Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:..."

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

@MarioProtIV This is being moved to the contested technical requests section as someone has objected. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Maltazarian: Please note that the above TA is suspected of being a sockpuppet of a globally blocked user (reasoning explained at SPI page) and should probably not be counted and moved back to Uncontroversial. This TA posting this seems very suspicious timing-wise. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how inconvenient. I will await a response to the SPI listing and if the suspicion is found to be accurate I will move this back to the uncontested section. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TA was blocked. So stands that it can be moved back to uncontroversial. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV Moved back per above. 1isall (talk | contribs) 21:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Needs a discussion. This article from the BBC calls her "Jenny". 162 etc. (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sable232 You are requesting that a redirect be moved over an existing page. Are you sure this is what you intend on doing? If the target page of the redirect has been boldly changed and you wish to revert it that is done by editing the redirect page, you can revert it in the page history like any other edit. If it's something else the correct forum is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I am requesting is that this article be restored to its original title, and the redirect subsequently reverted. I did not revert the redirect prior to this request because I felt it would only exacerbate the problem. --Sable232 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Snapplejackalope I'm a bit perplexed here. Are you saying these moves are controversial or what? Because the section is called uncontroversial technical requests for a reason. If a move is controversial it should not be performed without first getting a requested move discussion consensus. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness! What a poor choice of words on my part, my apologies!
No, these designations are not controversial. They reflect the current state of the art publications, and you can see a full index of currently accepted Coryphella on the World Register of Marine Species.
If you want an (over)explanation--I was over-compensating by providing explanation in the event that someone noticed that I had just very recently moved these pages to their current titles, and found that suspicious. The general rubric for Aeolid taxonomy on Wikipedia is currently the Korshunova et al. (2025) study, but I have only recently joined Wiki as an editor and thus am still working hard on updating taxa. However, Ekimova et al. recently dropped the first rebuttal to the Korshunova et al. paper, less than a month after I had finished the Korshunova Coryphella updates.
I mistakenly used the word "controversial" to communicate that Coryphella in particular is one that sea slug academics argue about quite a lot, and thus redesignations are common. While one can expect these pages will have to be moved once again in about a year's time, there is nothing controversial about Coryphella reflecting the currently accepted combinations. All of the pages I have requested moves of are of taxa mentioned by name in Ekimova et al. 2026, the latest state of the art. Snapplejackalope (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Snapplejackalope I had the same question as above, should be clarified before we move these. ASUKITE 15:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

@~2026-36190-81 This is not a place to request history merges. For information on how to request a history merge read Wikipedia:History merging. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 23 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:

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 23 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 23:15, 23 June 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 23 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 23:15, 23 June 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 23 June 2026

Wikipedia:Requested moves → new – why Example (talk) 23:15, 23 June 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 23 June 2026

– why Example (talk) 23:15, 23 June 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 23 June 2026

– why Example (talk) 23:15, 23 June 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. 81 discussions have been relisted.

June 23, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Our Lady J → Yona SpeidelYona Speidel – On behalf of the IP user up here, Our Lady J converted to Judaism and has chosen to go by the name Yona SpeidelYona Speidel. See WP:SELFID and the Variety piece, which says Yona Speidel, the Emmy nominated writer and producer formerly known as Our Lady J.... She also professionally dropped the moniker Our Lady J. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2026

  • (Discuss) – JPEGMafia → JPEGMAFIAJPEGMAFIA – This has gotta be the only website ever where JPEGMAFIA's name is capitalized as "JPEGMafia". On his own article, every source capitalizes his name as "JPEGMAFIA" except three-ish that say "Jpegmafia". This "JPEGMafia" capitalization appears to have been made up by someone who decided that his name should be capitalized the way they wish it could be capitalized. —theMainLogan (t•c) 07:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 1isall (talk | contribs) 03:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Northern Thai people → ? – 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)[reply]

June 21, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Template:User contrib → Template:User contributions userbox – This template is a holdout to the general trend towards expanding template names for clarity. This is especially important since we have a similarly-named template at {{User contributions}}. at {{User contributions link}}. per Wikipedia:Template namespace § Template names:

