Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 17: Line 17:
**I should also point out [[Talk:The_Three_Musketeers_(American_TV_series)#Requested_move_18_January_2019]]. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
**I should also point out [[Talk:The_Three_Musketeers_(American_TV_series)#Requested_move_18_January_2019]]. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
* {{RMassist/core | 1 = Third Point Management | 2 = Third Point | discuss = | reason = [[WP:COMMONNAME]], [[WP:NAMECHANGES]]: The corporate entity's name was changed from "Third Point Management Company L.L.C." in 2006, and they've done business as "Third Point" rather than "Third Point Management" since then. | sig = [[User:Rockhead126|Rockhead126]] ([[User talk:Rockhead126|talk]]) 18:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) | requester = Rockhead126}}
* {{RMassist/core | 1 = Third Point Management | 2 = Third Point | discuss = | reason = [[WP:COMMONNAME]], [[WP:NAMECHANGES]]: The corporate entity's name was changed from "Third Point Management Company L.L.C." in 2006, and they've done business as "Third Point" rather than "Third Point Management" since then. | sig = [[User:Rockhead126|Rockhead126]] ([[User talk:Rockhead126|talk]]) 18:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) | requester = Rockhead126}}
* {{RMassist/core | 1 = Strong Group Athletics (sports organization) | 2 = Strong Group Athletics | discuss = | reason = All of the entries in the dab are related to one another, with the basketball and volleyball teams being owned and managed by the sports organization, so I feel like at the base name should be the sports organization instead of a dab page. It could also be argued to just merge the sports teams' article into their own sections in the sports org article. | sig = '''<sup>[[User:Dieter Lloyd Wexler|<span style="color:#552582;">Dieter</span>]] [[User talk:Dieter Lloyd Wexler|<span style="color:#061922;">Lloyd</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dieter Lloyd Wexler|<span style="color:#FDB927;">Wexler</span>]]</sup>''' 19:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC) | requester = Dieter Lloyd Wexler}}


==== Requests to revert undiscussed moves ====
==== Requests to revert undiscussed moves ====

Revision as of 19:06, 19 January 2024

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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

So you think Christianizing a registered historic synagogue is an obviously uncontroversial idea? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a church since 1944, more than 50 years before the building was placed on the National Register. So you think a building that has been a Black/Afro-Caribbean church for 79 years cannot be called by its name? (P.S. The instructions for this page say to start requests where I placed them and then they get discussed if controversial.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the request to be valid. St. Leonard's Anglican Church has existed for 79 years, over twice as long as the time the building was a synagogue. so the church is eligible for an article under its own name. The present article explains adequately that the building previously housed the synagogue and is in the Register of Historic Places under the old name. One possible compromise is to do the move and then expand the article with more history of St. Leonard's. Therefore the article will be about the church and not necessarily about the building, which is probably the source of the current confusion. (Edit: see better idea below.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not obviously uncontroversial, so it should be discussed. It's in the NRHP for its synagogue origin, and its architecture dates to that, and much of the article is about the history and the building. And people tend to get sensitive about changes of religious identify for places of worship. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on the NRHP solely for its origins as a synagogue. The NRHP listing also points to its significance as a church. Quote, "The building’s period of significance - 1909 to 1959 - encompasses its constmction and use as a synagogue to its conversion and new use as a church... St. Leonard’s church stands today as a handsome work of architecture by Eugene Schoen, but perhaps more importantly as a remarkable testament to the religious and ethnic history of Brooklyn. The history of the three congregations that the building has housed - Shaari Zedek, Achavath Achim, and St. Leonard’s Church - reflects the evolving population of Bedford-Stuyvesant, the history of Jews and of African- and Caribbean Americans in the borough, and the strength of New York City’s immigrant communities - whether originating in Eastern Europe or the West Indies." The fact that the building has historical significance as a church (and has a substantially longer and ongoing status as a church) weighs heavily toward renaming (while addressing other names with redirects and hatnotes as necessary). Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely to be the type of discussion in which everyone is so passionate about their side that nothing changes in the end. (Or in WP Admin-speak: "no consensus".) Allow me to make a suggestion to split the article. The current article can focus on the building and its architectural history, because according to Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), "national heritage sites" are "presumed to be notable." Then there can be a separate article on St. Leonard's, under the requested name, that focuses on that church's worthy history while mentioning that it is housed in the historic synagogue. That way both the synagogue and the church have their own informative articles without cramming them together, which is the origin of the disagreement we're having now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed