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.
When not to use this page
Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:
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 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:..."
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: 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, 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.
It appears that there was a different company called Zhejiang Media Group in the past, now known as Zhejiang Daily Press Group, while Zhejiang Media Group is now the new name of what used to be Zhejiang Radio and Television Group, per the request. We may need to know if there is any relationship between the old and new Zhejiang Media Group's, perhaps from someone who can process the Chinese sources better than I can. Also note that if this request is completed, a similar action will be necessary for Template:Zhejiang Radio and Television Group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Layeq Sherali→Loiq SheraliLoiq Sherali(currently a redirect back to Layeq Sherali) (move·discuss)– Sorry for the inconvenience. I guess this request is like a mix of "Uncontroversial technical requests" and "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". The original name "Loiq Sher-Ali" was changed without any discussion/reason back in 2022 . Just a few moments ago, this article was at WP:RM/TR due to a request by me of reverting another undiscussed move that had just been made. However, that has been resolved and it was through that discussion I realized that the article had also been moved in 2022. This article has barely been edited . HistoryofIran (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Jordan Rice (actress)→Jordan RiceJordan Rice(currently a redirect instead to 2010–2011 Queensland floods#Deaths) (move·discuss)– Current page for 'Jordan Rice' links to a natural disaster in which one individual named Jordan Rice was killed. Now, an individual named Jordan Rice notable enough for her own page exists, and should have the base, non-disambiguated page name. Debartolo2917 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
@Debartolo2917 The article proposed for moving has been nominated for deletion so it shouldn't be moved yet. If it survives AfD, we can move it. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 21:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
This request will now wait. 1isall(talk|contribs) 00:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
KFC in South Africa→KFC South Africa(move·discuss)– requesting that the page be moved to what is currently serving as a redirect, so that the page name matches the official name of the local entity Husskeyy (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves
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
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. 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 30 June 2026" and sign the post for you.
The reasons for the move can be summarized 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.
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:
{{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
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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
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.
(Discuss) – Arab Health → WHX Dubai – Official rebranding of the event from Arab Health to WHX Dubai as per reliable secondary sources already cited in the article. Ezgiayoz (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC) --Ezgiayoz (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – New Catch Republic → Los AmericanosLos Americanos – I think Los Americanos could be described as a continuation of the New Catch Republic and it appears to be a more commonly used name at this point. Unless anyone feels that Los Americanos should be treated like a distinct stable and is notable enough for its own article, I think a move is appropriate.Charles Essie (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Loveworld Records → Christ Embassy – Christ Embassy AKA Loveworld Incorporated is the corporate parent of this non notable former label. Deletion review here refers. The page was WP:SOFTMERGEd following a previous discussion, but the merge decision was to the wrong target (Chris Oyakhilome). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Jamestown → Jamestown (disambiguation)Jamestown (disambiguation) – Jamestown, Virginia, is the primary topic. It has over 50% of pageviews of "Jamestown" topics put together (first ten here), and nearly 60% of identifiable clickthroughs out of the disambiguation page. It is "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought" for the term "Jamestown". It is also, more importantly in this case, the primary topic by long-term significance. As the first permanent English colony in the New World, its success contributed to later British colonization of the Americas, including directly leading to the formation of the United States and Canada. Jamestown's government, the Virginia General Assembly, was the first representative government in the New World, and served as a model for what eventually became the United States Congress and much of the American political system. The arrival of the first slaves in Jamestown in 1619 marked the start of chattel slavery in the Americas, which of course has had and continues to have enormous consequences. This Jamestown's historical importance far surpasses all others. As an aside, I don't believe WP:USPLACE is applicable here. USPLACE specifically applies to "populated places" and Jamestown ceased to exist in 1699. The article is written entirely in the past tense, and doesn't include any of the basic information you'd expect out of a city article. Also, other early colonies don't use the USPLACE format, including Roanoke, Massachusetts Bay, and Plymouth. I don't see any particular reason why Jamestown would be beholden to USPLACE. Ladtrack (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – 2006 Goleta postal facility shooting → Jennifer San MarcoJennifer San Marco – Why From previous name requests on here the original request was more of a mixed response with Jennifer still being named in it with one comment and that the shooting at the post office was more notable than Jennifer. However when one searches the shooting, Jennifer is usually the first thing that always pops up. Not only that, but the article has more details of Jennifer than the shooting itself. This is one of the rare times it should be the perpetrator and not the shooting. Other notable example of where this applies is the articles on Steve Privacky and Marcus Wesson where the perp is more known than the event. ButteyFelicity (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – 1991 Austin yogurt shop murders → Austin yogurt shop murdersAustin yogurt shop murders – fails NOYEAR as it's used for not notable crimes. But as it's a judgement call, its open to discussion. Why to include no year- it's a notable unsolved mass murder case that was solved. Before being solved, it was one of the most infamous unsolved mass murder cases in America, on par with the Las cruces bowling alley massacre. It has been given extended coverage with multiple crime show documentaries covering it as well as news coverage showing it's notability. Also other notable aspects was that the perpetrator was a serial killer and the subsequent aftermath of clearing the men falsely accused of committing the crime, one of the most controversial aspects. ButteyFelicity (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Robinson list → Opt-out registry – The article should be moved from Robinson list to Opt-out registry. The current title appears to be region-specific and potentially unclear to readers who are not familiar with the term "Robinson list". The article itself defines the topic more generally as an opt-out list or register for people who do not wish to receive marketing communications by email, post, telephone, or fax. The examples in the article also show that many jurisdictions use other terms, such as "National Do Not Call List", "Do Not Call Register", "Do Not Call Registry", "Telephone Preference Service", and "Public Registry of Oppositions". Under WP:TITLE, article titles should generally be recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. I do not think "Robinson list" is the most recognisable or natural title for the broader international concept. It appears to be one regional or historical name for a wider class of opt-out registers. "Opt-out registry" would be a more descriptive and internationally understandable title. The proposed title may also better satisfy WP:PRECISE, because it describes the general subject of the article rather than one particular name used in some jurisdictions. It may also better reflect WP:COMMONNAME in a broad sense, as the article covers several national systems that are not commonly called Robinson lists. Even if individual schemes have specific names, the general concept is more clearly described as an opt-out registry. This move would also help with WP:CONSISTENT and WP:WORLDVIEW, because the article discusses systems in multiple countries. A title based on one regional term risks giving undue prominence to that terminology, whereas "Opt-out registry" is more neutral and descriptive across jurisdictions. This request is also relevant to the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do not call list, where editors are considering the relationship between Do not call list and Robinson list. If overlapping content is merged, the target article should ideally have a title that is clear, internationally understandable, and broad enough to cover telephone, postal, email, and fax marketing opt-out systems. For these reasons, I think Opt-out registry would be a better title than Robinson list. Kirbylegal (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Battle of Orewin Bridge → Battle of BuilthBattle of Builth – As per the previous discussion, it would appear that Battle of Builth is the best name for this article, and is one of the two names used in modern academic scholarship, together with Battle of Cilmeri. However, as JB Smith noted, Cilmeri is not the medieval name of the area. Either, however, would work, as Cilmeri is generally how the battle is referred to today in popular culture in Wales, especially in Welsh nationalist circles. Tipcake (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Karimganj district → Sribhumi districtSribhumi district – Since the previous move discussion in November 2024, substantial evidence has emerged showing widespread use of "Sribhumi district" in reliable sources and official government publications. Recent usage includes ANI, Times of India, India Today NE, NDTV and the official Government of Assam district website, all of which refer to the district as Sribhumi. Per WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME, a fresh review of the title may be appropriate. Rajen09 (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Umlaut → Umlaut (disambiguation)Umlaut (disambiguation) – We have two main articles here, Umlaut (diacritic) and Umlaut (linguistics), with Umlaut (software) being the only other full title match, and that doesn't really affect the situation. Umlaut (diacritic) has the clear advantage in pageviews (monthly is 9,387 vs 1,334) and Clickstreams shows it is the place where most readers ending up at the disambiguation page are trying to go. So I think WP:PT1 is clearly in favour of Umlaut (diacritic). I can't say there is a clear winner when it comes to WP:PT2, as Umlaut (diacritic) and Umlaut (linguistics) are intimately connected topics with a largely shared historical significance. With that in mind I think the WP:PT1 advantage in favour of Umlaut (diacritic) is enough for it to be WP:PTOPIC here. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 12:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Northern Thai people →? – → Lanna language – As Noktonissian's research above and many users have pointed out, Northern Thai is not a single ethnic group, but it consists of multiple groups who inhabit the northern region of Thailand. Therefore, I think the best terms to call people in these 2 articles should either be "Lanna people" and "Lanna language" or "Tai Yuan people" and "Tai Yuan language". Personally I'm leaning toward "Lanna" Tree2563 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Mystery box show → Mystery boxMystery box – The article title should at the very least be changed to mystery-box show. Because "mystery box" is functioning as a compound modifier before the noun "show", meaning it is should include a hyphen. I quickly checked the usage and many articles do correctly hyphenate it, though I admit there are also many that do not. However, I'm inclined to favor mystery box because I find that much of the reliable-source coverage over time has used "mystery box" (often just like that, and often in quotation marks too), as in "a mystery box" or "mystery boxes", or even "the Mystery Box". Οἶδα (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Fortek67 (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 01:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Mariam Kamara → Mariam IssoufouMariam Issoufou – Mariam Issoufou is the name she goes by and the name she uses on and for her professional website "Mariam Issoufou Architects"; she has not used the last name Kamara at least since 2024~2026-37195-22 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Rajneesh → OshoOsho – Rajneesh is commonly known as Osho, a name overwhelmingly used in news articles, print publications, and various outlets. This distinction is important as "Osho" is not commonly associated with any other individual and is distinct from the Japanese Oshō, meaning Buddhist priest. While it is acknowledged that English Wikipedia operates autonomously from other language editions, it is worth noting that cross-referencing with other language versions may yield insightful observations. {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, all referring to Osho. |- |- ! Sr. No. ! Language ! Name ! Translation |- | 1 | 日本語 (Japanese) | Osho | Osho |- | 2 | Azərbaycanca (Azerbaijani) | Oşo | Osho |- | 3 | Català (Catalan) | Osho | Osho |- | 4 | Deutsch (German) | Osho | Osho |- | 5 | Esperanto | Oŝo | Osho |- | 6 | Français (French) | Osho | Osho |- | 7 | Ido | Osho | Osho |- | 8 | Latviešu (Latvian) | Ošo | Osho |- | 9 | Lietuvių (Lithuanian) | Ošo | Osho |- | 10 | Norsk bokmål (Norwegian Bokmål) | Osho | Osho |- | 11 | Occitan | Osho | Osho |- | 12 | Shqip (Albanian) | Osho | Osho |- | 13 | Slovenščina (Slovene) | Osho | Osho |- | 14 | Srpskohrvatski / Serbo-Croatian | Ošo | Osho |- | 15 | Suomi (Finnish) | Osho | Osho |- | 16 | Svenska (Swedish) | Osho | Osho |- | 17 | Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) | Osho | Osho |- | 18 | Türkçe (Turkish) | Osho | Osho |- | 19 | Čeština (Czech) | Osho | Osho |- | 20 | Български (Bulgarian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 21 | Ирон (Ossetian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 22 | Македонски (Macedonian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 23 | Русский (Russian) | Ошо | Osho |- | 24 | Қазақша (Kazakh) | Ошо | Osho |- | 25 | עברית (Hebrew) | אושו | Osho |- | 26 | العربية (Arabic) | أوشو | Osho |- | 27 | تۆرکجه (Turkmen) | اوشو | Osho |- | 28 | سنڌي (Sindhi) | اوشو | Osho |- | 29 | فارسی (Persian) | اشو | Osho |- | 30 | مصرى (Egyptian Arabic) | اوشو | Osho |- | 31 | پنجابی (Pashto) | اوشو | Osho |- | 32 | کوردی (Kurdish) | ئۆشۆ | Osho |- | 33 | नेपाली (Nepali) | ओशो | Osho |- | 34 | मराठी (Marathi) | ओशो | Osho |- | 35 | हिन्दी (Hindi) | ओशो | Osho |- | 36 | ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (Punjabi) | ਓਸ਼ੋ | Osho |- | 37 | தமிழ் (Tamil) | ஓஷோ | Osho |- | 38 | తెలుగు (Telugu) | ఓషో | Osho |- | 39 | ತುಳು (Tulu) | ಓಶೋ | Osho |- | 40 | සිංහල (Sinhala) | ඕසෝ | Osho |- | 41 | မြန်မာဘာသာ (Burmese) | အိုရှို | Osho |- | 42 | ქართული (Georgian) | ოშო | Osho |- | 43 | 中文 (Chinese Traditional) | 奧修 | Osho |- | 44 | 吴语 (Chinese Simplified) | 奥修 | Osho |- | 45 | Polski (Polish) | Osho (guru) | Osho (Master) |- | 46 | Español (Spanish) | Osho (gurú) | Osho (Master) |- | 47 | Euskara (Basque) | Osho (gurua) | Osho (Master) |} {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, referring him as Osho, but also mentioning different names in the title. |- |- ! Sr. No. ! Language ! Name ! Translation |- | 1 | Dansk (Danish) | Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) | Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) |- | 2 | Italiano (Italian) | Osho Rajneesh | Osho Rajneesh |- | 3 | Հայերեն (Armenian) | Օշո (Բհագվան Շրի Ռաջնիշ) | Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) |- | 4 | 한국어 (Korean) | 오쇼 라즈니쉬 | Osho Rajneesh |- | 5 | Српски / Serbian | Раџниш Ошо | Rajneesh Osho |} {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, all referring to Rajneesh. |- |- ! Sr. No. ! Language ! Name ! Translation |- | 1 | ไทย (Thai) | รัชนีศ | Rajneesh |- | 2 | മലയാളം (Malayalam) | രജനീഷ് | Rajneesh |- | 3 | ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada) | ರಜನೀಶ | Rajneesh |- | 4 | संस्कृतम् (Sanskrit) | रजनीशः | Rajneesh |- | 5 | भोजपुरी (Bhojpuri) | रजनीश | Rajneesh |- | 6 | Татарча / tatarça | Раджниш | Rajneesh |- | 7 | Ελληνικά (Greek) | Ραζνίς | Rajneesh |- | 8 | Português (Portuguese) | Rajneesh | Rajneesh |- | 9 | Română (Romanian) | Rajneesh | Rajneesh |} {| class="wikitable" |+ List of Wikipedia titles in various languages, referring to different names. |- |- ! Sr. No. ! Language ! Name ! Translation |- | 1 | Bikol Central | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh |- | 2 | Magyar (Hungarian) | Radzsnís Csandra Mohan Dzsain | Rajneesh Chandra Mohan Jain |- | 3 | Nederlands (Dutch) | Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh | Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh |- | 4 | Simple English | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh | Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh |- | 5 | Українська (Ukrainian) | Чандра Мохан Раджніш | Chandra Mohan Rajneesh |} Out of all 66 language editions reviewed, 47 (71%) use "Osho" directly, demonstrating its widespread recognition as Commomname. A simple internet search also supports this usage: "Osho" returns approximately 23 million results, whereas "Rajneesh" yields about 8 million results. Given this overwhelming evidence of common usage and recognition, renaming the page to "Osho" aligns with policy. Lorstaking (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.{{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 18:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Template names should be made of one or more words, and describe the template clearly, as in {{Math topics sidebar}}. Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization. Avoid having templates whose names differ only in case, spacing, or punctuation.
