Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests - Wikipedia


Article Images

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

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Edit this section if you want to move a request between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

edit

Most requests should be placed below this heading.

I agree that the title of the article should be fixed as requested, but I wonder if "goddess" is the proper disambiguator. The suggestion seems fine but there might be a guideline that I can't find. Meanwhile, this goddess could possibly receive the main Samjna namespace, which currently redirects to Samjna (concept), if the goddess is considered the primary topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

edit

If your request involves reverting a move, place it here.

  • India men's national rugby union team → India national rugby union team (move · discuss) – Page was moved without discussion and without any evidence being provided. Most men's national teams don't include the word "men's" in the title, and the ones that do have provided a convincing reason to do so. This page move should be reverted in order to allow User:OCDD and User:The Banner to provide the evidence to convince the community to move the article. – PeeJay 08:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Controversial. This starts to become pointy. Three speedy deletions nominations, claiming that a speedy can not be opposed (they can), multiple times advised to go to AfD and instead of that a move discussion. Why not bring it to AfD for a proper discussion about the merits of his disambiguation page? The Banner talk 11:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My brother in Christ, this is not a controversial move. The original move is the one that was controversial, since it was performed without any discussion to begin with. I'm starting to question your good faith in this matter. – PeeJay 11:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am probably missing some context here, but this does look like a valid WP:RMUM request to me. ASUKITE 15:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How is it "pointy"?
      WP:POINTY is about deliberately doing disruptive things that are nonetheless officially permitted by a policy, guideline, or prior precedent, in order to illustrate the point that said guideline, policy, or prior precedent is bad. I see absolutely nothing like that in User:PeeJay's actions. What policy/guideline/precedent do you suggest he is attempting to discredit? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for three reasons:
  • Purely procedural: it was predictable that there would be disagreement with the original move, and therefore it did not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Undiscussed_moves, which only permit editors to perform a move if "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move."
  • Substantive: it looks to me like at least the vast majority of teams (perhaps literally all of them? I didn't scrupulously check this) follow the old naming convention of having "Women's" in the title of the women's team's page but not having "Men's" in the title of the men's team's page. (You can expand the "International men's rugby union teams" or "Women's national rugby union teams" boxes at the bottom of each page to confirm this.) Making an exception to an otherwise universal Wikipedia-wide naming convention doesn't make sense and no justification for it has been given.
  • Conflict defusal and forcing meaningful discussion to happen: the move having been made undiscussed, we can now see User:The_Banner militating against any attempt to oppose it on procedural grounds and by throwing out accusations of bad faith and rules violations (none of which appear at all merited to me), all while declining to explain why the move (for this specific country only) made sense in the first place. That's not on, and we should put the burden of providing some justification for the move on User:The_Banner and remove the illusion that it's reasonable to treat User:PeeJay as some kind of miscreant merely for disagreeing with it.
ExplodingCabbage (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

edit

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.

@Versace1608 Both the suburb and the song get around 1000 pageviews per month, it's not clear which is the primary topic. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're keeping the dabpage, then it will need to be moved back to Ojuelegba. OP, such primary topic grabs are, by definition, not uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc. I moved the dabpage back pending consensus on a primary topic. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: The suburb/town Ojuelegba predates the song and is the primary topic. Page views are irrelevant and I'm not sure why you're making it a primary argument. For people living in Ojuelegba and Nigeria at large, the town is what comes to mind when they hear the term Ojuelegba. I lived in Lagos for a couple of years and I can attest to this. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to name the disambiguation page Ojuelegba.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but this is Wikipedia, and there are rules. See WP:DPT and WP:PCM 162 etc. (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608 I'm not saying that one topic or the other is or isn't primary, just that it's not clear cut enough to be done as an uncontroversial move. You can click on the "discuss" link in your request above to open a move discussion, and make sure to notify Talk:Ojuelegba (song) as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nurg I don't think the "distinct" part of WP:DIFFCAPS is met here, and Polynesian mythology is probably still the primary topic for the title-case title. Worth a discussion at least. C F A 💬 15:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose this. 162 etc. (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGAMarCommRanha See WP:OFFICIALNAME. C F A 💬 14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decapod → Decapod (disambiguation) (currently a redirect back to Decapod) (move · discuss) – 'Decapod (disambiguation)' was created for the express purpose of redirecting to 'Decapod'. However, 'Decapod' clearly has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 'Decapod' is the common name for the order Decapoda that houses all crabs, all shrimp, all prawns, all lobsters, and all crayfish. There are thousands of articles that fall under Decapoda and whose subjects can be called decapods. I've seen at this point several dozen wikilinks formatted as [[Decapoda|decapod]] because we direct to a disambig instead of a PT. At the bare minimum, even if a PT somehow isn't established, 'Decapod' would point to 'Decapod (disambiguation)', not vice-versa. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27 There has been a silent consensus for nearly twenty years, so I don't think this is necessarily uncontroversial. You can open a discussion by clicking the "discuss" link next to your request. C F A 💬 14:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingArti There's no need to move this now, as the draft approver can move it to the appropriate title when it is moved out of draftspace. That said, the previous films are not consistent: there is Scream 4 and Scream VI. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingArti Also, the Instagram post that announced the release date used "Scream 7", not "Scream VII". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nodicenomasters The video game article seems to be the primary topic with 13,600 page views per month, vs 620 for role-playing games and 2,400 for the movie --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomo.s.429; can you provide some independent, secondary sources using the new name? Sennecaster (Chat) 02:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomo.s.429 Is the new name "JR Tokai Transport Service Company" or "JR-Central Transport Service Company"? In any case, Tokai Transport Service Company seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

edit

Edit this section only if your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators). Place your request in another section if it only requires a page mover.