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

Uncontroversial technical requests

Rain and Tears (song) (currently a redirect to Rain and Tears) → Rain and Tears (move · discuss) – unnecessary disambiguation Richhoncho (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Race (human classification) (currently a redirect to Race (human categorization)) → Race (human categorization) (move · discuss) – Reverse undiscussed move (22 August) with a contextually invalid rationale ("More precise title" [1]). The name Race (human categorization) was chosen at a full RM on 27 July 2015 [2], for the very reason that "classification" was inappropriately precise, and did not address the full scope of the article; it implies systemic classification which is often not evident. If someone wants to move it back to Race (human classification), they can open an RM about it, if they have a new argument to present that wasn't already covered in the last RM. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]