Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:..."

  • 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.

Technical requests

[edit]

Uncontroversial technical requests

[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

[edit]

Contested technical requests

[edit]
  • Ben Rice (baseball)  Ben Rice (move · discuss) – Over the last month, the baseball player accounts for 96.5% of total pageviews for the topic "Ben Rice" and 96.3% of median pageviews. Since the beginning of the year, those numbers are 95.9% and 92.9%, respectively. So not a product of recency, but a clear main topic. The baseball player should have the base, non-disambiguated page name. Debartolo2917 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, WP:RECENTISM is a factor in this sports player's current popularity. (This is just a comment, not an objection.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic grabs are not uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Lagos "Cathedral of Our Lady" is not an administrative division, so "Antwerp" is not a higher-level administrative division. Therefore WP:COMMADIS does not apply --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer, though I am a bit surprised by it, as I would consider a building to be a "place", albeit not a geographic one. If WP:COMMADIS does not apply here, can we at least agree that a comma is preferable as per WP:TITLECON? I have seen relatively few articles on buildings with city names between brackets, and this is the only one among the Roman Catholic churches in Antwerp, which makes it somewhat of an anomaly. Jason Lagos (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anohthterwikipedian Since the merge of Capital ẞ into ß was the result of a discussion at Talk:ß/Archive 1#Merge Capital ẞ here?, I think a discussion would be needed here to move the the uppercase letter, especially given how recent and controversial the uppercase form is. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
16:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BroJac5246 This primary topic grab doesn't seem clearly correct to me. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would recommend this be a full RM discussion, not a technical request. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann Article has been moved back from draft to main after draftifying so will need RM consensus to return to draft, per WP:DRAFTNO CoconutOctopus talk 19:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoconutOctopus: I thought Altenmann is the only substantial contributor to this page. In that case I don't think WP:DRAFTNO is intended to stop a move. If Altenmann wanted a speedy deletion, not merely draftifying, that would have been permissible too. But anyway, @Altenmann: I don't think there is a technical limitation preventing you from moving this yourself? Adumbrativus (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore this request for now. I am in a conflict with an admin, who thinks I am disrupting Wikipedia with this move. In fact, I have about 200 pages which I created while unwittingly violating copyright, see, e.g., here. When the dust settles, I will ask to review whether all of them must be draftified. --Altenmann >talk 07:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coleisforeditor There was a prior discussion which resuitled in this move. While it has been a long time since, given that the article is move protected, opening a discussion might be prudent. – robertsky (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

[edit]