Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

Uncontroversial technical requests

Colours (EP) → Colours (Solar EP)Colours (Solar EP) (currently a redirect back to Colours (EP)) (move · discuss) – That's because even though the EP by South Korean girl group Miss A's considered to be the primary EP topic with the name 'Colors', without a 'u' in its title, and the EP by South Korean singer Solar's considered to be the primary EP topic with the name 'Colours', with a 'u' in its title, because the EP by Canadian singer PartyNextDoor, which is also called 'Colours', with a 'u' in its title, is considered to be non-notable, per WP:NCALBUM, there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC EP with the name 'Colo(u)r', either with or without a 'u' in its title, and because per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I think certain article titles with spelling variants should redirect to similarly-titled non-redirect articles. PK2 (talk; contributions) 09:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Love, Hate and Then There's You → Love, Hate, and Then There's YouLove, Hate, and Then There's You (currently a redirect back to Love, Hate and Then There's You) (move · discuss) – This is the album title with the correct punctuation T Yorke (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Various sources cited in the article use different punctuation. The Rolling Stone review doesn't use punctuation at all. What are you basing this on? 162 etc. (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Pitchfork review uses the correct punctuation. I think it should have the correct punctuation or no punctuation at all then. T Yorke (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "correct" punctuation is the one that most sources use. 162 etc. (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@T Yorke: Unless you can show that your proposed title is the one most used by reliable secondary sources, I see no reason to move the article away from the stable title. 162 etc. (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's two sources that use the punctuation and two that don't use any punctuation (AllMusic is the other one). The other sources are dead links. I won't pursue the change to using two commas since one comma is technically also correct. T Yorke (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All on Me → All on Me (Devin Dawson song)All on Me (Devin Dawson song) (currently a redirect back to All on Me) (move · discuss) – Not to be confused with the Lil Baby song. MC-123 (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any article for a Lil Baby song named "All on Me". 162 etc. (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MC-123 This is the only article named "All on Me" that has an article, and the others listed on the DAB don't have articles. Z E T A³ 18:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, All on Me (Lil Baby song) was just created, but it's too new to determine if it warrants the other one to get a disambig Z E T A³ 18:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OP is putting the cart before the horse here. A song that dropped last month and did not even hit the Hot 100 does not warrant taking primary status away from a song that went 2x Platinum in the US. 162 etc. (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poor law union → Poor Law UnionPoor Law Union (currently a redirect back to Poor law union) (move · discuss) – Poor Law is invariably capitalised; Poor Law Union is more common. See comment from Eric Corbett on the article's talk page: "The present title, Poor law union, doesn't really make sense, as Poor Law is invariably capitalised. The only two sensible options are Poor Law union or Poor Law Union, both of which are represented in the literature, with the balance being significantly in favour of Poor Law Union. The latter would also be consistent with Poor Law Commission, for instance." I cannot move the page myself, as a redirect exists at Poor Law Union, and has edit history. TRiG (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Poor law union" is not the name of a particular organisation; it is a type of organisation. It is a common noun, not a proper name for which capitalisation is compulsory. "Poor Law union" might be OK. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed