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 from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests

• Queen Victoria → Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom (currently a redirect back to Queen Victoria) (move · discuss) – Why should this wikipage be titled "Queen Victoria" when, as seen in List of British monarchs, none of the other monarchs of the United Kingdom are directly addressed by their title such as Elizabeth II and George III? As far as I can tell, this naming convention extends across all the other nobility wikipages beyond the British monarchy.

Perhaps one might suggest it is because there are no other "Victorias" so it wouldn't quite be Victoria I, and it would be weird to use their house names like "Hanover" or "Saxe-Coburg Gotha", but then shouldn't the name of the article then correspond with something like Anne, Queen of Great Britain or to use another example, Albert, Duke of Prussia?

I don't mean to be overly semantic here, but I feel that Wikipedia should be, above all, descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Moving the article to "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain" seems to be more descriptive of who she was (literally describing her employment as a historical Queen of Great Britain), where Queen Victoria seems somewhat prescriptive, suggesting that that is how she should be addressed, which (and I understand if you'd think I was reading into it a bit much) comes with a sort of monarchist inclination to it. DieSonneUnsLacht (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Contested technical requests

• Barnstormer → Barnstorm (currently a redirect back to Barnstormer) (move · discuss) – per WP:DABNAME, The simplest form of the term is preferred. 162 etc. (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Of the 14 entries on the disambiguation page, only three use "Barnstorm" as their name, and 2 are quite minor (a forgotten 70s band with 3 references & their self-titled album). Maybe if there was an equal split I could see the argument, but not when this form is comparatively rare on the disambig page. SnowFire (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)