Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

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: 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 between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Administrator needed

Edit this section if your request requires an administrator (see this guide to which moves need administrators). Place your request in another section if it only requires a page mover.

Contested technical requests

• SHAC Community (currently a redirect to Anglican Diocese of Melbourne) → St Hilary's Anglican Church (move · discuss) – Official name of the church - SHAC Community is no longer used Msrob6 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, would you be able to show some evidence of the name change, and whether this new name has become the WP:COMMONNAME ? Thank you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging Msrob6 for comment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Comment Also noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHAC Community. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yup. I did that. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Houlgate System → Deke Houlgate (currently a redirect back to Houlgate System) (move · discuss) – Deke Houlgate was a notable football statistician/personality. Los Angeles Times biography. The "Houlgate System" was one aspect of that notability and can be covered as a section. He was also notable for other things such as coining/popularizing the phrase "Now we’re cooking with gas!" as a PR man. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, I suppose the 3 options here are: 1) have 2 separate articles, 2) cover the person as a section of the system and 3) cover the system as a section of the person. If you're arguing that the 2 topics are independently notable, then option 1 seems best. For options 2 or 3, we'd have to see some evidence of which of the 2 topics is the most important. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  The person is notable mainly for various college football related things. He released the "Houlgate System" rankings in newspapers, and also later wrote a book The College Football Thesaurus that contained additional college football rankings, etc. The book is itself notable but seems to be conflated with the system. I'd like to write the article to discuss his entire contributions and properly state the chronology of the rankings/books. I think it makes most sense to use option 3 "cover the system as a section of the person". PK-WIKI (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest creating enough of Draft:Deke Houlgate to attempt to show notability, but leave out the majority of what Houlgate System covers (but leave a placeholder for it). If the draft can't pass WP:N, then there's no way this article should be moved. If it does pass notability, there are two options: merge the draft bio into the system article, or flesh out the draft and bring it into its own as a full article.

  Given how things are currently, I'd say this move would not be uncontroversial, and will move it to the contested section. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Sounds like a good way forward. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)