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
- You Owe Me → You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) (move · discuss) – There are two songs with this title that have an article (You Owe Me (Nas song) and there is not a primary topic. The Chainsmokers' song just came out, so it can hardly be the primary. This song cannot already be more important than Nas' song that already HAS an article. This is against music page name policy (WP:NCMDAB), disregarded by the user who moved the Nas song and created it. Ss112 09:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- I believe the Chainsmokers' song is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Nas song was unsourced before I added some refs. Since the Chainsmokers have a history of chart-topping singles, it's very likely this new song will be historically more significant than the Nas song in the near future and the current title is what readers would look for, when searching for this song by the Chainsmokers. — Zawl 09:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- In no way can topics be primary if the topic is only a few days old. Your talk of assumed historical significance is irrelevant. That's against WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RECENTism. We're talking about the here and now, and you have no proof what readers are searching for. It is policy to disambiguate two songs of the same name per WP:NCMDAB. Your "objection" should be disregarded by any page mover reading this. Regardless, I will ask an admin to move it if it isn't moved by someone patrolling this page. You deliberately disregarded the fact that the Nas song had an article and moved it out of the way so you didn't have to create content at Hayman30's redirect. Doesn't matter that it didn't have refs, you added them. You made it (more) notable, so should have made You Owe Me into a dab page. Ss112 09:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: @Ad Orientem: @Anthony Appleyard: Zawl, who has a history of engaging in underhanded page move tactics, is objecting to an article being moved into a disambiguated space when this is policy (WP:NCMDAB), because more than one song exists of the same title. Can an admin please sort this out and move it? You Owe Me (Nas song) already exists and primary topic assertions don't apply for recent topics. Thanks. Ss112 10:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- My title selection is based on WP:COMMONSENSE, as this song will eventually become the primary topic. It's just a matter of time. I oppose the move at this time and recommend starting a move discussion. I also think that a disambiguation page is unnecessary (for now) since there are only two articles and a hatnote would better aid readers instead of making them to go through the dab page with a super short list. — Zawl 10:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, future assertions of importance are still against WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is policy per WP:NCMDAB. WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy or a guideline; it's a supplement and it still doesn't apply because your assertions are speculation. I've contacted admins based on your history, and I think you have a conflict of interest of sorts here, having move rights and objecting to a page you created being moved when you were well aware of what you were doing when you moved the Nas song out of the way so you could avoid creating content at Haymna's redirect. A move discussion would only end in users agreeing that there are two songs of the same name with articles and neither is the primary. It happens all the time. It would be a speedy decision. Ss112 10:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- You've contacted admins based on my history? Way to losing your cool. We're just two editors disagreeing about moving this page and you had to bring up our previous disputes just to gain an upper hand here. Me having page mover rights has nothing to do with this and it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to make WP:BOLD moves. Your assumption that editors would agree on no primary topic is just an opinion. — Zawl 10:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, a fair assumption, if you've paid attention to any music page moves. You probably should if you have page move rights. You should familiarise with the policies I linked to, otherwise I don't think you should have page move rights. This is not just "two editors disagreeing"; you have a history of doing this and it's just continuing. Regardless, my pointing out of page name policies are not assumptions; they're things you should have followed but refused to. Even if this goes to a move discussion (which it shouldn't), you're going to see that editors generally agree with moving articles of the same name to disambiguated spaces and it's not not going to be done even if you argue with everyone who comments. That's the power of consensus. It will be a waste of time for all involved, and so I hope the admins I have pinged here see that and don't want to waste anyone else's time. Ss112 10:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- You've contacted admins based on my history? Way to losing your cool. We're just two editors disagreeing about moving this page and you had to bring up our previous disputes just to gain an upper hand here. Me having page mover rights has nothing to do with this and it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to make WP:BOLD moves. Your assumption that editors would agree on no primary topic is just an opinion. — Zawl 10:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, future assertions of importance are still against WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is policy per WP:NCMDAB. WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy or a guideline; it's a supplement and it still doesn't apply because your assertions are speculation. I've contacted admins based on your history, and I think you have a conflict of interest of sorts here, having move rights and objecting to a page you created being moved when you were well aware of what you were doing when you moved the Nas song out of the way so you could avoid creating content at Haymna's redirect. A move discussion would only end in users agreeing that there are two songs of the same name with articles and neither is the primary. It happens all the time. It would be a speedy decision. Ss112 10:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: @Ad Orientem: @Anthony Appleyard: Zawl, who has a history of engaging in underhanded page move tactics, is objecting to an article being moved into a disambiguated space when this is policy (WP:NCMDAB), because more than one song exists of the same title. Can an admin please sort this out and move it? You Owe Me (Nas song) already exists and primary topic assertions don't apply for recent topics. Thanks. Ss112 10:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- In no way can topics be primary if the topic is only a few days old. Your talk of assumed historical significance is irrelevant. That's against WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RECENTism. We're talking about the here and now, and you have no proof what readers are searching for. It is policy to disambiguate two songs of the same name per WP:NCMDAB. Your "objection" should be disregarded by any page mover reading this. Regardless, I will ask an admin to move it if it isn't moved by someone patrolling this page. You deliberately disregarded the fact that the Nas song had an article and moved it out of the way so you didn't have to create content at Hayman30's redirect. Doesn't matter that it didn't have refs, you added them. You made it (more) notable, so should have made You Owe Me into a dab page. Ss112 09:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, @Zawl:, the page that you moved (and used PM permission to suppress redirect to give way for your new article) will be restored as it was. Please start move discussion to establish how your page is primary topic. Also remember #Conduct expectations don't use PM permission to the detriment of other editors to win your article the base name. I will also advise to to remember this piece of advice –Ammarpad (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ammarpad: I recommend this be left to an admin to sort out. — Zawl 10:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's because you used entrusted permission and grabbed article title. Undiscussed move can be reverted by any one with the ability not admin. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, I did not suppress any redirects to make way for new article. Like how any editors could move pages, I did the same. My move of the Nas song to another title is per WP:BOLD that it is not the primary topic. — Zawl 10:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so your BOLD move is now contested, therefore controversial. You can start MR to establish that song deserves the base title. Also FYI, it doesn't matter whether you suppress redirect that's just technicality. What is germane here is you did unilateral move which cannot be reversed by non-PM, and non-Admin editor, that's using PM permission, whether redirect is left or not. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in page move disputes - I did not use this right to gain an upper hand in this dispute. Whether or not a non-PM can reverse the move is out of topic, since they can't reverse most moves without coming here. Like a non-PM, I used my regular editor right to move a page. Since there's a discussion here and you've been asked to leave this to an administrator, you failed to do so and thus, conducted a wheel war with another page mover. An admin should review this. — Zawl 10:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- You can call it what you like. You did unilateral undiscussed move. Another editor disagreed, and ask for it to be reversed on RMT. His request is valid and I executed it, if you disagree you're required to start RM. It doesn't matter whether the one who moved the page undiscussed is a page mover or not. It was undiscussed and challenged. You can ask for clarification. Ammarpad (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Maintenance, repair and operations (currently a redirect to Maintenance) → Maintenance (technical) (currently a redirect instead to Maintenance) (move · discuss) – To generalize article and eliminate error in "operations" term usage Scientist 13:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)