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: 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

Uncontroversial technical requests

Ballysheil, County Down → Ballysheil (move · discuss) – No other article exists for this target former DAB title for now; it redirects to the current title anyway. Intrisit (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the change to a primary topic at Ballysheil, to reinstate the disambiguation page. Not sure WP:PRIMARYRED really applies here, there doesn't seem to be a primary topic among the tiny hamlets concerned. — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ballyrory, County Londonderry (currently a redirect to Ballyrory) → Ballyrory (move · discuss) – No other article exists for this target former DAB title for now; it redirects to the current title anyway. Intrisit (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IT law (currently a redirect to Information technology law) → Information technology law (move · discuss) – we should use the full name for the legal area, not the abbreviation. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cory V. McCray (currently a redirect to Cory McCray) → Cory McCray (move · discuss) – This page is currently named in a way that does not follow WP:Middle names and WP:COMMONNAME Y2hyaXM (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) → Symphony No. 104 (currently a redirect back to Symphony No. 104 (Haydn)) (move · discuss) – WP:PRECISE Okmrman (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ås, Viken (currently a redirect to Ås, Akershus) → Ås, Akershus (move · discuss) – The county isn't called Viken anymore, it was changed back to Akershus on January 1, 2024. Sebbog13 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Directly elected member (currently a redirect to Directly elected member (Macau)) → Directly elected member (Macau) (move · discuss) – Moved here. Northern Moonlight 01:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pero da Covilhã (currently a redirect to Pêro da Covilhã) → Pêro da Covilhã (move · discuss) – Again, the same controversial moves by banned LTA/sockpuppet "RodRabelo7". Article was created in 2004 under the title "Pêro da Covilhã", has been stable since then and has reliable sources to support it. The LTA moved it, then I immediately reverted for blatantly contradicting RS. He then moved it again with no discussion at all. JMagalhães (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the move to Pêro da Covilhã, just asking JMagalhães to read the topic I've just created on his talkpage, and noting that I'm not an LTA or sockppupet or even a troll. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marianne (Roaring Lion song) (currently a redirect to Marianne (Terry Gilkyson song)) → Marianne (Terry Gilkyson song) (move · discuss) – Move not supported by references Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Catalan cinema (currently a redirect to Cinema of Catalonia) → Cinema of Catalonia (move · discuss) – WP:TITLECON. The article defines it as the cinema of Catalonia, including films in Catalan and Spanish. That means 'Catalan' refers to Catalonia, not the Catalan language, and excludes Valencia, the Baleares and Andorra. Any hypothetical article about films in Catalan should be named "Catalan-language cinema" or somesuch. NLeeuw (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've disagreed at some of the CFD discussions before, but I don't understand why this is even a problem. So what? As already pointed out, the lede clarifies the scope. If there's ever a separate article on Catalan-language cinema exclusively (unlikely), there might be an ambiguity argument, but there isn't. That some "Catalan cinema" is in Castilian (/English / French / whatever) isn't "bad" or a problem. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Smurf Movie (currently a redirect to The Smurfs Movie) → The Smurf Movie (currently a redirect instead to The Smurfs Movie) (move · discuss) – Since the rest of the cast was announced at Cinemacon, I believe it's the right time to move this draft into article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZX2006XZ: Per WP:NFF, the guideline is to wait until reliable sources show that "the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." The draft includes a banner requesting not to publish it until then. SilverLocust 💬 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that's what the notice says. However, I have noticed that when it comes to animated film articles, they are moved from draft to article mainspace when the entire cast was revealed, or if the film is in post-production. Examples include The Wild Robot (moved to articlespace when cast was announced this March), Wish (moved to articlespace when confirmed in post-production last year in April), and The Garfield Movie (moved to articlespace when entire cast was announced in August 2022).

