Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request a technical move 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 "This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.

If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please use the submission wizard to submit your draft or user sandbox page for review at Articles for creation instead of listing it here.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
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.
To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves 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. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
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. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Add a new request

Remove all requests

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Wardour, Wiltshire → Wardour (move · discuss) – Doesn't seem ambiguous, the only other uses are things that refer to the Wiltshire one and Annapolis, Maryland only mentions "Wardour" in a footnote. The DAB page could be moved to Wardour (disambiguation) given the street and baron. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Spring Vale → Spring Vale, Wolverhampton (move · discuss) – No clear primary topic over the Isle of Wight and South Yorkshire ones. The Lancashire station has 44 views compared with only 33 for the Wolverhampton one. There is already a DAB at Springvale. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:South Dade TransitWay → South Dade TransitWaySouth Dade TransitWay (currently a redirect instead to Metrobus (Miami-Dade County)#South Dade TransitWay) (move · discuss) – Draft ready for mainspace. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Basra Federal Region → Basra RegionBasra Region (currently a redirect back to Basra Federal Region) (move · discuss) – Consistency with articles like the Kurdistan Region or the Sunni Region. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basra_Federal_Region#Requested_move_30_December_2025 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1330195953#9AM if you wish. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Kevin Johnson (basketball player) → Kevin Johnson (basketball)Kevin Johnson (basketball) (currently a redirect instead to Kevin Johnson#Other sports) (move · discuss) – Pageviews show he is primary at (basketball) vs. Kevin Johnson (basketball coach). When I tried to hit the undo button for the page move, the following text was in a light red/ping box "The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection." Although he is also known as a politician as Kevin Johnson (mayor) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

List of governors of West Bengal → Governor of West BengalGovernor of West Bengal (currently a redirect back to List of governors of West Bengal) (move · discuss) – The article talks more about what the governor does (how they become governorate and their responsibles as some examples) rather then be simply a list of heads of state of West Bengal. So I think that it's appropriate to do so. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is how all other articles in the Category:Lists of governors of Indian states are named. Vestrian24Bio 08:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
well damn, is there any other way that I could make the titles instead "Governor of [STATE]" for all of them? Do I have to reach a consensus with a lot of people in Wikipedia:Wikiproject India to do so? What other ways could I do it if I wished to do so? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, "Then just make a Governor of West Bengal article," but all the non-list content in List of governors of West Bengal is unsourced. Neither the move nor the creation of a new article seems appropriate here. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
L'Amour de Ma Vie → L'Amour De Ma VieL'Amour De Ma Vie (currently a redirect back to L'Amour de Ma Vie) (move · discuss) – Using proper capitalization for the title of the song, per WP:SENTENCECASE. The article already uses the correct capitalization in the intro and the infobox. DominikTuazon (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think "de" should start with a capital letter? Lowercase seems more sensible to me (and possibly for other words in the title as well). In fact, after looking at some of the cited sources, most of what I see is "L'amour de ma vie". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance here is MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, which asks us to "retain the style of the original for modern works". I'm definitely seeing a mix of capitalizations in reliable sources and it's not immediately clear that the proposed title is more predominantly used. Note also that her label seems to prefer "L’AMOUR DE MA VIE", which is a non-starter; see MOS:ALLCAPS. 162 etc. (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current capitalization makes no sense. Looking at the way it is spelled throughout the article, I think "L'Amour De Ma Vie" would be most appropriate. Even "L'amour de ma vie" would be better than the current title. DominikTuazon (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning the headlines of the first 30 cited sources, the current styling seems to be good enough for use in the article bodies of Billboard and Elle. That's 2 of the 4 that have the song name in their headlines. Many of the ones after that (especially the chart listings) are using "L'amour de ma vie". One of the examples provided explicitly in MOS:FOREIGNTITLE has "de" in lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you agree that "L'amour de ma vie" should be used over "L'amour de Ma Vie"? DominikTuazon (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RMT is used for uncontroversial technical requests, which this is not. Please see WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not currently "L'amour de Ma Vie". It's "L'Amour de Ma Vie". That's different. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DominikTuazon (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional animation → Hand-drawn animationHand-drawn animation (currently a redirect back to Traditional animation) (move · discuss) – "Hand-drawn animation" is a lot clearer in meaning than "traditional animation", which carries additional connotations for many people. It is easy to find sources defining (albeit imo mistakenly) "traditional animation" as being inherently non-digital, for example this page defines traditional animation by saying is animated on paper. I think "hand-drawn" is better, due to it directly referring to the act of drawing animation, which is the element that differentiates this method from others. Therefore, it leaves less room for confusion. ~2025-39959-66 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39959-66 In the move history, there are a few moves, albeit from many years ago, to and from this title. Thus, it is considered controversial and cannot be processed as a technical request. You should follow the instructions at WP:RMCM or click the "discuss" button above next to the two titles in this request to open a full discussion and gain consensus. HurricaneZeta^C 15:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dan (name) → Dan (given name)Dan (given name) (currently a redirect back to Dan (name)) (move · discuss) – more accurate title, articles branded as "given names" discuss the name, while articles branded as "name" have a list of people with that name NorthernWinds (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthernWinds I'm not completely sure if that's true given Will (given name) being a list of names, although maybe that's also incorrectly named. (name) would be more concise when there's not another title that would be a better fit. Can you point me to an RM or other pages with this format? HurricaneZeta^C 14:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to give an example but then I realized that when I made this request, I compared Michael (given name) and Michel (name) as if they were the same name. I could be wrong. Either way I think Dan (given name) should not redirect to Daniel (given name) and instead either be the current Dan (name) or redirect to Dan (name).

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I retargeted Dan (given name). These naming articles are really inconsistent so an RM would really help in getting consistency as I'm also confused looking into this. HurricaneZeta^C 14:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cupiosexual → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cupiosexuality (move · discuss) – WP:CONSUB. ZNático (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZNático I reverted your move of the article. It's generally advised not to move articles during AfDs due to it messing with scripts and templates. You can move it back if it's closed as keep. HurricaneZeta^C 14:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese people → Kinh peopleKinh people (currently a redirect back to Vietnamese people) (move · discuss) – Per year long talk page move discussion TansoShoshen (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper RM discussion. Vestrian24Bio 04:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TansoShoshen I agree that this deserves a proper discussion - please click "discuss" above, fill in your rationale and then click publish to open an official discussion per WP:RM ASUKITE 14:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree here, to move this page a proper RM discussion is needed. Remember that consensus is not a vote, since you simply counted votes at the end of the split discussion. I think an RM would get way more input than a split discussion, and in a shorter time period. Click "discuss" above and expand on your rationale or follow the instructions at WP:RSPM. HurricaneZeta^C 14:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed