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.
@Gold Broth - can you provide a link to your GS results? When looking at V vs L2 in since 2024 I see about a 2x return in results, but there is still clearly use as L2, and I don't have the subject matter expertise to understand that these two are the same, but I'm not sure that 90 vs 180 is showing a significant shift. This seems like there might be a shift going on, and I would suggest a full RM discussion on the talk page, which you seem to have started an informal one already. TiggerJay(talk)05:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've been stable for a year now without a primary topic, and nobody engaged at Talk:Sokol. I would say the time window for a technical reversal is gone after a few months of stability, no? So if one wants to make a redirect to the historical movement, that should not be done automatically, rather it merits further discussion in the talk pages. --Joy (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sokol movement is pretty clearly the primary topic based on pageviews, so throughout this period that has been the primary topic, and nothing that happens on a talk page can affect this objective reality. —Alalch E.23:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, edgy, claims of objective reality :D I'm sorry, but this is why we have discussion pages. The objective reality is also that the article about the Sokol movement encompasses a number of distinct topics that are also very clearly distinct in the page views, and there's a number of other views there that never proceed to the movement page despite it occupying a veritably huge chunk of the top of the list. Instead of trying to procedurally weave around having the discussion, just engage in it, per WP:CONS. --Joy (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contested technical requests
Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
From a second read of the LEAD this morning, it appears that the 2024 was just the first event held, and that the Grand Prix is designed to be an annual championship, so will we see a 2025 $1 Million Challenge? Or is the 2024 simply a one-off event, and subsequent events by the GP are going to have a different title? TiggerJay(talk)17:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; the golf tourney and the psychic demonstration challenge have WP:NATURAL disambiguation. If anything, the poker program (which lasted two seasons during the height of the poker-on-TV fad) could be better disambiguated with (poker). But I see no reason why the unique (NATURAL) use of "$1" (which was stable with a hatnote with the previous article at $1 Million Challenge) warrants a challenge on those grounds at this time. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)06:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any source or set of sources to support this beyond the CONCACAF website?! This isn't CONCACAF W Championship as you're stating in your request and not every women's tournament from CONCACAF is "CONCACAF W..."! Would love to be proven otherwise. Intrisit (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rebochan, you can't move a page over an existing one unless it's a single-revision redirect to the page being moved in its place, otherwise you are correct to ask here. For the record, @Cubching90's closure was slightly irregular as it is expected that a closer is able to carry out the actual moves, which they clearly can't. ASUKITE20:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Cubching90 was blocked for sockpuppetry, I think that closure needs to be reverted, which means my move earlier might have been invalid as well. (Or... I don't know what to do, an admin should handle that as it looks like a couple other editors were blocked there, might be better even to just void the entire discussion and start over at this point) ASUKITE21:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the discussion was that all of those pages are not using the correct names of the shows according to primary sources. These all should have been uncontroversial moves, but people fight them anyway. Now all of my moves trying to follow what I had no reason to believe was a bad faith closure have been reverted by Hey man im josh who scolded me for it on my talk page. Rebochan (talk) 23:00, 19 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. ASUKITE15:06, 20 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]
Oppose; this request based on an assumption/misunderstanding by the user. If she took the title, she defintely took the surname too even if she didn't use it. The obits may just be refering to her pre-marital name OR her case is similar to Rose Hanbury who is better known by her maiden name. Since she is referred as "Lady Reading" or "Reading" in the articles post-marriage, then she definitely took her husband's name. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for correcting me on this point. Still I wonder because I can see very little reference online to her being referred to as Margot Isaacs whether it would not be better to still correct the title with her forename(s) as above. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@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]
@Binksternet: This would seem to require a non-trivial amount of work to re-scope this article to the act and then the lead becomes the background leading up to the Pico act, so this is far beyond just a title issue. This is probably best left up to talk page discussion first to discuss changing the scope, and then a formal RM discussion. TiggerJay(talk)03:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the present article's text is actually about the history of the Pico Act, and its odd path from being introduced then passed then signed into effect then forgotten. I think the text could be rearranged rather easily around that history, then the geography of the proposed territory could be a sub-section. Once that is done, the requested move would be sensible. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a contentious PTOPIC grab between a redirect to a marginally viewed article, with the potential for a different article with also very marginal view numbers. The referenced talk page discussion was from over 5 years ago and the article has been stable at the current title for a while. It would seem like a full RM discussion would be required, especially because it would impact not only this page, but also the current redirect as well. TiggerJay(talk)05:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
