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.

Add a new request

Remove all requests

Technical requests

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Underdogs (2013 animated film) (currently a redirect to Metegol) → Underdogs (animated film) (currently a redirect instead to Metegol) (move · discuss) – See below 165.91.13.163 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underdogs (2013 drama film) (currently a redirect to Underdogs (2013 American film)) → Underdogs (drama film) (currently a redirect instead to Underdogs (2013 American film)) (move · discuss) – The only two films with the title Underdogs. 165.91.13.163 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Gaia Movement (currently a redirect to Gaianism) → Gaia Foundation (move · discuss) – more accurate title since recent changes to content (diff) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 03:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
- Oppose. We have no sources for the existence of a worldwide "Gaia Foundation"; this looks like original research or assumption. The article, having been rewritten to be about the alleged organization (not to be confused, the article says, with national-level ones with the same name like gaiafoundation.org in the UK), has already been tagged as failing WP:NORG. The generalized movement is clearly the more notable topic, and encompasses much more than a few organizations that may or may not be forming some kind of global federation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line → Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line (currently a redirect back to Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line) (move · discuss) – rv undiscussed disruptive, all metro lines in Russia use upper case type name ("X Line") and use "-" as in Russian source, these are proper names, like Guinea-Bissau. Get consensus at WP:RUSSIA first. This affects 100s of articles, categories, dab pages, templates. 77.179.21.125 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line) → Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) (currently a redirect back to Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line)) (move · discuss) – rv undiscussed disruptive, all metro lines in Russia use upper case type name ("X Line") and use "-" as in Russian source, these are proper names, like Guinea-Bissau. Get consensus at WP:RUSSIA first. This affects 100s of articles, categories, dab pages, templates. 77.179.21.125 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose per the last several years of "Line" → "line" RMs, and because the names with "Line" that the anon wants were themselves arrived at only just over a day ago via RM/TR requests [1] by the same party – those are the moves that are controversial (though the original names like Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Metro) are poor disambiguation and the current names more sensible and more consistent with other rail line articles). Furthermore, the "must use a dash because I think the WP:OFFICIALNAME has one" idea has been rejected every single time its every come up; we use en dashes for what en dashes are used for. Journalism, marketing style, and (often but not always) governmentese does not, but WP is not written in those styles. Next, en.WP has no care what the punctuation and capitalization standards are in another language anyway; these are English-language titles. The assertion "all metro lines in Russia use upper case type name ('X Line')" is nonsensical on its face. These are not proper names, they're English approximations of them – Wikipedian-provided translations. These things have no common names in English. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to oppose in a revert of controversial move, take it to WP:RUSSIA, affects ca. 1000 pages. 85.180.253.27 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, we take it to the talk page of the affected articles. The entire point of RM is to get broad input, not to canvass particular wikiprojects; we do not host RMs at wikiproject talk pages. The entire point of a WP:CONSISTENCY approach to naming (including of topics like rail systems) is to prevent not encourage geographically topical projects from making up their own divergent approaches to article titles. If a request-to-revert-undiscussed were to proceed here, it would be back to Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Metro), Shelepikha (Moscow Metro), and Aviamotornaya (Moscow Metro), but these have already been overwritten with disambiguation pages. The smart result is to decline to the request here (since it's policy-wrong for multiple reasons), then open either three RMs at the article talk pages or preferably one combined RM at the first of these articles's talk pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Further information (currently a redirect to Template:Further) → Template:Further (move · discuss) – Undiscussed: It was 7 hours from needless-request to it-is-done-and-request-is-deleted. See Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions: "Please only apply these after the normal seven day listing period has elapsed." (Yup. It says that. I knew something was wrong.) (To me, listing on a page where no one ever looks barely counts as "discussion".) Contested: (Posting something under "Uncontroversial technical requests" does not make it uncontroversial.) Beyond unnecessary. Template names need not reflect the actual text they display. ({{Main}} is still {{Main}}, and should remain.) If that's going to be a rule, it should be done at a higher level, not this casual what-the-heck, aw-shucks, why-not zone, where editors delete requests after making changes AND there is no archive sub-page. The last state of the original request (before closure-and-deletion) (2016-06-16): Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests A876 (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]