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:..."
 | 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.
|
- 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:
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
- 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
Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.
Uncontroversial technical requests
- CCI_Europe (currently a redirect to Stibo) → Stibo DX (currently a redirect instead to Stibo) (move · discuss) – Change of company name JustusFabius (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is this the new WP:COMMMONNAME? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Contested technical requests
- King's Bridge (currently a redirect to Kingsbridge (disambiguation)) → King's Bridge (Middlecreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania) (move · discuss) – WP:NOPRIMARY per pageviews, see King's Bridge (Launceston) et al. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why not something simpler like King's Bridge (Pennsylvania) or King's Bridge, Pennsylvania? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Convection → Convection (Fluid mechanics) (move · discuss) – To help eliminate confusion between the different physical phenomena which are described by the same name in different contexts. 60.242.168.210 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- May want to wait to see what to response is at Talk:Convection#Merge_Natural_Convection_article_into_this_Convection_article. first. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how that makes a difference - whether the merge is completed before or after the rename (move)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCouch (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because it also talks about the renaming, not just the moving. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how that makes a difference - whether the merge is completed before or after the rename (move)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCouch (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Or move to Convection (fluid mechanics)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- As per WP:QUALIFIER it should indeed be Convection (fluid mechanics) if moved. But what should exist at Convection if moved? I'd say a DAB page listing Convection (fluid mechanics) and Convection (Heat transfer) would be a bit of a WP:SURPRISE, and I see no benefit of it just being a simple redirect. The hatnotes explaining are probably sufficient. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- To make it clearer, I oppose this move. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- As per WP:QUALIFIER it should indeed be Convection (fluid mechanics) if moved. But what should exist at Convection if moved? I'd say a DAB page listing Convection (fluid mechanics) and Convection (Heat transfer) would be a bit of a WP:SURPRISE, and I see no benefit of it just being a simple redirect. The hatnotes explaining are probably sufficient. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose move I don't agree Convection should be moved, this is the primary topic. Convective heat transfer (I would support moving that to Convection (heat transfer)) describes the transfer of heat due to convective fluid flow. The hatnote addresses this, perhaps this could be made clearer both in the hatnotes and main text of the related articles. Polyamorph (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- May want to wait to see what to response is at Talk:Convection#Merge_Natural_Convection_article_into_this_Convection_article. first. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Raju Yadav → Rajkumar alias Raju Yadav (move · discuss) – name according to affidavit [1] 2405:204:A38C:24FD:B2B1:A1C:15C2:6DE3 (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per WP:NCBIO most biographical articles use <First name> <Last name> title format. Polyamorph (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also need to consider WP:COMMONNAME. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Wakefield, West Yorkshire → Template:Wakefield (move · discuss) – Per Wakefield, WY is primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is this necessary, Crouch, Swale? With primary topics, we tolerate the introduction of some ambiguity because this will facilitate searches for a major portion of readers. But this consideration is absent outside of the reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia. {{Wakefield, West Yorkshire}} has the advantage of being precise and unambiguous, and I'm struggling to see what benefit there would be in making its title shorter. This is a navbox, so there's no need to try saving editors typing time. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well it makes it easier for those wanting to add a template to articles since users are likely to assume it matches the main article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with Uanfala. Fiddling around with Template titles, and other things that readers don't see is often an unnecessary waste if time, for no real benefit. — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is this necessary, Crouch, Swale? With primary topics, we tolerate the introduction of some ambiguity because this will facilitate searches for a major portion of readers. But this consideration is absent outside of the reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia. {{Wakefield, West Yorkshire}} has the advantage of being precise and unambiguous, and I'm struggling to see what benefit there would be in making its title shorter. This is a navbox, so there's no need to try saving editors typing time. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'll also add that Wakefield, West Yorkshire may not keep its primary topic forever, given the traffic that Wakefield (TV series) has been getting. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Power Shift (currently a redirect to Power Shift (conference)) → Power Shift (conference) (move · discuss) – Not primary per pageviews; see Powershift (book) 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Power Shift is not the same as Powershift. A hatnote is sufficient. Station1 (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Given that Power Shift averages 4 hits a day, and that there are 5 other pages at Power Shift (disambiguation), I'd say it fails as a primary topic anyway. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- None of the other topics are called "Power Shift", so primary topic is a moot point. Station1 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Given that Power Shift averages 4 hits a day, and that there are 5 other pages at Power Shift (disambiguation), I'd say it fails as a primary topic anyway. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)