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 Tiggerjay (talk | contribs) at 05:01, 24 February 2025 (→Requests to revert undiscussed moves: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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.
  • 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.
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.

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.
Title is the result of a 2021 RM. Such cases should not be brought to WP:RMT. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious. See Restoration. 162 etc. (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources do you have to support this name change? Current citation seem to support the current article title. See WP:NAMECHANGE for related information. TiggerJay (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources do you have to support this name change? Current citation seem to support the current article title. See WP:NAMECHANGE for related information. TiggerJay (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources do you have to support this name change? Current citation seem to support the current article title. See WP:NAMECHANGE for related information. TiggerJay (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources do you have to support this name change? Current citation seem to support the current article title. See WP:NAMECHANGE for related information. TiggerJay (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources do you have to support this name change? Current citation seem to support the current article title. See WP:NAMECHANGE for related information. TiggerJay (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources do you have to support this name change? Current citation seem to support the current article title. See WP:NAMECHANGE for related information. TiggerJay (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonny2x4 We use what reliable sources use, not offical names. Most, if not all, refs in article use current capitalization, any particular reason/source to change it? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonny2x4 can you provide a reliable source for your confirmation? ROY is WAR Talk! 23:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rebochan Contested as recent activity shows there is controversy - after the related move is closed it may be possible to move this, but even then a discussion might be a good idea. ASUKITE 15:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rebochan, I would suggest to discuss this on talk page. This is a controversy move and it needed a consensus on other editors. ROY is WAR Talk! 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro The page views do not support PTOPIC outright, so this should be raised under a full RM discussion. Until that is established, I am also going to revert your bold change of the page redirect until a discussion can take place. TiggerJay (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (re-request)

  • Chadhaibhol → Chadheibhol (currently a redirect back to Chadhaibhol) (move · discuss) – The spelling Chadheibhol is the original and commonly used name of the village. The current title, Chadhaibhol, appears to be derived from an online census entry, which may contain typographical errors. More reliable sources, such as published books, government records, and local signage, confirm that "Chadheibhol" is the correct spelling.

A search in Google Books currently does not show any references for "Chadhaibhol," whereas eighteen or more results appear for "Chadheibhol," many of which are from census publications:

  1. 1964: [2]
  2. 1965: [3]
  3. 1972: [4]
  4. 1976: [5]
  5. 1977: [6]
  6. 1980: [7]
  7. 2011: [8]

Additionally, the name Chadheibhol appears in reliable online sources, including:

  1. The Times of India: [9]
  2. Kalinga TV: [10]
  3. Schools.org: [11]
  4. Housing.com: [12]
  5. ICBSE: [13]
  6. The New Indian Express: [14]

A previous argument against the move was based on Google search result counts: "Chadhaibhol" (3,060 results) vs. "Chadheibhol" (799 results). However, Google search results are not a reliable metric for determining correct spelling, as they include unrelated pages. A more authoritative approach is to prioritize books, newspapers, and government documents.

Additionally, the National Highway 49 signboard in the village itself displays "Chadheibhol," further confirming local usage.

The National Highway 49 signboard in Chadheibhol, showing the spelling in common use.

Given this evidence, the move to Chadheibhol aligns with Wikipedia’s policy on WP:COMMONNAME, as it reflects the spelling used in historical records, government documents, and local sources. Khaatir (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2025 (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=1277355643"