    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)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • (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. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 01:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 01:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 20, 2026

  • (Discuss) – List of neo-Nazi bands → List of white power bands – The genre of neo-Nazi music is called "white power music", and the majority of books about it refer to "white power music". Our article is at white power music; I guess to be pedantic, neo-Nazi music is a subgenre of white power music, but the overlap is immense as per the sourcing and there aren't enough notable bands for there to be two lists; broadening the scope of this one will allow for it to not be short forever. This would allow for inclusion of racist RAC bands and the confederate racist music acts, which were often released on the same labels. This article as is is incredibly short. The alternative, I suppose, would be to have two extremely redundant articles, with one "list of white power bands" one that includes all of them, keeping this incredibly short list alongside it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2026

  • (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)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – WHL0137-LS → ? – 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)[reply]

June 18, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Muhame Giles → Giles MuhameGiles Muhame – There are some page move shenanigans here so we have to be careful to not accidentally create a copyright issue. 1) His name is Giles Muhame, not Muhame Giles. 2) The reason this is backwards is because there was a consensus to merge the Giles Muhame article into Rolling Stone (Uganda) in 2011. This was presumably done to get around that merge without opening a formal discussion. However, it has made his name incorrect. 3) Since that page is merged and we need to maintain its history for copyright reasons, any page name change needs to maintain the history of Giles Muhame and not delete it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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 [43] 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, Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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, Super Ψ Dro 00:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 17, 2026

  • (Discuss) – Progress Energy Inc → Progress Energy – Progress Energy (without the suffix) is currently a disambiguation page, but the only contents of it besides this page are: * Progress Energy Center for the Performing Arts and Progress Energy Park, a theater and ballpark that Progress Energy formerly sponsored. Due to the merger and the expiration of naming rights, both no longer use that name (going by Raleigh Memorial Auditorium and Al Lang Stadium, respectively). * A Canadian company called Progress Energy Resources. This company was renamed to PETRONAS Canada in 2018, and its article was deleted in 2020 under WP:G11 (promotional material). Per WP:NCCORP, adding the "Inc." suffix to a company's page is typically only used when needed for disambiguation. However, the Canadian company is not currently on Wikipedia, and if a new article were made for it, it would be under the new name. (In such a case, a Template:Distinguish can be added to this page for the old name.) Meanwhile, sponsored facilities generally do not need disambiguation from their namesakes, especially since both have since changed names. This means that this page does not require disambiguation, so removing the "Inc." is preferred. The U.S. company itself did not use the suffix in its publicity materials (see this archive of its website), making the suffix-less version match WP:COMMONNAME, as well. LazyCat256 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Battle of Orewin Bridge → Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd – I propose renaming this article to Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. However, the problem remains that J. B. Smith in Llywelyn ap Gruffudd: Prince of Wales mentions the presence of 'armies' (p. 561, 562) and calls it a battle (pp. 563, 564, 566), but only refers to it as the 'encounter near Builth' (p. 563), so thought he died in combat I doubt there is a name here more suitable than 'Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd' for the title of the article. I suppose the reticence by Smith to name the battle is because the common name for the battle now is Cilmeri but that name did not exist for the area in 1282 (see p. 571).Tipcake (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 00:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 2026