Of course, the old title will still remain a redirect so people can keep using it as a shortcut. FaviFake (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.1isall(talk|contribs) 18:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Deletion process → Wikipedia:Deletion processesWikipedia:Deletion processes – The title "Deletion process" implies there is a single unified process for deletion, while we actually have several distinct processes that operate independently of one another. Most obviously, CSD, PROP, and XfDs are three entirely separate mechanisms with different criteria, timescales, participants or lack thereof, and outcomes. A page that qualifies for speedy deletion bypasses discussion entirely; a PROD resolves in seven days without discussion; an XfD runs a 7-day discussion and requires a closure to close. Within XfDs alone, there are six separate venues, each with their own scope and instructions. These obviously aren't stages of one process, they're alternatives. The singular "process" might make sense if this page were just a step-by-step walkthrough of one procedure, or if the procedures were remotely similar. The plural reflects that in a clearer way. FaviFake (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Squawk7700 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting → 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting – A lack of other notable mass shootings at the Gilroy Garlic Festival does not imply that a year is not necessary, factors such as how identifiable the incident does, and this incident does not appear to reach that level of notoriety. Please note that WP:NCWWW states that most events titles should say when, where, and what happened. Years are not WP:OVERPRECISION (please note that exceptions to the precision criterion are a result of the application of other naming criterion) or only usable for disambiguation (if this were the case, then part of NCWWW would be basically irrelevant, and guidelines and policies should work in harmony, not in opposition to one another). Readers should not be confused if there have been other notable mass shootings at the Gilroy Garlic Festival because if there had been, it should be mentioned and linked to in the article, like with the distinguish template. Please also note that for WP:NOYEAR to apply, you must establish that the event is as remotely as easily recognizable as the examples of no year events. Additionally, the sentence "The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur" refers to events involving individual people or persons. Raskuly🐰 12:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Joscelin III → Joscelin III, Count of EdessaJoscelin III, Count of Edessa – Joscelin was and is, generally known, as Joscelin III, Count of Edessa. He was referred to as count by contemporaries: in a charter from 1176, he is Comes Joscelinus, and in another one from 1179, he is Comes Ioscelinus senescalcus (963 & 1034, The Crusades Regesta) Secondary scholarship refers to him as such, based on indexes: Joscelyn III, Count of Edessa (Joscelyn III and the Fall of the Crusader States)[8] Joscelin III, titular count of Edessa, seneschal of Jerusalem (The Crusader States)[9] Joscelin III of Courtenay, count of Edessa (The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century)[10] Joscelin III de Courtenay, titular count of Edessa (Sybil, Queen of Jerusalem)[11] Joscelin III of Courtenay (his father and grandfather being named Joscelin II and I of Courtenay; The Routledge Companion to the Crusades)[12] Joscelin III de Courtenay of Edessa (Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100 to 1291) [13] Joscelin III of Courtenay, titular count of Edessa (The Crusades)[14] Joscelin of Courtenay, C Edessa (his father and grandfather are absent; The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277)[15] His status as count of Edessa is usually recognized and explicit. In only one of these examples is his countship not explicit, and there it is not unique to him in his family. Wombatmanboy (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Wombatmanboy (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 01:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 08:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Yellow paint debate → Yellow paintYellow paint – Over half of the article is a technical description and history of yellow paint, with the reception section largely consisting of opinions from gaming journalists. It does not reflect a "debate" as the title suggests and should be moved to the simpler title per WP:CONCISE. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 08:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Putin's recognition of the Donbas republics →? – This article is very explicitly on the topic of Vladimir Putin's speech given to announce that Russia would recognize its puppet republics in Donbas, and not on the act of Russia's recognition itself. The latter would imply a degree of scope overlap with International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, as only three countries recognized the republics, Russia, Syria and North Korea, with Russia evidently being the most relevant one, which provoked the other ones. The current title is very unorthodox for Wikipedia as well. I don't think any other Wikipedia article with Putin on its title uses only his surname (other than the other 2022 speech's article, currently). "Donbas republics" is also uncommon, we have two articles in Wikipedia employing the statelet's full names (the aforementioned article, and 2022 evacuation of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic). A title featuring the statelets' full names would be very long but I don't see it as much of a problem when it is WP:CONSISTENT with other articles. This is however less of a pressing issue in my own view, it is a sort of nitpick. To summarize, I think we should: 1. feature Putin's full name, in a more formal and encyclopedic practice, 2. specify that the article is on the address itself and not on the act of recognition (otherwise, rewrite the article), 3. discuss how to refer to the puppet republics. I suggest Vladimir Putin's address on recognizing the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, Vladimir Putin's address on recognizing the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, Vladimir Putin's address on recognizing the Donbas republics. They're in my order of favorability, I think "Donbas republics" could have some WP:RECOGNIZABILITY problems for some readers, ideally the names of the recognized entities would be present in the article in my view. To be honest, I didn't see much issue with the former formal title "Address concerning the events in Ukraine", I would not be opposed to a return to it in case choosing a descriptive title proves difficult. I believe these proposals would be more encyclopedic and appropriate than the current title, but do feel free to suggest other ones. There is several wording constructions that are possible here, such as using "speech" instead of "address" in consistency with the currently titled Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech. I have just started a RM there, and I'd appreciate if editors could agree on outcomes for both articles that are consistent with each other. Regards, SuperΨDro 22:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 07:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Expulsion of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians → Exodus of Nagorno-Karabakh ArmeniansExodus of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians – Terms like "expulsion" unambiguously assign intent even though the Azerbaijanis gave security guarantees. Did these Armenians flee because Azerbaijanis were persecuting them, or because they feared Azerbaijanis *might* persecute them? Like with Serbs in 1995, during the Operation Storm that concluded the Croatian War of Independence? In such ambiguous cases, wording should be preferred that is as impartial as possible. Obviously, I support the move. Shoshin000 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.