Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:..."

  • 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]
Edit this section if you want to move a request between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

[edit]
Most requests should be placed below this heading.

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

[edit]
If your request involves reverting a move, place it here.

Contested technical requests

[edit]
Don't WP:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN apply? Minor spelling variations are not really different names. Note that Gray hawk does not use the IOC's spelling. See prior discussions at Talk:Gray hawk. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been at its current title for almost two years which IMO is a bit late to revert a previously undiscussed WP:BOLDMOVE. Unsure a case for globalization should be made here given the article currently only covers US amusement part incidents and Incidents at European amusement parks already exists in a much more advanced state. Note there is a previous version of the article that had much more thorough coverage of US incidents here before it was gutted in 2022; perhaps that could be fixed up.
Further discussion would probably help here. RachelTensions (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tobiasi0 your move request has been contested. If you wish to continue, please open a full requested move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link next to your request. RachelTensions (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawnbrescia Search shows that current name is also commonly used. Full RM might be needed ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing H. alba used? The only case I can find is BioLib, which changed the page after the Wikipedia page for H. alba was created. Also, even if H. alba is used by secondary sources, the rules of scientific nomenclature forbid renaming of species unless it is done in a peer-reviewed journal, which I can find no evidence of. Shawnbrescia (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better do a full RM ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bunnypranav: would you be willing to move the page first, then if you are still concerned about sourcing, do an RM from albus back to alba? My strong concerns about potential WP:circular reporting (as implied in Shawnbrescia's reply to you) compel me to ask for this deviation from standard procedure. The sources in the article itself suggest alba is WP:OR: the ICZN source cited says nothing about H. albus itself. My own searches on Google Scholar found the one source cited, Ávalos-Hernández 2009, for albus but absolutely nothing for alba. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments and the nom is fine, but I'm still not that confident about the move. Feel free to move it to the above discussion if you think another PM can take care of it. Or just simply start an RM, that will have comments from many more editors about the confusion in sources. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I ask a pagemover please move to albus before opening a RM discussion back to alba if pagemover still has concerns about sourcing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rotideypoc41352: That’s not how this page works. We don’t move an article and then request to move it back. A page mover has already contested the request. If you are interested in moving the page, you are free to request it on the talk page. cyberdog958Talk 15:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally invoked WP:IAR this one time for reasons I already outlined above; this specific set of circumstances should (in its imperative mood) not be used to set any sort of precedent. I do not oppose moving this to article talk. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rotideypoc41352: I think a full RM would be required. There you can present your reasonings to other editors more familiar with the topic area. We can’t control what others do with the information coming from Wikipedia. I don’t see WP:CIRCULAR as a compelling enough reason to IAR and hasten the process outside the normal procedure. cyberdog958Talk 17:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OrdinaryScarlett Quick search shows that sources are using the long name as well. Full RM might be needed to due no clear common name. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan There seems to be no primary between the two films. @Wbm1058: recently moved an article away from this title. So this is not uncontroversial, full RM is required ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Khanh Nguyen There is not primary topic yet per Pageviews, the dab page lists two place with the same name and district suffix. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phong Điền district, Thừa Thiên Huế has been redirected to Phong Điền (town). Currently, this location no longer carries the district suffix. Khanh Nguyen (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcg66b3r You yourself just filed the AfD on WNYT (internet radio) three minutes before requesting the move here. I suggest to wait until the AfD is closed before we start moving the pages around. cyberdog958Talk 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tstcikhthys1 I am contesting all of these "alternate" to "alternative" moves, as they are not uncontroversial and should go through a full move discussion to determine the COMMONNAME of their subjects. Toadspike [Talk] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See for instance the third footnote of Alternate history, which reads Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction (Oxford University Press, 2007) notes the preferred usage is "Alternate History", which was coined in 1954; "Alternative History" was first used in 1977, pp. 4–5. This directly contradicts the claim that British sources prefer "alternative". Toadspike [Talk] 13:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has dealt with this terminology issue in the past. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums there have been several flips over the years about what to call an extra album cover used in other countries and the like. Sometimes it was "Alternate cover" but it is currently "Alternative cover" (see Template:Infobox album). The earliest such discussion I can find was way back in 2009 at Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 5#Mistake, and note the dictionary definitions like those brought up by the requester here. So no matter how messy they may be, these requests have some precedents. All will be controversial, regardless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dalziel 86 That article has had the same name since being created in 2005. WP:MEDMOS states that …an international standard may be helpful, though Wikipedia generally discourages changing existing article usage. It also stated that the most recognized and used name should be used. At least in my area of the world of medicine, dextroamphetamine is used pretty much exclusively over dexamfetamine. This would require a full RM if you want the name to be changed. cyberdog958Talk 15:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Khanh Nguyen Move history shows it was named a district before, and it is listed in Category:Districts of Hà Nam province, so why town instead of district? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Khanh Nguyen Same as above, (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Both names seem to be used in books, but news articles and general google searches show results for Kilshon, not Pitchfork. Full RM might be needed for more comments. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TCU9999 Not uncontroversial. Our titles follow the common name used in sources, not the official name. It looks like most sources cited by the article use the "KN-06" name. Toadspike [Talk] 17:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TCU9999 Same as above, refs show common name to be the current title. TCU9999, please open an RM if you still think these should be moved. Toadspike [Talk] 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Not uncontroversial, previously moved in opposite direction [1]. Toadspike [Talk] 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

[edit]
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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1267369644"