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]

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
@Simoncik84: The rest of the pages in Category:Mountains of the Biellese Alps use Monte. If you want to make an argument that they should all be renamed, that would need a formal move discussion. See WP:RMPM for instructions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking here about Mont Mars only. Among the pages of this category, it's the only one with an entirely French name. Some of the other summits of this category stay on the water divide between the Province of Biella and the Aosta Valley. In the latest, French is co-official with Italian, these summits have therefore two official names (in Italian and in French), as you can see in the articles' introduction, but not Mont Mars, which has a name in French only. Simoncik84 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can be discussed by clicking the "discuss" link in the header above if you wish ASUKITE 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ASUKITE (all caps because copy-paste, not shouting), are you suggesting this discussion belongs on Talk:Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation instead of here? i'm replying here because discussion i see a discussion here, and don't see one there.
Just wanted to mention i heard on TV (PBS? i'll need to see if i can find/remember my source so i can cite it properly) the United States government uses "Indian" instead of "Native American" in legal documents. That might not outweigh Wikipedia's policy about common names, but is something else to consider.
--173.67.42.107 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meath → Meath (disambiguation) (currently a redirect back to Meath) (move · discuss) – It should be made a disambiguation page so Meath can be redirected to County Meath, which is the primary topic. TwinBoo (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably worth a discussion, as the historical Kingdom of Meath clearly has a long-term significance as well. Navigation statistics show that around 30% of viewers on the dab page go there, which is reasonably high given that County Meath is a current extant county where people live... Might be worth a discussion?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, usually “Meath” simply refers to the county so I’d assume it would be the primary topic, but I’ll make a discussion if necessary. —TwinBoo (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly TwinBoo, a community consensus after discussion is the best option. Are you opting in for that? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose moving, for that matter. The kingdom definitely has long-term significance, and "Meath", as a historical entity, doesn't have the current subdivision as its primary topic. Meath was also one of the historical provinces of Ireland (although their extent fluctuated over time), so I'm surprised that isn't also mentioned in the dab. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhives Akuru → Dhives akuru (currently a redirect back to Dhives Akuru) (move · discuss) – Change to sentence case. PepperBeast (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pepperbeast: I'm contesting this because it appears to be consistently capitalized in sources (i.e., the standard for MOS:CAPS). Additionally, Dives Akuru (without the h) seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME (see Google Ngrams). If you would like to continue with your request, you can open a requested-move discussion by clicking "discuss" on your request. SilverLocust 💬 04:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: Karst Shepherd seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:CONCISE name --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mia Mahey:, contesting because 'substantial' is more commonly used as a word than as a name. – robertsky (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
though I know the dimensions you're coming at. Searches of substantial yields many words accord meaning that @Robertsky is right for words than the rapper. The better redirect is to substance and the rappers article left as it is. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Justified primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I agree with Robertsky and Safari Scribe; "substantial" is used far more often as an adjective (meaning "has a lot of substance to it") than it's used as a proper noun for this one rapper. Substantial therefore should be a redirect to Substance, which if it's found necessary, should then have a hatnote to Substantial (rapper). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the base name Substantial already redirects to the rapper, and has done so for more than 10 years, this request shouldn't be opposed. It is a procedural move from a disambiguated title to a primary base name. FWIW I also do think the status quo is 100% correct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, and redirecting "Substantial" to "Substance" is just absurd. They don't even mean the same thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm fairly certain that's a case of WP:UPPERCASE; WP:NOTDICT is talking about how articles shouldn't merely be a definition of a word, and it specifically states in the 'minor differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary' section, quote, Per Wikipedia:Article titles § Use nouns adjectives are usually redirected to nouns or are disambiguation pages or simply do not exist. This, as I stated, would be a case of an adjective being redirected to its noun.
Either way, with three people so far contesting this move, I think it's left "procedural" at this point and moved to "this should be discussed on the talk page" as per the guidelines at the top of the page. @Mia Mahey Would you do the honors of moving this there, please? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's nonsense. This is a technical/procedural request to simply move the article to its correct location given Wikipedia's article title policy, and there's no reason for it to be contested in such a fashion. Also, substance is not the "noun form" of substantial. They are separate words, which are both ultimately derived from the Latin term substantia, but they aren't directly connected in English.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru ...I'll be blunt right back, that's nonsense. If a technical request to move the article to a different location should never be opposed, why, exactly, is there an entire section on the page down here FOR contested technical moves, AND instructions on this page for what to do if your technical move request gets contested? (As I've already mentioned, said instructions are to move the request over to the page's Talk page, using the Discuss button on the request template.)
The fact of the matter is, this HAS been contested; therefore, as per the instructions on this page, this needs to be moved to the Talk page and discussed. Clearly you feel that the move should be carried out; I recommend arguing for that when it's moved to the talk page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your basis for contesting the move doesn't make sense though. This request here isn't about arguing the rights and wrongs of the case, it's simply to move the article to the base name because it has been incorrectly placed for the past ten years, given that the rapper was established as primary topic, based on the rules of disambiguation. It's a purely procedural request. Discussions on the rights and wrongs of the situation can follow, but the status quo right now is that the rapper is the primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... don't understand what you're saying here?? If I've got you right, you're saying that because the issue that I, Robertsky, and Safari Scribe have with the discussion isn't something technical, but is something along the lines of "wait no, the redirect this is being moved to shouldn't be targeting the rapper's page after all and has been, in fact, pointing to the wrong target for the past ten years", what should happen is that the requested move should be played out, and then someone gets to say "hey wait no go back", and THEN and only THEN we can have a proper discussion????
That seems... needlessly convoluted. Shouldn't it instead be properly discussed at this juncture? And if that's "wrong" because "that's not Proper Procedure, it's cutting corners"... I say we should cut the corners. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright fine, I'll withdraw my point and sorry if I was rude to you. We can proceed with the RM as you suggest. Incidentally, I've had a search and there are actually quite a few topics which aren't directly named Substantial but have it as a prominent part of the name. See User:Amakuru/Sandbox for a list... I would be a lot less opposed to this if we made that list of pages the disambiguation page at Substantial, rather than the redirect to Susbtance.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeable to have the dab page take the place of the base name. – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite all right. Incidentally, I do feel that we should wait until the discussion is moved to talk:Substantial (rapper) to get into the weeds about discussing what to actually do beyond 'hey we need to talk about this'-- I'm not entirely certain all of what we say here will actually be taken with us to the discussion there?? I do have something to say about that list but will hold off on actually getting into it until that point. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: Neither actress is known primarily by just "Preethi". See WP:PARTIAL. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 2 June 2024 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1227115565"