―Howard • 🌽33 11:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk 07:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Gender-critical feminism → Trans-exclusionary radical feminismTrans-exclusionary radical feminism – I have two reasons why this should be moved; one of them is objective and the other one is more personal. The objective reason is that this subject is much better known as "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", whereas the label "gender-critical feminism" is only used by some of its adherents and quite controversially so. As such, it should be moved according to WP:COMMONNAME. The personal (and mayhaps inflamatory) reason is that calling this article "gender-critical feminism" is like calling the article on nazism "Jewish-critical socialism". Which not only would greatly undersell the importance that attacking Jews had in nazi ideology; nazism was hardly socialist in praxis, and so is "gender-critical feminism" hardly an actual feminist movement. It is no more than a neo-reactionary attempt at stablishing a made-up barrier between two ideologies that have no real reason to be devided, considering that both feminism and transgender movements sought to challenge gender roles and as such there is no reason why feminism should antagonize transgender people as TERFs wish to do. But mayhaps this comment is already getting a little too personal, so I will stop myself here. DaniPine3 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 01:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 05:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Psicose → AlluloseAllulose – Much has changed since 2019 since the last time this was suggested. Currently, a google search for '"psicose" "sugar"' returns 97,400 hits, whereas a google search for '"allulose" "sugar"' returns 3,950,000 hits. Psicose is clearly no longer the most common way to refer to this chemical. It might as well be titled erithrohexulose; neither has a future. ~2026-37145-91 (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – KDIC (FM) → KDIC (radio station) – The disambiguator here made sense and was correct when KDIC was a broadcast radio station. But KDIC ceased to be broadcast in 2022. It continues as an online-only radio station, and it is not the primary topic for KDIC (the two deposit insurers have more pageviews). When a radio station ceases to be broadcast but retains its former call sign as its name and is still an active entity, as in this case, the change in disambiguator is necessary to remain current as the article changes from call sign to common name titling. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Southport Australian Football Club → Southport SharksSouthport Sharks – While the current name is the club's official name, both the club and secondary sources (here) very commonly refer to it as the "Southport Sharks" in full and thus this move would fit WP:COMMONNAME. The club's football and business departments both use the "Southport Sharks" name in full regularly (1, 2, 3) and even their monogram is "SS" instead of "SAFC" (here). The AFL's list of VFL/VFLW teams also uses the "Southport Sharks" name (here) and mostly only uses name+nickname for other teams that have their Wikipedia page named in that style (Box Hill Hawks and Casey Demons are VFL examples of this; this move would match those pages); Austadiums is very similar with this (here). Although I generally support club pages being "[NAME] Football Club/Australian Football Club", this seems to be far more similar to the Gold Coast Suns or the Greater Western Sydney Giants as it relates to what the common name is. Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Six Flags Great Escape and Hurricane Harbor → Great Escape (amusement park)Great Escape (amusement park) – The park has changed ownership and heavily refers to it as "Great Escape" rather than "Six Flags Great Escape". And while Six Flags has given licensing rights to the Six Flags name for the rest of the year, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Great Escape" — the name "Six Flags Great Escape" was only used for 7 years up to the 2026 sale. The park was first named Great Escape in 1983 and used that name up until that 2019 rebranding. Additionally, even after the name change to Six Flags Great Escape in 2019, sources had still called it simply "Great Escape" as late as up to the completion of the sale (April 6, 2026).[16][17][18][19] After the sale completed on April 6, 2026, media sources refer to the park as simply "Great Escape".[20][21][22] The park's current website uses a new logo (without "Six Flags") and has only referred to the park as "Great Escape" throughout the park's website, with maybe only one reference to "Great Escape by Enchanted Parks".[23] While most of its social media still references "Six Flags Great Escape" as part of the username or page name, "Six Flags" is also dropped from the logo and posts and the bio on refers to the park as "Great Escape" or "Great Escape Resort" on its YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
"Swan Boats". Great Escape Parks. Retrieved June 27, 2026. ... allowing guests to immerse themselves in the beauty of Great Escape by Enchanted Parks while creating timeless memories together.
(Discuss) – 2016 Nice truck attack → 2016 Bastille Day truck attack2016 Bastille Day truck attack – I propose moving this article to “2016 Bastille Day truck attack” because many readers have misunderstood the current title and thought the word “Nice” was being used as the English adjective rather than referring to the French city. The proposed title would reduce the confusion by making the context clearer while still accurately describing the event and preserving key details such as the year, the nature of the attack, and its association with Bastille Day. PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Upper-atmospheric lightning → Transient luminous eventTransient luminous event – "Upper-atmospheric lightning" is a misnomer and is rarely used to describe this phenomenon anymore. The article even goes as far as to mention "Transient luminous event" is the preferred usage in the opening paragraph. Furthermore, the phenomenon is described in this article as "TLE" (an abbreviation for Transient Luminous Event) far more than it is described as "Upper-atmospheric lightning". Tetradisulfate (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 21:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Waves → Waves (disambiguation)Waves (disambiguation) – Per WP:PTOPIC, that's because the article on 'wave', a propagating dynamic disturbance (change from equilibrium) of one or more quantities, is overwhelmingly considered to be the primary topic with the word 'wave' in its title over other works and terms combined, as a plural term, including the human hand gesture 'waving', as a third-person singular simple present indicative term, and per WP:RPRIMARY and WP:PLURAL, because base names aren't normally used for disambiguation pages with one primary topic. PK2 (talk; contributions) 01:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 18:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Template names should be made of one or more words, and describe the template clearly, as in {{Math topics sidebar}}. Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization. Avoid having templates whose names differ only in case, spacing, or punctuation.
