Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aidillia (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 13 September 2024 (Adding new request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


@ModernDaySlavery "Concision" is definitely the common name here. See ngrams for example. C F A 💬 13:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
19:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think this would be uncontroversial? Your ngrams show that uppercase is the common styling. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as you know, the threshold is far from a simple majority. You are also aware that ngrams over-report capitilisation such as expected use in headings, captions and titles in citations where title case is used. However Randy Kryn, if you insist on wasting everybody's time on what is reasonably a foregone conclusion, then we can have an RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was never eligible for RMT to begin with considering the plethora of RMs on the page. None have contested the capitalization but I definitely can see contesting overall. If you want to continue with the move, please use the discuss button above to start an RM. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed