Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:31, 5 May 2023

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

Uncontroversial technical requests

Gray Ranks (currently a redirect to Grey Ranks) → Grey Ranks (move · discuss) – British vs US spelling, British spelling is much more popular than US spelling in scientific literature. The disambiguation page should also be removed, as the name of the organization itself overrides the name of the RPG based on the history of the organization (the RPG, by the way, uses the British spelling of the name) Marcelus (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The requested target, Grey Ranks, is a disambig page. This may require moving that disambig page too, and/or renaming the article about the paramilitary unit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that disambig page should be moved to Grey Ranks (disambiguation) Marcelus (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that and it didn't work for some reason, so I figured I'd bring it up here before I messed something up even worse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This likely merits a fuller discussion. Note that the article was created with the title

Szare Szeregi which was moved to 'Grey Ranks' 15-Jul-2007 and was quickly moved back on 17-Jul-2007. It was then moved to 'Gray Ranks' on 9-Jul-2009 where is has resided since. I do not see any discussion for any of the prior moves. older ≠ wiser 14:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(

WP:TWODABS applies. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

UPDATE - actually, on further inspection I see that the oldest version of this article (which was titled in Polish, as noted by

MOS:RETAIN says we use the earliest stable version where there's doubt about which variant is active. Not sure an RM is really needed, unless anyone actively thinks we should return to the Polish name for this? — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't have strong feelings about the title. I only suggest some record of a discussion be kept on the talk page to show whatever title is selected was not just some random idea to change the title. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is slightly confusing as to what the title means - it does seem like "Preparatory Committee" is treated as a proper name, while "Arms Trade Treaty" is a separate proper name, so I guess the capitalisation is correct here. But there were four individual ones and generally they're referred to in the singular in sources...
MOS:SINGULAR would suggest retaining the title as is. I could also see a case for "Preparatory Committee on the Arms Trade Treaty" instead of the current formulation though, per [1]. Probably not Uncontroversial anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Package Killer (currently a redirect to Gary Muehlberg) → Gary Muehlberg (move · discuss) – Has pleaded guilty to all five murders and is no longer considered a suspect. Haunted Spy (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

Carlisle buried baby case → Brooke Skylar Richardson (currently a redirect back to Carlisle buried baby case) (move · discuss) – 'Carlisle buried baby case' is never used to describe this incident except as the title of the Wikipedia page. This title also make it unclear what the page is about; it's imprecise, as 'Carlisle' can refer to many things, and the baby having been buried isn't the most important aspect of the case. 'Brooke Skylar Richardson' (which currently exists as a redirect) should be the title of this page because the entire article is about her and her trial. Baronet13 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not uncontroversial due to
WP:BLP1E. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:CRIME, the current article could possibly be nominated for deletion. Despite some local news coverage, I don't think the incident is notable enough for an article. Regardless, if the article survives an AfD discussion, that would still indicate that only the crime is notable and the article should not be titled after Ms. Richardson. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I see that there was
a brief discussion on the talk page about 11 months ago which indicates that the name change might not be uncontroversial. A full discussion might be in order. – robertsky (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Brief indeed, with just two comments, both aligning on the notion of it being the
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrator needed

Edit this section only if your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been
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=1153327689"

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :::::{{ec}} Much as I prefer British spelling myself, I'm not convinced this move can be regarded as Uncontroversial. [[MOS:RETAIN]] is fairly clear that we don't change English varieties, unless there's some overwhelming reason to do so, or clear [[WP:TIES|ties]] to a particular location where a particular variety of English is spoken. In this case, being a Polish topic, it doesn't particularly have ties to any English-speaking locale (unless one takes the view that the whole of Europe is under the UK umbrella, but I don't think that's something that's ever been agreed). As for the {{noredirect|Grey Ranks}} Redirect, I have retargeted that now, the disambiguation page isn't really needed any more as there is only one other topic and [[WP:TWODABS]] applies. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 ::::::UPDATE - actually, on further inspection I see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gray_Ranks&diff=prev&oldid=9611829 the oldest version of this article] (which was titled in Polish, as noted by {{u|Bkonrad}} above) was written in British English, with the term "Grey Ranks" used as well as other British spellings. As such, I've changed my mind and I think this move should go ahead - [[MOS:RETAIN]] says we use the earliest stable version where there's doubt about which variant is active. Not sure an RM is really needed, unless anyone actively thinks we should return to the Polish name for this? &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::I don't have strong feelings about the title. I only suggest some record of a discussion be kept on the talk page to show whatever title is selected was not just some random idea to change the title. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * {{RMassist/core | 1 = Preparatory Committee for an Arms Trade Treaty | 2 = Preparatory Committees for an Arms Trade Treaty | discuss = yes | reason = PrepComs are normally referred to as 4 separate committees | sig = [[User:Dreichh|Dreichh]] ([[User talk:Dreichh|talk]]) 14:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC) | requester = Dreichh}}
 *:This is slightly confusing as to what the title means - it does seem like "Preparatory Committee" is treated as a proper name, while "Arms Trade Treaty" is a separate proper name, so I guess the capitalisation is correct here. But there were four individual ones and generally they're referred to in the singular in sources... [[MOS:SINGULAR]] would suggest retaining the title as is. I could also see a case for "Preparatory Committee on the Arms Trade Treaty" instead of the current formulation though, per [https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/att/prepcom1]. Probably not Uncontroversial anyway. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)