Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requested moves
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melsj (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 20 January 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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.
  • 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.
Add a new request
Remove all requests

Technical requests

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

Uncontroversial technical requests

Most requests should be placed below this heading.
  • Calentao → CalentadoCalentado (currently a redirect back to Calentao) (move · discuss) – Uncontracted name used by the Spanish Wikipedia. Melsj (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Group Athletics (sports organization) (currently a redirect to Strong Group Athletics) → Strong Group Athletics (move · discuss) – All of the entries in the dab are related to one another, with the basketball and volleyball teams being owned and managed by the sports organization, so I feel like at the base name should be the sports organization instead of a dab page. It could also be argued to just merge the sports teams' article into their own sections in the sports org article. Dieter Lloyd Wexler 19:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Abd al-Hamīd ibn Turk (currently a redirect to Ibn Turk) → Ibn Turk (move · discuss) – Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE) Aintabli (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ƒ/8 and be there (currently a redirect to F/8 and be there) → F/8 and be there (move · discuss) – Destination for move is a redirect (with edits) to the original. Requesting a swap of destination (F/8 and be there) be the article, with old article Ƒ/8 and be there be a redirect to the new destination. The original article, with 'hooked Ƒ', even when lowercased with DISPLAYTITLE, is merely a stylistic decoration (implying or looking like a mathematical/formula "function" 'f'). The photographic notation "f/8", "F8", etc., is read as 'eff-eight', and the 'f' is just shorthand for "focal length". It's often displayed as a script-f ('𝑓', Unicode letter U+1D453, "Mathematical small f"), but that's just a stylistic display, equivalent to a LaTeX/math font for 'f'. The article uses 'Ƒ' (Unicode U+0191, "Latin Capital Letter F with Hook"), and lowercases it with 'ƒ' (U+0192, "Latin Small Letter F with Hook"). Additionally, at least two screen readers don't actually read the 'f with hook'. It's typographically, syntactically, and accessibility-wise, simply wrong.  — sbb (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't the title then be 𝑓/8 and be there, with the commonly-used letter (U+1D453)? 162 etc. (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suggest that. While '𝑓' is stylistically nice, it's just style. The 'f'/'𝑓'/whatever is really just 'f' for "focal length". Compare to f-number. Most articles, blogs, etc., don't even bother with stylizing it anymore. Primarily I assume because it's just that: style. Several lens manufacturers use "F4" or whatever (capitalizing, not using a slash). I think that Wikipedia should try to specifically _reduce_ the emphasis on sort of "branding style" (c.f., "KoЯn", "Se7ven", etc.), and just go with the simplest lowest-common-denominator, which is just "f/8 and be there". Which is exactly what 99.9% of people would type if trying to convey that.  — sbb (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to my previous comment, without DISPLAYSTYLE "correcting" the article title, "F/8..." is just as correct as "f/8...", whereas with '𝑓', there's no upper-case variant for it. It's only written as script-f because most historical typesetting used serif fonts, and it's referred to as a variable shorthand for 'focal length'. We don't call the denominator, which is N = f/D, ("8", in this case) '𝒩' (U+1D4A9, "Mathematical Script Capital N") because italic N suffices where N ({{mvar|N}}) isn't typographically available. Similarly with '𝒟' (U+1D49F, "Mathematical Script Capital D"). Let's not over- or misuse Unicode characters when we don't need to. Especially for article titles.  — sbb (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for 3rd reply to you: also, at least testing with Apple (macOS, iOS) Voiceover, the '𝑓' you suggest isn't read by the screen reader. It just says "[tiny gap] /8 and be there ...". So from an accessibility standpoint, '𝑓' doesn't improve the situation at all.  — sbb (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dark Urge (currently a redirect to Dark Urge) → Dark Urge (move · discuss) – WP:THE. Reliable sources don't show a lot of reasons to have the leading definite article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

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

Contested technical requests

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
So you think Christianizing a registered historic synagogue is an obviously uncontroversial idea? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a church since 1944, more than 50 years before the building was placed on the National Register. So you think a building that has been a Black/Afro-Caribbean church for 79 years cannot be called by its name? (P.S. The instructions for this page say to start requests where I placed them and then they get discussed if controversial.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the request to be valid. St. Leonard's Anglican Church has existed for 79 years, over twice as long as the time the building was a synagogue. so the church is eligible for an article under its own name. The present article explains adequately that the building previously housed the synagogue and is in the Register of Historic Places under the old name. One possible compromise is to do the move and then expand the article with more history of St. Leonard's. Therefore the article will be about the church and not necessarily about the building, which is probably the source of the current confusion. (Edit: see better idea below.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not obviously uncontroversial, so it should be discussed. It's in the NRHP for its synagogue origin, and its architecture dates to that, and much of the article is about the history and the building. And people tend to get sensitive about changes of religious identify for places of worship. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on the NRHP solely for its origins as a synagogue. The NRHP listing also points to its significance as a church. Quote, "The building’s period of significance - 1909 to 1959 - encompasses its constmction and use as a synagogue to its conversion and new use as a church... St. Leonard’s church stands today as a handsome work of architecture by Eugene Schoen, but perhaps more importantly as a remarkable testament to the religious and ethnic history of Brooklyn. The history of the three congregations that the building has housed - Shaari Zedek, Achavath Achim, and St. Leonard’s Church - reflects the evolving population of Bedford-Stuyvesant, the history of Jews and of African- and Caribbean Americans in the borough, and the strength of New York City’s immigrant communities - whether originating in Eastern Europe or the West Indies." The fact that the building has historical significance as a church (and has a substantially longer and ongoing status as a church) weighs heavily toward renaming (while addressing other names with redirects and hatnotes as necessary). Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are interesting arguments in favor of your proposed renaming, and I suggest to bring them up in the RM discussion. But right now we're in RMTR, which is only for obviously uncontroversial moves. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely to be the type of discussion in which everyone is so passionate about their side that nothing changes in the end. (Or in WP Admin-speak: "no consensus".) Allow me to make a suggestion to split the article. The current article can focus on the building and its architectural history, because according to Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), "national heritage sites" are "presumed to be notable." Then there can be a separate article on St. Leonard's, under the requested name, that focuses on that church's worthy history while mentioning that it is housed in the historic synagogue. That way both the synagogue and the church have their own informative articles without cramming them together, which is the origin of the disagreement we're having now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:PRIMARYFILM is clear about this; no PDABs. 162 etc. (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this will be uncontroversial. There is only 1 country (Indonesia) that supposedly released the film on the very last day of 2019, everywhere else in the world it was released in or after the 1 Jan 2020, including the US, the country of origin. Needs discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1197443633"