So with these examples that I listed in mind, I figure that Draft:The Smurf Movie should be moved to article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust You can also check the move log for all three of the films I mentioned. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary (currently a redirect to Tbilisi Theological Seminary) → Tbilisi Theological Seminary (move · discuss) – Revert RM/TM request by banned sockpuppet An Eastern Man whose case investigation page shows a history of eccentric, unsupported moves. I'd turn this into a formal RM if I thought the revert was legitimate but it isn't, nobody uses "Spiritual" in English to mean "Theological", none of the sources I've consulted use that either. The institution itself uses Tbilisi Theological Academy and Seminary on their website, but the Academy part isn't that interesting for Wikipedia, so "Tbilisi Theological Seminary" should work. SnowFire (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary is the long-term stable title for this article, and other than a period between December 2022 and November 2023 it has never otherwise held the proposed name. Therefore this isn't a valid request to revert an undiscussed move, and should instead go through a full RM. And this also isn't a completely made up name, as sources do have it: [1] or a variant such as Tiflis Spiritural Seminary.[2] — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is possibly affected by citogenesis, since as you noted Wikipedia was at the "spiritual" title for a decent length of time. The second link, eh, that's an actual use I guess, but I suspect a very literal translation happened somewhere.

IMO, WP:BANREVERT takes precedence here. If someone else wants to contest the original bold move (albeit a bold move validly correcting the name, IMO), fine, let's hold a full RM, but the move back to "Spiritual" can and should be reverted by policy if no one other than the banned user is standing up for it. SnowFire (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (currently a redirect to Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus) → Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus (currently a redirect instead to Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus) (move · discuss) – The page was recently moved boldly from "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"; a RM was opened proposing moving it back, but closed without consensus for anything except to remove the year. As such, the undiscussed move should now be reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal I'm reading the RM as "Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR." as Mike Selinker wrote in the close. I'm also seeing that the page title has never been at your proposed title. Forgive my confusion at this request, but my reading of the move logs is that it was at some form of "bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus" before the move warring started. (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected because of move warring, admin needed anyways. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit - before the disputed moves began it was at "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". Per the consensus in the RM, the "2024" should be removed, and so the title the article should be at is "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to make this move, as I think BM is correct about the order of events. The original move from 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus was indeed an undiscussed WP:RMUM. What should have happened is that the undiscussed move was simply reverted and then a fresh RM started from the original title. But that didn't happen. Nonetheless, if the close at the RM was indeed no consensus, then other than the decision to remove the year, reverting to the original title but minus the year seems like the correct outcome. So as a neutral admin with no particular opinion on this title, I will make this move unless there's a good reason not to, per established practice. But before I do so, courtesy pings to @El C: and @Mike Selinker: as the page protector and the RM closer, for opinions. — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me, Amakuru, so feel free to do whatever. I just move-protected alongside creating the edit notice. But I saw that the latest move summary read:

08:27, 14 April 2024 Iskandar323 (talk contribs block) moved protection settings from Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus moved to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): – and also in direct violation of the recent consensus atRM)

That's why I took no additional action. But I admit to not have looked too deeply into it and sort of took the veracity of that move summary on faith. El_C 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of events leading to that move and the revert involved one editor asking about changing the title, getting a response from a single IP, and then moving it themselves, which occurred after the RM was closed and the page was moved by Mike Selinker --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since no objections raised from El C or Mike, this has been

Done. This is procedural given that the only consensus in the recent RM was for removing the year, thus the page has been moved back to its original title, but without the year. All future moves should go through an RM discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this has now been queried by Novem Linguae with a request to self-revert so I've done that. This has really become a hot mess, and we'll need the RM closer to come in and clarify for us. — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nothing personal, my concerns were procedural. I just didn't feel very comfortable having RM/TR set aside a bolded RM close on a sysop-protected page. I think BilledMammal should consider opening an RM for Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus as a logical next step. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to wait to see what the closer says first; let’s get the article at the actual status quo title before muddying the waters further. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]