear that He Whakaputanga is the WP:COMMONNAME and has been for quite some time now. Additionally, He Whakaputanga complies with WP:USEENGLISH as it is the WP:COMMONNAME in English RSes as demonstrated: * Google Ngrams with He Whakaputanga and its variations, as well as Declaration of Independence of New Zealand/of the United Tribes of New Zealand and its variants shows He Whakaputanga as demonstrably higher than all others. * Google Trends (worldwide) shows that He Whakaputanga is the WP:COMMONNAME over the past five years worldwide. * Google Trends (New Zealand) shows this by a far more significant margin as well. In the previous move request, key examples were listed that demonstrate the WP:COMMONNAME across books, scholarly articles and news/media per Turnagra: * Scholarly articles: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] * Books: [70] [71], [72], [73], * Web and news: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] As it has been over a year since the previous move request, there are further examples that can be listed to support that He Whakaputanga is the WP:COMMONNAME: * Prominent news/media: [85] [86] [87] [88] * Academic sources: [89] [90] [91] There are many other sources that use He Whakaputanga, these are just the first few results when I did a Google search and Google scholar search for the past year. Additionally, He Whakaputanga is more WP:PRECISE than "Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand", which is a precision issue, as it conflates He Whakaputanga, which is an independence declaration of the United Tribes of New Zealand with the separate modern-day state of New Zealand. Moreover, it is quite clear that He Whakaputanga is more WP:CONCISE (it being 2 words compared to the status quo of 6). Lastly, moving the article name to He Whakaputanga, reflecting the WP:COMMONNAME in English RSes, as well as it being the primary name for itself in official contexts ensures this article remains neutral per WP:NPOV, reflecting current consensus from academia and RSes, instead of outdated descriptive terms. While I think this RM should be on the basis of the evidence and policy arguments I provided alone, I also think that it is helpful to note my experience; I have been a law student for around 4 years now, and in all of the study on the topic, and legal sources that I have encountered, He Whakaputanga has been near-exclusively referred to as He Whakaputanga, sometimes with a transliteration in its first occurrence. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 14:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
13:48, Thursday, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!

    Content available under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    Source: Wikipedia.