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Interpunct → Medial point – This article would do best to be a broad-concept article about every use of every character that looks like ·, and not about the classical Latin word divider. It's already halfway towards this happier state: it already covers every use of every character that looks like ·. We just have to rename the page to something else, rewrite the lede (pending) and move all the sections that are actually about different word dividers that don't look like · into word dividers. I will call "every use of every character that looks like ·" dotmarks for this post. (This can't be the Wikipedia article name, because I just made it up.) So, what to name the article? I think there are a couple good candidates. From roughly worst to best in my opinion, the real contenders (leaving off the many many too bad to mention) are:  ; interpunct: this is both a name for the classical Latin word divider (which did not always look like ·) and also a name for dotmarks. While it's a pretty popular synonym for it, it's ambiguous and perhaps a bit colloquial in the latter usage, or at least fails WP:natural disambiguation  ; interpoint: this seems like a fine name for it as well, but I have not encountered people actually using this in the wild. Also, it might be a synonym for interpunct in the more specific sense?  ; middot: this seems like a fine name for it as well, but I have not encountered people actually using this in the wild. Note also that html &middot; summons a U+00B7 · MIDDLE DOT, which means if we use the term we risk implying, confusingly, that our Wikipedia page is about U+00B7 in particular. (U+00B7 is one dotmark but not all of them, so our page on dotmarks is going to need a section discussing U+00B7 specifically and its many uses.)  ; raised dot: also a fine name, in the abstract, and descriptive, and I have seen people use it. The main problem with this name is that the Unicode character U+2E33 ⸳ RAISED DOT is slightly different — slightly lower than an interpunct, yet higher than a full stop. If we use this name, we're just asking for confusion about this.  ; middle dot: a fine name, in the abstract, and descriptive, and I have seen people use it. The main problem with this is that U+00B7 is called "middle dot" in Unicode, which means if we use the term we risk implying, confusingly, that our Wikipedia page is about U+00B7 in particular. (U+00B7 is one dotmark but not all of them, so our page on dotmarks is going to need a section discussing U+00B7 specifically and its many uses.)  ; centered dot: a fine name, in the abstract, and descriptive, and I have seen people use it. You could even say it's just a neutral description of the mark. Only problem with this is that &CenterDot; makes a U+00B7, see above for why that might be bad. Also, tex \cdot makes a "centered dot" ... it's hard to say if that's good or bad or the same thing or different.  ; vertically centered dot: this is a bit too wordy but I like it as a neutral yet exact description and I have seen people identify the mark with this in the wild.  ; medial point:  This one is my favorite because it's not only a great description, but it's also found in two of our sources (academic ones) that need to discuss how the interpunct word divider wasn't always a dotmark, and they use this term. So this must be the term for the mark itself, in their eyes. This term is also used when discussing greek punctuation (cf [66], suggesting wide applicability to dotmarks found in every language. (Although, I can't rule out the possibility that they actually mean "medial" in some other way.) But, I would be happy with many of these. The defects I'm speculating about are minor. It's also been pretty hard for me to gauge which term is "most popular" for this mark. I also didn't try that hard, because I got tired after looking up "interpunct" extensively. I don't want to portray myself as a source of exhaustive expertise on this topic, although I guess I do know a lot more than average about it by now. CC User:JMF, who was discussing this topic on the article talk page with me earlier. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (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)[reply]
  • (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: @FOARP Voteins (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Pope, Stephen (May 26, 2016). "What's Next for Icon?". Flying. Retrieved June 9, 2016.
  2. ^ Warwick, Graham (February 16, 2009). "Icon Flies A5 Light-Sport Amphibian". Aviation Week. p. 12.
  3. ^ Lee, Marc C. (September 22, 2009). "Backstage With A Rock Star". Plane & Pilot.
  4. ^ Hoffman, Carl (January 2009). "The Ultimate Flying Machine: Sexy as a Sports Car, Portable as a Jet Ski". Wired. Vol. 17, no. 2. Condé Nast. pp. 114–119.
  5. ^ Pae, Peter (28 July 2008). "Built for just plane fun". Los Angeles Times.
  6. ^ Pasztor, Andy (June 12, 2008). "Start-Up Wants A New Audience To Take to the Air". The Wall Street Journal.
  7. ^ Hirschman, Dave (May 9, 2017). "Icon's lead test pilot killed in A5 accident". Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
  8. ^ Robert Nicholson, p.227
  9. ^ Malcolm Barber, p.465
  10. ^ Kevin James Lewis, p.333
  11. ^ Helen Nicholson, p.199
  12. ^ Peter Lock, p.520
  13. ^ John La Monte, p.289
  14. ^ Hans Eberhard Mayer, p.325
  15. ^ Jonathan Riley-Smith, p.345

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
23:15, Tuesday, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1359629327"