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: 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 this section if you want to move a request between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

• These Are "The Damned" → The Damned (1962 film) (currently a redirect back to These Are "The Damned") (move · discuss) – According to the page's history, it seemed that c.7 years ago, this film's confusing titles and release dates caused a number of flubs. In the UK, it's just titled The Damned; in the USA, it was These Are the Damned. And the very first theatrical release date, which is what we always classify a film by, was in Australia 1962. However, its first UK premiere was 1963.
  
  So first somebody attempted to change it to the US title; then when somebody reverted it back to the simple The Damned, they also apparently added (1963 film) rather than (1962 film)—to distinguish from others, like a 1969 film by the same name. And just to make matters worse, the lede paragraph here erroneously refers to it as a 1961 film—which I'll fix now. (That's a misinterpretation of film wrap-up vs. cinemas probably.)
  
  So I was hoping to correct it all by swapping the redirect "(1962 film)" with the main article "(1963 film)"……Except "(1962 film)" had more than 1 edit. So I tried to do the A-B-C page move method, but I failed and I didn't want to create further problems. So I just need help at this point, please!
  
  Could an admin please move the main film article's content onto the page titled The Damned (1962 film)? Afterwards, the following should all be redirects based on alternative names or incorrect names, just in case: ReDir.#1: The Damned (1963 film); RD #2: These Are the Damned; & RD #3: These Are "The Damned" (the latter because the poster has it stylized as such, w/ quotation marks). I apologize for the complications, but I appreciate the assistance in advance, thank you. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 10:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I wonder if the longer US title was used to prevent confusion with a different book or film or comic, as even by the early 1960s they were a lot of things called "The Damned" as seen here. That confusion continues to bedevil us decades later. At any rate, I think the requester's suggestion for The Damned (1962 film) is solid and based on how history turned out, but I will leave it for more discussion if anyone knows more about the rules for US vs. UK matters in article titles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I personally prefer the US title myself, to distinguish it from Luchino Visconti's more well-known debaucherous masterpiece, The Damned (1969). And I concur, re: dab. But alas, since it's a UK Hammer Film Productions, kinda resigned to being yet another damned Damned, if you will! --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 13:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hyderabad, Sindh → Hyderabad, Pakistan (currently a redirect back to Hyderabad, Sindh) (move · discuss) – As per WP:CONSISTENT with other Pakistani cities. Titan2456 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Wild Wing (disambiguation) → Wild Wing (currently a redirect instead to Wild Wing Restaurants) (move · discuss) – Per Special:Permalink/1249522210#Requested move 26 September 2024. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

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

Contested technical requests

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.

• COMITIA → Comitia (convention) (move · discuss) – MOS:ALLCAPS; renaming to Comitia is also fine lullabying (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment that is a primary topic change if it moves to "Comitia" ; that would need a full-up move request. IIRC "COMITIA" is an acronym -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Radiation zone → Radiative zone (currently a redirect back to Radiation zone) (move · discuss) – All sources in page agree on "radiative zone", please see analysis at Talk:Radiation_zone#Renaming_to_Radiative_zone.. The name exists as a redirect now, they could swapped. The edit history on the current redirect page, radiative zone, is insignificant. Thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton Neither ngram, nor scholar ([1] vs [2]) agree with that assessment. I suggest you run a full RM discussion for this move. Raladic (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic Your citations for "Radiation zone" are for a different topic. eg " A New Perspective on Earth's Radiation Zone" "Earth's Inner Radiation Zone" and so on. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic what do you mean by "run a full RM discussion " Johnjbarton (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

A full WP:RSPM Requested Move Discussion at the article talk page to ensure community consensus agrees with you.

Things could be complicated if there's differing use of what Radiation zone refers to vs Radiative zone as you just mentioned above and it appears we don't have an article for the Earths Radiation zone if that term is indeed not always used synonymously with the current articles title?

Either way, it sounds like a bigger community discussion on this is warranted, given that it appears to be two terms that may or may not refer to the same or not same thing, so it does not appear to be an uncontroversial technical move, which is what this noticeboard is for. Raladic (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Jade Thirlwall → Jade (singer) (currently a redirect instead to Jade (given name)) (move · discuss) – She goes mononymously in her solo work, that can be checked on all streaming platforms and her official website. Bluemoon878 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest opening a full discussion on this since there are other singers with the name Jade, be it with or without their surname/family name. – robertsky (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea tbh. Among the bevy of other Jades on that given name article page, several of them are also singers. One should thoroughly check on AllMusic and/or Genius to be sure none of them ever went mononymously.

For the time being, until a full discussion occurs and/or consensus, w/e…what I'd recommend is, immediately following her birthdate in the lede, having it say "known mononymously as Jade" or words to that effect. That's fairly customary. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 13:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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.