Of course, the old title will still remain a redirect so people can keep using it as a shortcut. FaviFake (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.1isall(talk|contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Iorrie Isaacs → Iorwerth IsaacIorwerth Isaac – This person's name is spelled many different ways across various sources, but I have proposed moving this page to what I believe is the most accurate one, and is how his name appears in his obituary. The British Newspaper Archive and Newspapers.com show more results for the person in question when searching for "Iorwerth" instead of "Iorrie", and "Isaacs" appears to be a misspelling taken from database sources. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Alphonse "Big Boy" Caprice → Big Boy (Dick Tracy) – As mentioned in the article, the name "Alphonse Caprice" is an entirely original invention for a film adaptation which does not attempt to maintain continuity with the comic strip and made fifty-nine years after the introduction of the character and five years after the death of the character's creator. If a name had to be used, it should be Gabe Famoni, (mentioned later in the article) but this name is even newer, though arguably more "Canon" to the strip. I think Big Boy (Dick Tracy) would be better than both of these, as Caprice does not pertain to the original character and Famoni is obscure. Paccyd33 (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Aarón Ochoa → Aaron OchoaAaron Ochoa – I propose moving this article from Aarón Ochoa to Aaron Ochoa. The player's official current spelling, as used by Málaga CF in his official player profile and contract renewal announcement, is Aaron Ochoa / Aaron Ochoa Moloney, without the accent. The accented spelling appears to have been used in some Spanish-language media, but the club's own official sources use the unaccented form. The current title with the accent can remain as a redirect, so readers searching for Aarón Ochoa will still reach the article. ~2026-36898-91 (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Kurdish rebellions during World War I → Kurds in World War IKurds in World War I – It was briefly moved via a technical request but reverted by User:Srnec because it "changes the scope". The move follows these core policies: 1. WP:CONCISE: The current title is longer than necessary. "Kurds in World War I" gets straight to the point. 2. WP:CONSISTENT: This creates a parallel naming structure with the existing article, Kurds in World War II. Also, I can expand the article to include content beyond just armed uprisings, such as civilian life, social impacts, and tribal dynamics during the war. Zemen (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Super Leaf → Raccoon MarioRaccoon Mario – While the Super Leaf transforms Mario into Raccoon Mario, it's otherwise not the notable thing here. The gameplay possible while Mario is in raccoon/tanooki form is what sources talk about. While there is the other "Raccoon Suit"/"Tanooki Suit" transformation, that can still be lumped under "Raccoon Mario" for the purposes of the article. While this might induce an overlap with Mario#Abilities, I'm primarily concerned with accuracy, so if someone feels it should be merged at that point, they're free to nominate it - I have no real opinion on that front. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 22:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Shaka → Shaka ZuluShaka Zulu – No apparent primary topic between King Shaka and the shaka sign. Pageviews are similar, and search results are a mixture of these items and various businesses. I am uncertain which title should be used for the king if the disambiguation is moved to base title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Steam Controller (1st generation) → Steam Controller (2015)Steam Controller (2015) – The articles fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. The convention is to use disambiguator in form of "category", e.g. (video game), (console); "year", e.g. (2000); or combination, e.g. (2012 video game). There are no results for articles featuring ordinal followed by the specifier "generation". Using combination/category may be too verbose, as the device already includes the word "controller" in its name. No WP:NC covers the subject. I propose to rename this article to use distinctor of the device used by the manufacturer, developers, and media.
(Discuss) – 21 Tauri → Asterope (star)Asterope (star) – The other named stars of the Pleiades have their names as titles, since these names are commonly used. I think this page should be moved for consistency. Here is an example of a paper about the Pleiades that uses Asterope for 21 Tauri. For context: There's been some ambiguity about the name Asterope in the past – sometimes it referred only to 21 Tauri, sometimes to the pair of 21 and 22 Tauri – but it's been recognized by the IAU as the name of 21 Tauri since 2016. There used to be a page about both stars at Asterope (star), but in 2018 they were split to their own articles and the page about the pair moved to Sterope (star), which is probably the more common spelling when used for the pair. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – WHL0137-LS → Earendel (star)Earendel (star) – Since the 2022 move request, the name "Earendel" has continued to be used and is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in research papers (see e.g. ADS query). But I'm not sure the page should be moved to Earendel (star), since it's now unclear whether this object is a star; more recent studies find that it's likely a star cluster. Should a different disambiguator be used, or should the page remain at its current (less commonly used) title? SevenSpheres (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Autism → Autism Spectrum DisorderAutism Spectrum Disorder – According to WP:COMMONNAME, “Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)”. Majority of the reliable sources, especially medical ones, refer to this as Autism Spectrum Disorder. TyphoonHurricaneCyclone 16:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – First Serbian Volunteer Division → Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes Volunteer CorpsSerbs, Croats, and Slovenes Volunteer Corps – It looks like the naming of this unit was a political talking point at the time. By age, the two names are vaguely tied - the first name applied between June 1916 and April 1917. The division first saw action in September '16 with the Battle of Bazargic it seems. The second name applied after April '17, during their late '17 migration to the Salonika front, and January 1918, when it was merged into the Yugoslav Division. But then the article infobox includes the Vardar Offensive, the article for which mentions September '18, so that's confusing. There should be a proper discussion about what's the best name and scope to use, ideally based on reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Aixinga → AisinggaAisingga – WP:ON, "Aixinga" is the Chinese transliteration of this historical figure's name. His name is "Aisingga". 㡣骨大 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Soda → Soda (disambiguation)Soda (disambiguation) – This was RM'd 9 years ago, but that discussion didn't touch on complete versus partial title matches (PTMs). It is true that the word "soda" is not the primary way to describe soft drinks in much of the world, but it does not flow from that that the word "soda" lacks a primary topic in global English. There are, as of this moment, 51 other entries on the disambiguation page. All of the entries in § Chemistry are not usually shortened to "soda": sodium bicarbonate is "baking soda"; soda lime is a mix of caustic soda and quicklime, so would not be shortened to just the former; etc. As far as I can tell, only sodium carbonate ("soda ash"/"washing soda") is sometimes shortened to "soda", but this does not appear to be that common and isn't even listed as an alias in the article.Of the remaining entries, almost all are topics that are clearly secondary to the sense of "soft drink" (e.g. Soda (TV series) or Soda (footballer)), with the sole exception of carbonated water, a.k.a. "soda water" or (in some dialects) "soda". So here we can look to WikiNav: In May, 71.06% of clicks went to Soft drink, compared to 7.15% to Sodium carbonate and 4.91% to Carbonated water. 10:1 relative to the second-most-clicked link, and still greater than 2:1 relative to all other links, is a pretty good case for PTOPIC in my opinion. Most people typing "Soda" in to Wikipedia are looking for soft drinks, and that's true even if "Soda" isn't the primary name for soft drinks. This should be moved, with the redirect retargeted to Soft drink. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – 2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK) → 2007 Labour Party leadership contest – This article was created when it was expected that an election would take place, in the end there was no viable challenger and so no election process. Sources from the time and afterwards state there was no election and refer instead to a leadership contest. Current title is misleading and implies Gordon Brown was elected as leader when he was appointed unopposed. The "(UK)" disambiguation is not neccessary. Orange sticker (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Jindabyne → Jindabyne, New South WalesJindabyne, New South Wales – This page was moved from the target on 29 April as an uncontroversial technical request with the rationale that it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, the claim of primary topic is dubious - Jindabyne (film) has accumulated 330,955 all time page views, while this article only has 29,626. In addition there are several other pages that include Jindabyne in the name, including Jindabyne Dam (60,455 all time page views). To satisfy WP:PT1 it would have to be demonstrated that a reader is more likely to be searching for the town instead of the film or the dam, which is not supported by page views that suggest the film is 10x more likely to be the intended target. As it is unclear that the town is the primary topic, using placename, state to disambiguate is required per WP:NCAUST. Additionally, if the page is moved, then Jindabyne should be re-targetted to Jindabyne (disambiguation). Dfadden (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Novopavlivka offensive → Dnipropetrovsk Oblast offensive (2025–present) – I had already expressed concerns over this article's scope at Talk:Novopavlivka offensive#Scope (I'll be pinging some users from that discussion). Essentially I expressed some doubt over the decision to focus this article on the settlement of Novopavlivka. To me it seemed back then, and still does, that this article focused more simply on Russian advances into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast than on this little settlement. The article itself currently states the following: The locality itself [Novopavlivka] is not particularly strategic, though its location just over the border of the Dnipropetrovsk region makes it significant as Russia has not entered this oblast in the first three years of their full-scale invasion. Therefore, it would mainly mark a moral blow for Ukraine, should Russia cross into the Dnipropetrovsk region and seize Novopavlivka. It puts more weight on the simple fact that Russia has reentered this oblast than on the advances towards this particular settlement, and I would argue WP:RS coverage has focused more on this too. Novopavlivka is a small settlement of 3,439 people (2001). Typically we've had articles on offensives on specific settlements for small towns, larger than this one. I Know I'm Not Alone, the author of much of this article, did make some fair defense on the use of Novopavlivka as the article's focus at the aforementioned discussion. Nonetheless, as you can see on the map (outdated by the way), most of the territory taken during the offensive covered in this article is located in a different part of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, near Velykomykhailivka. IiSmxyzXX also made some argumentation on this point and on the notion that this offensive being focused on Novopavlivka specifically might be WP:OR. I believe sources have focused more on the simple fact that Russia has achieved advances in a different oblast beyond Donetsk Oblast. This article is notable in my opinion largely due to this psychological and PR effect. Sources cited in this article seem to struggle giving this offensive a particular strategic sense, and I don't think there's many capable of doing this among the sources not already cited. Thus, I would like to propose renaming this article to better reflect its focus on, simply, Russian advances into this oblast beyond the Donbas region. It is necessary to differentiate these advances from the ones that took place in 2022 (see more at Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast#2022) and also to note the fact that this offensive is apparently still ongoing (though this article should be updated after the events of the 2026 Southern Ukraine counteroffensive). Such a format title is already employed in this topic area (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), Dnieper campaign (2022–present)) and it suggests treating the topic in a similar fashion to other in my opinion comparable cases, such as the 2025 Sumy offensive. We could still mention Novopavlivka in some section header, it would be completely fair in my view to divide this article into two axes, one for Novopavlivka and another for Velykomykhailivka (we've already done stuff like this, see the sections at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive). "Dnipropetrovsk offensive (2025–present)" could also be an alternative WP:CONSISTENT with the aforementioned Sumy offensive that has taken place in the oblast and not the city, and in this particular case it would be unambiguous as the capital is not called Dnipropetrovsk but Dnipro. But then we also have Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign for example. And given the apparent lack of a strategic single focus, with this article focusing more on military engagements taking place on a specific defined area, "campaign" might be a better choice over "offensive". I invite editors to discuss all possible options. Regards, SuperΨDro 00:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Woolworths Group (Australia) → Woolworths GroupWoolworths Group – Woolworths Group is one of Australia's largest companies by revenue, generating billions annually. The reason Australia is specified in the name is to prevent confusion with the former Woolworths Group in the United Kingdom. However, this Woolworths Group in the UK only existed for a few years, and mainly consisted of one retailer and a couple of distribution companies. It does not have its own Wikipedia page like this one as it does not appear to be significant enough. Whereas, Woolworths Group in Australia consists of many more public-facing entities (Woolworths supermarkets, Woolworths Metro and Big W). I think based on the scale in terms of revenue and public-facing entities that Woolworths Group in Australia meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Icaldonta (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Michael Shanks → Michael Shanks (actor) – Looking at page views, there has been a few times where the politician or filmmaker has received more page views which suggests that there is no primary topic. Sahaib (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Colt International →? – I work on Marketing for Colt. The company is officially rebranding from "Colt Group" to "Colt International" alongside an upcoming global website migration. The parent operating entity and its regional subsidiaries (such as Colt International Ltd in the UK) are unifying under the "Colt International". Changing the title reflects the current, accurate corporate branding in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions for organisations. Colt International Ltd (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Stanhope Gardens → Stanhope Gardens, New South WalesStanhope Gardens, New South Wales – This page was recently moved from the target on the grounds that it was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with no prior discussion. However, the claim of primary topic is disputed - there is a page titled Stanhope Gardens, Kensington, a park in the United Kingdom. Despite having significantly less content, page view statistics for that article shows 11,533 lifetime views, compared to just 5215 for this Sydney suburb. This does not align with WP:PT1 which would require proof that it is much more likely that a reader is searching for the Sydney suburb instead of the park in England, or otherwise a consensus regarding which is the primary topic. If there is no clear primary topic, then the naming convention of place, state is required per WP:NCAUST. Dfadden (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – National Accreditation Board (Ghana) → Ghana Tertiary Education Commission – Per the Education Regulatory Bodies Act, 2020 (Act 1023), the National Accreditation Board was dissolved and formally succeeded by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC). The article should be renamed to reflect the active agency. Afrank4436 (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Exit tax → Exit tax (disambiguation)Exit tax (disambiguation) – I'd like to propose the above rename of Exit tax pages cluster. Currently, Expatriation tax is the largest content page, talking about personal exit taxes in different countries. But, "expatriation tax" is a very US-specific legal term, hardly used in other contexts. "Exit tax" is far more common in the context of other countries, e.g. used by the big 4 tax consultancies: PWC, KPMG, EY, and also often enough colloquially when talking about that US tax. Originally, Expatriation tax page was in fact created about the US tax, but since it has since grown a lot to cover the situation in other countries, I think a rename to a better term is in order now. After the rename, the US-specific section could later be split off to Expatriation tax again. The other content page in the cluster, Exit taxation is just a stub about corporate exit taxes (EU ATAD rules etc). Since "exit tax" and "exit taxation" are synonyms, it ought to be renamed to something unambiguous, like Exit tax (corporate) or Corporate exit tax. Ivanktw (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Nitro Pro → Nitro Software – The article covers Nitro Software, Inc. broadly, including its company history, products, and corporate information. The current title reflects an older product name. The company's flagship PDF product has been renamed Nitro PDF Pro, and the legal trading name is Nitro Software, Inc. The article title should reflect the actual scope of the article rather than a discontinued product name. No content changes are proposed in this request. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ARTICLENAME, article titles should reflect the subject actually covered. Nominator discloses a conflict of interest per WP:COI. CPG2026 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Irish Republican Army (1919–1922) → Old Irish Republican ArmyOld Irish Republican Army – These pages should be moved since a), they serve as a natural disambiguator (WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION), and b), are the WP:COMMONAME of these organizations when taking a broad look throughout Irish history (not necessarily for the specific conflicts they were involved in, but the same can be said for the PIRA and even some of the dissident organizations alive today). There was some discussion of this in the previous 2015 move. While Old IRA is informally sometimes used to refer to the period between the revolutionary era and the troubles, that specific use is uncommon enough colloquially (and from what I've seen in academic sources, virtually absent) to not justify this change. — Knightoftheswords 07:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Counter-Japanese resistance volunteers in China → Anti-Japanese resistance volunteers in ChinaAnti-Japanese resistance volunteers in China – Per WP:COMMONNAME. See Google Trends, for instance. All of these pages seem to have been moved by User:Huangdan2060 on 8 April 2024 on the grounds that they are (supposedly) the "formal translation"; looking through their contributions I did not see any process by which they consulted the community on this mass movement of pages or any concrete proof that their proposed names were more common. The justification seems to be a (now-inaccessible) page trying to argue the semantics between whether the term 抗日 (a term whose literal meaning is "resistance to Japan") accurately means "anti-Japanese", contrasted with the term 反日 (a term which does quite literally mean "anti-Japanese"). See here for the precise citation that was used to justify this. Regardless of the literal meaning of these two terms, I do not find semantics or literal definitions of terms to be compelling reasons for this move, especially in the face of WP:COMMONNAME and the English-language awkwardness of "counter-X" as opposed to "anti-X" as an adjective/descriptor. ~2026-36731-51 (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – 2025 Sumy offensive → Sumy offensive (2025–present) – Russian invaders are still in the oblast, so the offensive is still ongoing. Per the RM started here and the title at Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign, I also invite users to discuss including "Oblast" into the title ("Sumy Oblast offensive (2025–present)", as the offensive hasn't taken place in the city of Sumy nor has it had the aim to capture it) and the use of "campaign" over "offensive". I'd personally favor including "Oblast" while I have no opinion on the second issue (I honestly kind of don't know when should each word be used). Regards, SuperΨDro 00:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.1isall(talk|contribs) 00:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Aceraceae → Acereae – Aceraceae has not been rejected as a clade; only its status as a family has been denied, and the same circumscription remains as the tribe Acereae. Rather than simply treating this article as pertaining to a taxon from the past, it is considered preferable to change the name to that of a currently valid taxon. コロネン (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Steam Machine → Steam MachinesSteam Machines – Steam Machines is a (discontinued) family of small form factor gaming computers, and a marketing term. The concept described by the article is plural, the article body already uses plural form. As it describes multiple devices, with differing names, some not including "Steam Machine" in their name moniker, using Steam Machine does not seem appropriate. I propose renaming it to Steam Machines, which will also align with marketing logotype used on the page and by Valve Corporation. There also exists Valve Steam Machine (prototype), from 2013, that was released in only 300 units (see section in the article of this talk page). 2026 Steam Machine's current Steam Machine (computer) title is also confusing. I'm not sure what it should be renamed to, I'm open to suggestions, and myself suggest Steam Machine (2026), or Steam Machine (2026 computer). I'm against using WP:DIFFCAPS title of just Steam Machine, as steam machine redirects to steam engine. Steam Machine (capitalized) should probably redirect to steam machine (disambiguation). It would also be helpful if we could agree on resolving it swifter than in 7 days. If you agree, please state so. Tracerneo (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Internal Revenue Code section 1 → Internal Revenue Code Part I – This is a proposal for a broadening of the scope of this article that would also necessitate renaming. This article was recently the subject of a deletion discussion, where there was a solid consensus to keep, but there were also concerns expressed by the dissenting minority about the narrowness of the topic. I therefore propose to rename this article so as to expand coverage to the entirety of Part I (titled "Tax on Individuals") containing the first five sections of the statute, all of which involve or have involved imposing and defining the individual income tax. For example, section 1, though by far the most important section of the part, uses terms like "surviving spouse" and "head of household" that are formally defined in section 2. BD2412T 20:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 → Tornado outbreak of March 14–16, 2025Tornado outbreak of March 14–16, 2025 – Most credible sources refer to this as March 14-16, and one tornado seperated by well over a day is not grounds to group in the outbreak. Such sources include ClimateCentral (NOAA spinoff from original billion dollar list after it was stopped), and the Monthly Climate Report for March 2025, also by NOAA. If the 13th had more tornado spinups in California I would certainly be more open to keeping it as it would fall under the outbreak definition, but one single tornado with a 36 hour gap before the main outbreak started? That’s just borderline WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I would be open to still mentioning the California tornado still be mentioned in the Met synop, but instead mention that although it was spawned from the same trough, it is not associated with the outbreak. I know last year there was the whole mess of an RM that happened with this that frankly should not have been as such, especially since it was tainted by sockpuppetry, and I’m aware this RM is probably gonna attract some sockpuppets too. Let’s just have a nice clean RM that follows suit to what RSs and official data say. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – The Deep (character) → The Deep (The Boys) – I think it makes sense to have the DB be the franchise where this character comes from instead of (character). The current DB was probably done to match what most DBs are for pages on comic book characters, but characters from The Boys were written specifically for The Boys and not for the publisher to use in other works (a counter-example of this would be Kingpin (character) from Marvel Comics). ThePoggingEditor (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Soldier Boy → Soldier Boy (The Boys) – Per WP:RECENTISM, I do not think Soldier Boy from The Boys should be WP:PRIMARY as the idea of a "Soldier Boy" dates back long before The Boys was ever created, and is probably how the character got his name in the first place. Soldier Boy from The Boys might currently be what most people think of when they hear "Soldier Boy", but this may not be the case in the future (again going back to how "Soldier Boy" is a historical term/phrase/idea/something). ThePoggingEditor (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Lust murder → Sexual Homicide – Most of the cited sources appear to call this sexual homicide and the others sexual murder and overall I feel like calling it lust murder feels a bit... off. TaqPCR (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.ASUKITE 14:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Model Farms → Model Farms, New South WalesModel Farms, New South Wales – This page was recently moved from the target on the grounds that it was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with no prior discussion. However, there is already a page called Model farms (lower case "f") that redirects to Demonstration farm. This has created an issue where the search result will differ depending on whether the term is input with uppercase or lowercase letters. There are also no hat notes on either page to account for this. The lifetime pageviews for Demonstration farm is over 39,000. The lead at Demonstration farm includes "model farm" as a bolded alternative name in the first sentence (although the redirect from "model farms" itself has only a bit over 100 pageviews). Model Farms, New South Wales had only 4766 lifetime pageviews at the time of the move. Determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is generally determined by consensus and requires us to consider a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Based on the page view numbers, it is difficult to conclude that a reader searching the term "model farms" is seeking information on a relatively obscure locality