Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

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.

Technical requests

edit

Uncontroversial technical requests

edit

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

edit

Contested technical requests

edit
@Nurg I don't think the "distinct" part of WP:DIFFCAPS is met here, and Polynesian mythology is probably still the primary topic for the title-case title. Worth a discussion at least. C F A 💬 15:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose this. 162 etc. (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The examples in DIFFCAPS are intuitive for most readers (e.g. "Iron Maiden" vs. "iron maiden", or "MAVEN" vs. "Maven"), but "Polynesian Mythology" and "Polynesian mythology" are only distinct if you know that Wikipedia article titles are in sentence case. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nurg, your request has been contested. Please open a move discussion using the "discuss" link if you wish to continue with the request. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. From the comments above I get the impression that "distinct" in the policy means something more than I realised, and that the shortcut name "DIFFCAPS" is misleading in implying that a mere difference in capitals is enough. I'm guessing that the name "DIFFPUNCT" is similarly misleading. If I'm right, then I suggest those two shortcuts should be removed from the page (the shortcuts themselves needn't be deleted). Also, it would be good if "distinct meanings" was clarified. I know the policy talk page would be the place to discuss this, but I don't think I can be bothered shepherding a debate about it, so I'm just tossing it in here. Nurg (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGAMarCommRanha See WP:OFFICIALNAME. C F A 💬 14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decapod  Decapod (disambiguation) (currently a redirect back to Decapod) (move · discuss) – 'Decapod (disambiguation)' was created for the express purpose of redirecting to 'Decapod'. However, 'Decapod' clearly has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 'Decapod' is the common name for the order Decapoda that houses all crabs, all shrimp, all prawns, all lobsters, and all crayfish. There are thousands of articles that fall under Decapoda and whose subjects can be called decapods. I've seen at this point several dozen wikilinks formatted as [[Decapoda|decapod]] because we direct to a disambig instead of a PT. At the bare minimum, even if a PT somehow isn't established, 'Decapod' would point to 'Decapod (disambiguation)', not vice-versa. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27 There has been a silent consensus for nearly twenty years, so I don't think this is necessarily uncontroversial. You can open a discussion by clicking the "discuss" link next to your request. C F A 💬 14:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingArti There's no need to move this now, as the draft approver can move it to the appropriate title when it is moved out of draftspace. That said, the previous films are not consistent: there is Scream 4 and Scream VI. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
21:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingArti Also, the Instagram post that announced the release date used "Scream 7", not "Scream VII". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
21:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nodicenomasters The video game article seems to be the primary topic with 13,600 page views per month, vs 620 for role-playing games and 2,400 for the movie --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
00:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, i don't really say indie video game, plus sources commonly use the shorter name. See also: WP:CONCISE JuniperChill (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomo.s.429; can you provide some independent, secondary sources using the new name? Sennecaster (Chat) 02:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomo.s.429 Is the new name "JR Tokai Transport Service Company" or "JR-Central Transport Service Company"? In any case, Tokai Transport Service Company seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title of the article should be fixed as requested, but I wonder if "goddess" is the proper disambiguator. The suggestion seems fine but there might be a guideline that I can't find. Meanwhile, this goddess could possibly receive the main Samjna namespace, which currently redirects to Samjna (concept), if the goddess is considered the primary topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520, I did quick search on google books, and yeah, majority of results were about the goddess [1], though I don't know to determine primary in this case Seyamar(245CMR)💬📜 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rn, it would be best to move the article, turn the page Samjna into a disam Seyamar(245CMR)💬📜 18:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the spelling in opening sentence of the article does not match the article title and was just changed by the nominator. What is the need for disambiguation? Is it for disambiguation with Samjna (concept)? There don't seem to be many other topics known by this name, and the spellings don't seem the same, and this topic has clear long-term notability. Examples of other topics are Vishnu and Shiva. We don't seem to feel the need to disambiguate those. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Samjna is the most common spelling of her name, I recommend that she get the main namespace with no need for disambiguation. Thanks to millennia of religious scripture she is clearly the primary topic, notwithstanding the spelling question. After a move, we can simply add a "see also Samjna (concept)" hatnote to the top of her article and a similar one in the other direction. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seyamar Sounds like this needs further discussion. Please click on the discuss link in your request above to open a discussion on the article's talk page, and make sure to notify Talk:Samjna (concept). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

edit
pinging GorillaWarfare who performed the partial move. Raladic (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]