Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Requesting technical moves

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), or a revert of an undiscussed move where discussion is needed, please feel free to move the page yourself. If you cannot, request it below.

The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle applies to uncontroversial moves (see Wikipedia:Be bold) and reverts of undiscussed moves. The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves.

If any of the following apply to the desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

• There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title
• There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
• Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below.

To list new technical requests use the following code at the bottom of the sub-section "Technical requests" immediately below:

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|<!--reason for move-->}}

This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.

If you object to a proposal listed in Technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below.

If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the "Contested technical requests" section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Alternatively, if the only obstacle to a technical move is another page in the way (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history—if it has a single history line, see WP:MOR instead), add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:

{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}

This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Technical requests

• Template:Oceanic topic → Template:Oceanian topic (move) – revert undiscussed page move. This template is not about oceans, it is about Oceania, clearly not the expected subject of an "oceanic topic" template, very WP:ASTONISHing subject instead of expected one. 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• template:Topics on Ontario → Template:Ontario topics (move) – standard naming for "topics" templates is "X topics" 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• National Arbor Day Foundation → Arbor Day Foundation (move) – Change reflects the organization's revised name DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Karocolens tuberculatus → Spaniard weevil (move) – according to the article it is undisputed Karocolens tuberculatus belongs to Hadramphus. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use the most common name when possible, the new name should be Spaniard weevil having 573.000 hits on google, whereas Canterbury knobbed weevil has 10.100 hits and Banks Peninsula speargrass weevil 5.550; both other vernacular names and both scientific names Karocolens tuberculatus and Hadramphus tuberculatus, in my understanding should be redirect pages. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Contested technical requests

• The Star Wars Holiday Special → Star Wars Holiday Special (move) – Someone moved it, although BDD dropped "The" and closed the request. George Ho (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply not uncontroversial. Page had been earlier moved as part of a move discussion in which only one person (the nominator here) took part. Another editor has moved it back again, therefore it can't be uncontroversial. Additionally, I've just declined a move protection request for both pages at WP:RPP. There needs to be another move discussion before these pages are moved again. GedUK  13:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Chelsea Manning → Bradley Manning (move) – This was recently moved, and it should be discussed first, at is clearly a controversial move. This page says the move may be reverted prior to posting here, but I was unable to do so StAnselm (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  While an undiscussed move is standard technical request reason, I want to see how the discussion on the talk page plays out. There are several issues here, the most important of which is WP:BLP. If there is overwhelming support that this move fulfills the BLP guidelines, I'm not going to move the article back. -- tariqabjotu 14:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)