within the Sydney suburb of Winston Hills as opposed to the much more likely alternative term for demostration farms. In the absence of a consensus around primary topic, disambiguation is required per WP:NCAUST. Dfadden (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Grillz → Grillz (song) – The term grillz is a plural form of grill (i.e. the dental jewelry), as stated in the Wiktionary entry for grillz and in the lead section of the Grill (jewelry) article. The jewelry is the primary topic in terms of both usage and long-term significance. While the 2005 Nelly song is a work that describes the experience of wearing grillz, the jewelry predates the song by over two decades and also postdates the song's phase of popularity.A 2023 retrospective review of the song by Stereogum noted the song's relatively limited impact despite its #1 peak chart position in the US ("'Grillz' didn't exactly leave a seismic impact on the world, the way some of Nelly's earlier hits had done. But it's a fun song that captured a moment.") Although the Stereogum article also states that the jewelry has declined in popularity since 2005, web searches for "grillz" show that the recent reliable source coverage of grillz almost exclusively focuses on the jewelry in both news media (e.g. within the past month) and academic media (e.g. ).As such, I propose for the article for the 2005 Nelly song (currently at Grillz) to be moved to Grillz (song), and for Grillz to redirect to either Grill (jewelry) as an {{R from plural}} or to Grill as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. —Newslingertalk 22:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC); fixed link, edited to add redirect target option, and struck unreliable source 07:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Spinoff (media) → Spin-off (media)Spin-off (media) – The page was unilaterally moved by User:2pou in 2024 without discussion, claiming that the word is used more often without the hyphen in a media context. I noticed the move because all the related categories were also moved to the non-hyphenated version in a procedural way. It was pointing to a single dictionary definition, but the hyphenated word also appears commonly in dictionaries referring to media, such as here. Ngrams also indicates that "spin-off" is used far more often in the literary corpus. There was no convincing proof given that the non-hyphenated version is the common name, beyond vague handwaving, and in my opinion a bold move was improper in the first place. Note: The page was also moved to Spin–off (media) beforehand, but, as far as I know, an endash is the proper grammar, so it may have been moved by accident. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Jeffrey Kaplan (academic) →? – As we now have Jeffrey Kaplan (philosopher), who is also an academic, this article title is ambiguous and needs to be redirected to Jeffrey Kaplan. I am genuinely unsure what to change it to, though, as this Kaplan wrote about a broad range of subjects both religious and political, mostly extremism and new religious movements; he got a PhD in history of culture (but no source calls him a cultural historian). The sources regrettably mostly call him an academic - but the philosopher is also frequently called an academic. I guess something technically accurate would be Jeffrey Kaplan (extremism scholar) (or Jeffrey Kaplan (extremism academic)) which is most of what he wrote about (but not all, he also wrote about religious studies, so i guess we could do Jeffrey Kaplan (religious studies scholar), but neither is fully accurate. I guess to be fully accurate we could do Jeffrey Kaplan (religion and politics scholar), which seems unfortunate but I guess is accurate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC). —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Operation Kikusui I → Operation Ten-Ichi-Go – I hate to open another move request so soon after the last one closed, but it looks like the previous move was done without reference to sources. Unfortunately, I believe the new name chosen was incorrect. The Japanese plan for resisting the American invasion of Okinawa was named Ten-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven). In the initial planning, Ten-Go did not include a naval component. It only included ground force elements and a series of aerial kamikaze attacks designated Kikusui Sakusen (Operation Floating Chrysanthemum). After the Emperor noted the lack of the Navy's participation, the attack by the Yamato and company was added at the last minute. This was designated Ten-Ichi-Go Sakusen (Operation Heaven 1). The Japanese Wikipedia helpfully includes the actual text of the order, with source: 「航空攻撃有利なる場合、1YBは特令により出撃し敵攻略部隊を撃滅す。本作戦を天一号作戦と呼称す」 "Should conditions for an aerial offensive prove favorable, the 1st Surface Attack Unit shall sortie under special orders to annihilate the enemy invasion force. This operation shall be designated Operation Heaven 1." Source: Official Japanese war history (Senshi Sōsho), Vol 93, pg 258-259 Each of the ten Kikusui attacks was numbered one through ten, i.e. Kikusui I, Kikusui II. Note they do not include the word Sakusen (Operation). The aerial attacks are distinguished in reliable sources from the attack by the Yamato. For example, 'Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945: the Naval History of World War II' mentions the two separately (pg. 407). Tagging original requestor: @Palm Dogg, relisters: @Bunnypranav, @Sophisticatedevening, @Jeffery34964, and closer: @FOARPVoteins (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.{{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Puerto Rico national football team → Puerto Rico national soccer teamPuerto Rico national soccer team – American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico are territories of the United States, a country where the beautiful game is usually referred to as "soccer", not "football", and "football" usually means a different sport. The term soccer is also less ambiguous, especially when speaking of U.S. territories. Although Puerto Rico speaks Spanish, in which soccer is called "fútbol", that is not the same as football and it is still called soccer in American English (this is the English Wikipedia). Some sources from the territories that use "soccer": , (Puerto Rico), (Guam), (American Samoa) Crossover1370 (talk|contribs) 21:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.⹃Maltazarianᚾparley
∨
{\displaystyle \lor }
investigateᛅ 06:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Topman →? – As per my previous discussion above, the current title is a neologism and does not reflect the historical term of topman which has been reported in every Dictionary and Encyclopedia since the Age of Sail. Nicola Romani (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Kaiserreich (video game) → Kaiserreich (video game mod)Kaiserreich (video game mod) – This is a mod, not a video game, and so we should go with the disambiguation scheme (video game mod). The previous RM, which suggested a different disambiguation in order to remove the inaccurate (video game), found no consensus because it was consumed by discussion about the recommendations in WP:NCVG being stupid. A discussion occurred, and that guideline has now been changed by me. So, let's do it. pinging previous participants, @Maltazarian, Masem, Gonnym, 162 etc., Zenphia1, and Zxcvbnm:1brianm7 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Pitaya → Dragon fruitDragon fruit – I understand this has been a recurring proposal for this article, but I think this article should be moved to Dragon Fruit. This article mainly refers to two genuses of fruit, Stenocereus, and Selenicereus. The more common fruit, Selenicereus is mentioned more in the article than Stenocereus is. This is shown with the photos in the article, and the cultivation section. This article should be split into two, Dragon fruit, and Pitaya (Stenocereus). The current name, Pitaya is imprecise (WP:PRECISE) and we could be more specific by distinguishing between the two articles. The name Dragon Fruit is the most common name for Selenicereus fruits, as shown by Google Trends, https://trends.google.com/explore?q=dragon%2520fruit%2Cpitaya%2Cpitahaya&date=today%201-y&geo=Worldwide. Furthermore, most grocery stores use Dragon Fruit to refer to Selenicereus fruits, like Walmart, Kroger, and Tesco. https://www.walmart.com/search?q=dragon+fruithttps://www.kroger.com/search?query=dragon%20fruit&searchType=default_searchhttps://www.tesco.com/shop/en-GB/search?query=dragon+fruit&inputType=free+text. For Selenicereus fruits, the most common name is Dragon fruit, and since this article is mainly about them, it should be renamed to Dragon fruit. Pitaya is an alternative name sometimes used, but it is ambiguous with Stenocereus fruits, and not the most common name for Selenicereus fruits anyways. This article also briefly mentions Stenocereus fruits as pitaya. These fruits are more often called pitaya, but that word is ambiguous. However, Wikipedia can distinguish between the two with Pitaya (Stenocereus), with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitaya_(Stenocereus). My proposal is we have Pitaya as a disambiguation page, Dragon Fruit for varieties of Selenicereus fruits, and Pitaya (Stenocereus) for Stenocereus fruits. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
06:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)investigateᛅ 19:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}