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 2a02:c7c:4d0a:a500:adcd:29bf:c31a:b59d (talk) at 05:31, 21 July 2025 (→Uncontroversial technical requests: BRI research institute). 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
 Done
Wikipedian Talk to me! or not… 04:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Wikipedian Talk to me! or not… 04:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

If your request involves reverting a recent 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.
@Socialwave597 Based on the previous RM that was closed due to sock activity, I am going to recommend another discussion as that is also what the closer recommended at that time. Multiple editors have also appeared to disagree over the title, so a BOLD move would likely be reverted. ASUKITE 15:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "another discussion"? Pretty frustrating that this RM was derailed because of some sock from a very long time ago. Socialwave597 (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magherbin @Srnec, I see both of you have changed the title around a year ago, since @Asukite believes there is a possibility that this RM would get reverted, would you two have any objections to this being the name of the article? Socialwave597 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should remain with the English term Magherbin (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go thru RM. Needs to be explored more fully. Srnec (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elviajero based on the recent message at Talk:Saurashtra script, I am going to recommend a discussion as it appears somebody disagreed with the spelling, meaning a move here will simply get reverted. We are only here to process uncontroversial moves, we cannot settle disputes. ASUKITE 15:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy linking contesting of related move (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KingArti: Hey there! I took a look at your draft and noticed that around 51% of the content appears to be a copyright violation — sourced from this forum page. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to fully access the site due to a block on my end, but I’ve already requested a CV-deletion for the affected version.
Once you’ve made the necessary changes, please consider resubmitting your draft through Articles for Creation. I’ll make sure to review it promptly once it’s submitted. Thanks! — --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  06:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhiimanyu7: This was not a copyright violation of that forum post, which was explicitly quoting what "wikipedia said" and therefore is not the original author. Rather, this was copied from The Fantastic Four: First Steps#Music and should have simply been given attribution in a dummy edit per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. @Nthep: I believe this revdel should be reversed.
@KingArti: You should have just posted your new version of the article again at The Fantastic Four: First Steps (soundtrack) rather than posting a new draft and immediately asking for it to be moved onto the previous one. In any event, you must give attribution when copying content from one article to another. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust revdel undone. Nthep (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can we publish it now ? KingArti (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae The opposite of this move was performed in 2022 [3], so this should go through an RM. Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: sorry I made this move before seeing it was contested. Why does the 2022 move stop us moving it again now, back to the original title? If it's contested for a substantive reason then we can revisit, but this doesn't look controversial to me. If it's a proper name it full caps then it doesn't seem like having "List of" is appropriate, as well as the reasons Myceteae gives above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru The rationale for the 2022 move was exactly the opposite of the rationale of this request ("The article was already a list with an intro" from @Fred Gandt). When two editors come to radically different conclusions based on the same facts, I think the move is not uncontroversial and a discussion is warranted. However, I have no preference on the title here and I certainly don't intend to die on this hill. Toadspike [Talk] 11:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike @Amakuru I didn't see this move history, only the history that made Tiny Desk Concert a redirect, and I did not see {{R from former name}}. I did look on talk and saw no history of discussion about the name. I thought I had done my due diligence and that this was a no-brainer, but I missed this. Let me know if I need to take any action. No objection to an editor who disagrees with the move reverting or starting an RM. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split Both the series and the list appear to meet WP:GNG. The article as it reads today is confusing and messy, and I believe splitting would make for a better result. 162 etc. (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings here but I don't think this is necessary. The article body needs to be cleaned up whether it remains an article, an intro to the list, or is split. The list portions are nicely organized and splitting them won't improve the article portion. The list is the strongest part of the article and splitting it off seems a shame so I guess I'm weak oppose but I acknowledge that's not a very strong argument. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last move discussion at Talk:Iao Valley was 5 years ago. Zurich, Cancún, and Ho Chi Minh City obviously are not covered by MOS:HAWAII. I agree that by the letter of the ‘law’ any history of prior move discussion makes a move ‘potentially controversial’ but when there is a guideline update, bringing pages that have not recently been discussed into alignment should be looked at differently. No reason has been provided that any of these pages have special considerations that override the MOS and recent RM confirming consensus for Hawaiʻi articles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:13, 21 July 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=1301690042"