Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiggerjay (talk | contribs) at 06:17, 24 February 2025 (Contested technical requests: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:..."

  • 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

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]
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]

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]

  • @Khaatir: this is not a uncontroverial move, and thus you need to bring it up in a full RM discussion on the article talk page. TiggerJay(talk) 05:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tiggerjay A well-reasoned discussion was initiated on the talk page, but no administrator or experienced user has responded. What can be done to expedite a decision on this matter? Can a specific administrator be notified, or is there any other necessary action? Khaatir (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Khaatir -- this board is only for technical requests of uncontentious nature, so your request does not belong here. What you need to do is open a "full RM discussion" by clicking on "discuss" above next to your request to start a full discussion on this topic. That will gather the attention of others to participate in the discussion. There is currently a big backlog for page moves, so it might take several weeks before your request is handled. After you open the full RM discussion on the talk page, please remove this thread here. Thanks! TiggerJay(talk) 06:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xpander1 This page was recently moved, so this would be considered contentious, please start a full RM discussion by clicking discuss next to your request. TiggerJay(talk) 05:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed