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

Most requests should be placed below this heading.

• Template:Piracy opentask (currently a redirect to Template:WikiProject Piracy/opentask) → Template:WikiProject Piracy/opentask (move · discuss) – indicate scope and association for this work template -- NOTE: {{WikiProject Piracy}} coding will need to be updated to indicate the new name of this subtemplate. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• United States Center for SafeSport (currently a redirect to U.S. Center for SafeSport) → U.S. Center for SafeSport (move · discuss) – The organization and all reliable sources identify it as "U.S. Center for SafeSport". Redirect from that page already exists. -- William Graham ^talk 16:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. While it appears both ways in google searches, the proposed new name is appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME, the guiding policy here. I know its possible an editor may say - without indicating basis - that the proposed move is controversial and needs to be decided by consensus, but I would hope if they do so that they would indicate how given WP:COMMONNAME they believe any legitimate controversy exists. There should likely also be a category for SafeSport, but that's a whole other matter. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:4579:21B2:C90:D3D5 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer US rather than U.S. Although both forms are allowed per MOS:USA, and indeed both are used inconsistently in the article, as a general rule we tend to err towards not using periods, and it ensures consistency with other titles.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2023 (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.

• XAI (company) → XAI (currently a redirect instead to Xai) (move · discuss) – Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator Strugglehouse (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Contesting. Target of the redirect was recently changed – I'd be more inclined to point XAI to Xai until the company is deemed to be the primary topic (which, for clarification, is named xAI). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

    Pretty sure it is the primary topic. Google "xAI". Almost all the sources refer to this company. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

    Explainable AI gets a decent amount of hits too, and it predominates in books (unsurprisingly, given the company is a few months old – this also may be a case of recentism as such). Long-term significance is another one of the primary topic criteria.

    This is only really a problem because of the way Wikipedia handles the first letter of names – if we could title the article xAI, there'd be no issue. I'm not entirely sure the procedure for PTOPIC in cases like this, but I assume both xAI and XAI are included in the calculation. It's not a very common case, and I'm sure someone else other than me would see this as controversial, so it should go through the full RM process. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

    Template: Lowercase title can be used, so the title of the page can be displayed as xAI. A hatenote, such as Template: Distinguish, can be used to link to Xai and Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Strugglehouse (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (currently a redirect to Al-Khwarizmi) → Al-Khwarizmi (move · discuss) – The main application of the word. At the talk page, discussed for 1 week, and no one disagreed, and one person supported this change. Currently exists at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Elapsed_listings too. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Walhaz (currently a redirect to *Walhaz) → – The asterisk is an obligatory part of the word. (The template says that this is not a valid destination, but it appears to be valid and there's already a redirect there.) Jcitawy (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Jcitawy, I'm not disagreeing with the move you're requesting, but I do have 2 questions: why is the name you want no used in the lead, and should it be moved to *Walhaz or *walhaz ? Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  1) The asterisk was deleted in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walhaz&diff=1050284542&oldid=1049092893

  2) Probably *Walhaz. I don't think the capitalization is very standardized but that's the form already used in the article. Jcitawy (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jcitawy: None of the articles in Category:Reconstructed words currently have an asterisk in the title. Rather than changing the consistent titling in an undiscussed move, this should be a requested move. The request should probably be to move multiple pages (e.g., all PIE and PG words) in one request (WP:RMCM). SilverLocust 💬 00:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss it thoroughly; but I very much support the proposal to make article titles match the actual word, rather than using approximations that probably changes a lot of meaning in linguistics. Whenever, I read linguistics articles, I find that every tiny glyph carries some meaning and significance, so we should not avoid them in titles. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: The meaning of the asterisk, by the way, is that it is a reconstructed word. (In other linguistics contexts it is used to indicate an incorrect usage.) SilverLocust 💬 23:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jcitawy, I think the conclusion here is this needs a formal discussion. Please start an RM. I think you'll find several people, including me, who would support your proposal in a formal discussion, but this definitely cannot be processed here as an undiscussed, uncontroversial move, for the reasons explained by @SilverLocust. If you don't know how to start an RM and you need help, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• PP-19-01 Vityaz → PP-19 Vityaz (currently a redirect back to PP-19-01 Vityaz) (move · discuss) – Revert move by sockpuppet, as per WP:BANREVERT Loafiewa (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Loafiewa: Hm. Do you substantively prefer PP-19 Vityaz? This was an RM, albeit with no other participants. The same user (using Guns & Glory) was also the one who moved it to PP-19 Vityaz in 2020. I don't see anyone in previous discussions who expressed a preference for "PP-19 Vityaz" over "PP-19-01 Vityaz". The previous consensus, as determined by a different user's banned sockpuppet in 2018, was "not moved" from Vityaz-SN. SilverLocust 💬 02:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not contesting this, however. SilverLocust 💬 03:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about any of the 3 names, but BANREVERT states that "the presumption in ambiguous cases is to revert". Loafiewa (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

While it is true that there is no solid consensus among the 3 names, the sock followed standard procedure to request the move. The last move request which I closed was originally a contested technical request which was converted into a formal RM. The same will hold true for this technical request. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree – there was plenty of opportunity for someone to oppose the move, and nobody did. If someone has an objection outside of BANREVERT, I'd be more encouraged to overturn. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Needs to go through RM to determine consensus. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Olha Kharlan (currently a redirect to Olga Kharlan) → Olga Kharlan (move · discuss) – the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources); 6.870 million vs 0.075 million google hits; the current name should still be a redirect 2603:7000:2101:AA00:2CF5:4959:8F33:F1E (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this has previously been moved in the opposite direction, and also there's been some discussion. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor who made the page move 13 years ago--unilaterally--wasn't following WP policy. Rather, their rationale was "ukrainian name". That's contrary to our policy. And the quite limited discussion you refer to is tangential (i.e., about what her name really is, not what the article title should be). Application of WP:COMMONNAME indicates that our consideration of WP policy should make this a wholly non-controversial technical move, as reflected in the above figures. They're not even close. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D0:B26D:3FCA:A48B (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The proposed move is obviously controversial and needs to be decided by consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Errata. I fixed the numbers above. Enormous difference in number of hits. The new name has 91,000 times (I think .. my math could be wrong) as many hits. If anything is obvious here, it is that WP:COMMONNAME dictates a change. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B90B:DAA9:2A4:E56C (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Vadym Gutzeit → Vadim Gutzeit (currently a redirect back to Vadym Gutzeit) (move · discuss) – In accord with WP:COMMONNAME, the guiding policy here. Vadym Gutzeit has 27,600 google hits, but Vadim Gutzeit has over two times as many -- 54,500 google hits. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B90B:DAA9:2A4:E56C (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This proposed move is also controversial and likewise needs to be decided by consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B90B:DAA9:2A4:E56C please consider registering an account. You're participating in several threads here and that'd make it easier to communicate. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (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.