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 ~2025-37450-05 (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 1 December 2025 (moving from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Instructions). 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 a technical move 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 "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.

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

If your request involves a technical request for reverting a recent undiscussed move, place it here.

Contested technical requests

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if they have been contested.
The same nominator proposed moving the same article to the same title before. The record can be found at Talk:Television Shin-Hiroshima#Requested move 4 December 2024. The declared conclusion was to not move the article to that title. I don't understand why the nominator now thinks moving it there would be uncontroversial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serbs of Kosovo was moved to Kosovo Serbs - see the history by the StephenMacky1. His rationale was that Ngram reveals that "Kosovo Serbs" is more common?! I find Ngram claim a classic case of cherry-picking flashy metric while ignoring wiki guidelines. WP:TITLES doesn't prioritize raw commonality for descriptive articles like ethnic groups. The "common name" criteria is just one factor, but there is also consistency in article titles. Ngram argument can't override this, wiki guidelines don't favor Ngram title counts over recognizable structures whatsoever, as per WP:CONSISTENCY. For example, Bosnian Serbs or Croatian Serbs are more common as per Ngram but yet articles from the onset have been titled Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Croatia. In my opinion, consistency in article titles should matter more, especially for related topics like ethnic groups within a shared cultural or regional context (Balkans). For articles on Serb populations in Balkan countries, the established format is "Serbs of (Country)" (Serbs of Croatia, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbs of Montenegro). Adopting "Kosovo Serbs" would break this pattern, creating inconsistency across the whole series of articles. Another argument by the user was "Kosovo Albanians" title, that was in my opinion another cherry-picking, taking one example against a dozen examples I provided. Not to mention that consistency isn't about mirroring every ethnic group but maintaining it within related articles for reader navigation, and related articles are those of Serb communities across the Balkans. Most importantly, "Serbs of Kosovo" works better for disputed territories such as Kosovo since it is more neutral and treats Kosovo as a location and ensures the title works regardless of political views, while "Kosovo Serbs" subtly endorse Kosovo's sovereignty and statehood by using it adjectivally. Kosovo's political status remains disputed. International and supranational organizations (such as UN, OSCE, EU, Council of Europe) overwhelmingly use the neutral phrasing "Serbs of Kosovo" or "the Serb community in Kosovo" precisely to avoid any implication about sovereignty. Using the adjectival form "Kosovo Serbs" as the primary title is the formulation more often found in news media. Choosing the adjectival form as the title therefore moves the article toward one side of the political dispute, which violates WP:NPOV. The lead section uses both Serbs of Kosovo and Kosovo Serbs and that should do enough, but title is the place where choice has to be made, and the choice that best satisfies consistency, precision, and long-term stability is Serbs of Kosovo. Klačko (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot to mention that you recently moved the article here without any discussion. So, the burden is on you to discuss it and since this is not an uncontroversial move, the technical request will not work. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to contested, reverting the WP:RMUM has already occurred. CNC (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • BPCE Group → BPCEBPCE (currently a redirect back to BPCE Group) (move · discuss) – The acronym BPCE only applies to this group, which is among the world's most significant banks as designated by the Financial Stability Board {{{sig}}}User:Boubloub (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that neither of these may be the best title as it often goes by Groupe BPCE, which is the official name of the group and how it is referred to in some sources. RM may be a better option here. echidnalives - talk - edits 04:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artificial-Sentence The undiscussed move was not recent. as it took place in 2018, and there are still many sources referring to it as "Cap-Haïtien International Airport". If you wish to pursue this please open an RM discussion and provide sources and more in-depth rational beyond "travellers' account". echidnalives - talk - edits 04:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is seen as a generally unreliable source; see WP:IMDB. This does not seem uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does this "not seem uncontroversial?" Halbared (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where Time Began has been a stable title for 8 years. You're proposing to move it to a completely different title, offering only a 5-word rationale which is shaky at best. How is that uncontroversial? 162 etc. (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see that. The title change I propose brings it more in line with it's associated works and is faithful to it's original title.Halbared (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Halbared Moved to contested CNC (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmpHaziqR this title is supported by recent RM. Please click discuss to open a new RM, moving this page has already been contested once before at RMTR. CNC (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was prior discussion on this in 2012 so moving this will require an RM. Bensci54 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the prior discussion was actually in 2008, but was archived in 2012. It was pretty wild. There was a consensus declared to move it to ABN AmroABN Amro, and then someone unilaterally said "Fuck the MOS" and moved it back. Then there was no consensus in the subsequent discussion. No consensus would seem to mean that it should be at ABN AmroABN Amro, but that's apparently not what happened. It doesn't look like much of a precedent that should be followed. (No opinion on the merits of the question.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 2008, not 2012. My bad. It looked to me like what you say is exactly what originally happened (i.e. the no consensus finding led to a move to ABN Amro) but that this was subsequently overturned via WP:AN. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive159#ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?. Some very heated discussion occurred. Needless to say, it doesn't quality as non-controversial due to all this activity. Bensci54 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 1 December 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=1325217662"