Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< Wikipedia:Requested moves

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gotitbro (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 15 March 2019 (→‎Uncontroversial technical requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
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 this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests by 142.160.89.97
Needs discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? One needs a reason to contest a request. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The Rushdie Affair" could mean all the events around Salman Rushdie, not only the book. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
The Satanic Verses controversy. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Needs discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? One needs a reason to contest a request. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Walking in God's path, and similar, is a frequent religious advice idea, not only a book. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, but the general case wouldn't be referred to as such with an uppercase P, so
WP:SMALLDETAILS would apply here. Moreover, that wouldn't be a likely search term in any case. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Will need proof that this is primary topic for "God's Rule". In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of our disambiguation guideline, thus only applies where there is ambiguity between one or more articles. No proof is needed – or is even able to be provided – in the absence of another competing topic. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
God's rule and governance over everything is a frequent religious idea, not only a book. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SMALLDETAILS would definitely apply here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No, this is a historical title. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is also the subject of literally every page linked on the first page of Google search results for "God's Caliph". This move is also in line with the existing consensus that the book is the primary topic here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"God's Caliph" also means the
Caliph, not only a book. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I started looking a bit further into it, and it appears that that particular phrasing was used as a title for the Caliph during a particular period historically. (While obviously it "means the Caliph", I didn't realize it was used as a title per se.) Accordingly, could I modify my request to retain the subtitle but to remove the space before the colon, Anthony Appleyard? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could easily be misunderstood. Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West 2006 by Walid Phares In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look inside the books, you will find that they are they are different editions of the very same book, just released under different titles. The title you provided is just the paperback edition. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Millenium is always capitalized in eschatalogical uses. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why that would be a reason to oppose this move. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the Millennium, is a frequent Christian religious idea. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly familiar with basic Christian eschatology, but the particular phraseology here is not a likely search term for the broader eschatological concept. This is reflected in the Google search results for the term – when searched as an exact phrase, one needs to go four pages in to find so much as a single result that doesn't refer to the book. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "Maududi" or "Mawdudi"? And is it "Fundamentalism" or "Revivalism"? This does need to be moved but you might be requesting the wrong title. Station1 (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: It's a good question. I'm not sure myself. Either way, the capitalization will need to be corrected, though, no? (This request just concerned the capitalization of the existing title with no prejudice to a different title altogether.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no objection to "Mawdudi" and "Revivalism", I'll move it. Otherwise, it's probably best to discuss on its talk page. Station1 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doomsday cult is the primary topic. MarkZusab (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SMALLDETAILS (as well as the existing consensus)? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There are or have been many doomsday cults, not only a book. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there definitely have been, but not typically ones that would be referred to as such with an uppercase C, hence the relevance of
WP:SMALLDETAILS here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=887829636"