Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Shortcuts

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

Serviceton railway line → Ararat railway line (currently a redirect instead to Ballarat V/Line rail service) (move · discuss) – Edited article a while ago to reflect that the Serviceton line hasn't existed since 1995, when it was truncated to Ararat; the section past Ararat through to Serviceton was converted to standard gauge in 1995 and connected to other lines to form today's Western standard gauge railway line. Current Ararat railway line page is a redirect to Ballarat V/Line rail service (which covers the Ballarat and Ararat passenger services running on the line). I requested a move back when I first edited the article, however the request was removed as it was never completed. Граймс (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Standard British Film Awards 2009 → Evening Standard British Film Awards 2008 (currently a redirect instead to Evening Standard British Film Awards 2007) (move · discuss) – The article's description stated that the 2009 Evening Standard British Film Awards are intended to honor British and Irish films of 2008 and just happen to be held the following year and not at the end of the filmmaking year like the BIFA Awards do, for example. Even the Evening Standard British Film Awards main article itself refers to 2009 winners as 2008 ones (see that year in the 2001–2010 Winners section), so to avoid confusion, it is better to be renamed according to the main page article. LordTort (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special Forces Tab → Special Forces tab (currently a redirect back to Special Forces Tab) (move · discuss) – Parallel to Ranger tab and consistent with Army's own AR 670-1 document about insignia (and basic English/WP MoS), "tab" should be lowercase. I can't do the move myself because there's a redirect in the way (they should be swapped). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Ranger tab should be moved instead so both words are capitalized in that title, because both of these military awards appear to be proper terms in which title case should be used. Also, both articles are currently written as if that is the case, with the title at the top of the Ranger tab article being the only exception. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this, Doomsdayer. When I first stumbled across this, I was irritiated by the "Tab" on these things, as it seemed another case of overcapitalization, but I looked around to see if it wasn't exactly that: a special, proper noun. Tabs of the United States Army used (already, before I started standardising the texts) a mixture. There was some inconclusive mention on the Talk of that article, but otherwise, I haven't found any discussion, just a bit of sloppiness.

For me, the deciding factor (apart from my understanding of English rules) was the use by the Army itself in the Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia document I linked to. I figure, if anybody can be expected to inappropriately overcapitalize words, it'd be the US military, but they consistently downcase not just "the tab" but "the airborne tab", e.g., at p.2 (even "airborne" is lowercase there). Also I find at [1] ("...awarded the Governor's Dozen tab...") and [2] (PDF's p.11, 4th-last paragraph "arctic tab").

Unfortunately, I've already gone ahead and made changes to article text as well as redirects (where I could) so as to unify the mix of usages contrary to Army/military usage. I didn't mean to throw a WP:FAIT situation at you, so I've stopped to see what you decide. If you think these changes might, in fact, be controversial, I can open up discussions on the (I think) four pages I've tweaked. If folks don't like what I've done, I'll go around with my reverting hat on (I mean my Reverting Hat). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If various articles in this area are sloppy and inconsistent in capitalization, then we absolutely need you to clean everything up. Your efforts are appreciated. If anyone familiar with these precise military terms pops up here, we may be able to nail down whether these terms should all be in Title Case or Sentence case. Whatever the ultimate verdict, reverting some of your recent edits and moving some remaining page titles shouldn't be too difficult. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton City College → Southampton College (currently a redirect back to Southampton City College) (move · discuss) – College renamed recently, but a redirect to an unrelated former college existed at "Southampton College". I've turned it into a redirect to Southampton City College for now, but it will need to be replaced by the new page. I wasn't clear whether to delete and then move, or some other process. ERAGON (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sulaiman al-Aʽmash → Sulayman al-Aʽmash (restricted by the titleblacklist, which page movers can override) (move · discuss) – Arabic Romanization conventions prefer "ay" to "ai" which looks outdated IntrepidTee (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Susan Sojourna Collier → Susan-Sojourna Collier (currently a redirect back to Susan Sojourna Collier) (move · discuss) – misspelling; subject includes a hyphen in her first name per her official website Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tren Interoceánico (network) → Tren Interoceánico (currently a redirect instead to Line Z (Tren Interoceánico)) (move · discuss) – Since "Tren Interoceánico" now redirects to Line Z (Tren Interoceánico), we no longer need the suffix "(network)" at the end of the Tren Interoceánico (network) article's name. Thus, I request you shorten it. SleepTrain456 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Project Gotham Racing (video game) → Project Gotham Racing (currently a redirect back to Project Gotham Racing (video game)) (move · discuss) – As the latter has been redirected to the former, the disambiguated name is no longer needed. Sceeegt (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:The Conjuring: Last Rites → The Conjuring: Last Rites (currently a redirect instead to The Conjuring Universe) (move · discuss) – Need to move draft to its title page. Mike Allen 22:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Sultanate of Multan → Langah Sultanate (currently a redirect back to Sultanate of Multan) (move · discuss) – Page move performed by PadFoot2008 without any sort of talk page consensus. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Hollywood blacklist → Hollywood Blacklisting (move · discuss) – First, the word "blacklist" should be capitalized. Second, the article is not merely a list of those who were blacklisted, but rather a documentation of the entire phenomenon. Thus, it should be named "Hollywood Blacklisting", as it refers to the lead up, diedown, and specific people and grander background politics involved. Narfhead4444, Gamer Ordinare 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narfhead: Per MOS:CAPS, blacklist would be capitalized here if consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of sources. Google Ngrams shows that "Hollywood blacklist" is instead the most common form. I also don't see how adding -ing would expand the scope of the article. If you would like to request this move anyway, you can begin a requested-move discussion by clicking "discuss" on your request. You can remove this request after opening a discussion (or if you do not want to continue). SilverLocust 💬 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this request. In addition to the inappropriate capital B, using "blacklisting" in the title would indicate a process while the article is currently written as a description of the actual "blacklist" document(s). The fact that putting people in this document was a "phenomenon" can go without saying. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SilverLocust. This should be dealt with through a requested move and I would oppose. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike & Nick & Nick & Alice → It Takes Two (upcoming film) (currently a redirect back to Mike & Nick & Nick & Alice) (move · discuss) – The film has been retitled KingArti (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ele3ctricBloom$, who recently requested that it be moved in the opposite direction. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht This was already taken care of. Ele3ctricBloom$ (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ele3ctricBloom$ To clarify, are you okay with moving the article back to It Takes Two (upcoming film)? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht No. What I meant was the move was taken care of already, in words: It Takes Two got moved to Mike & Nick & Nick & Alice because the director confirmed the title in this tweet: https://x.com/@bdgrabinski/status/1831770615436734819 Ele3ctricBloom$ (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KingArti Since the title has been contested, this will require a full move request. Please click on the "discuss" link in your request above to start that process. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ground (song) → Holy Ground (move · discuss) – This is the only article listed at Holy Ground (disambiguation) that neither is in sentence case nor is prefixed with the definite article. As for Holy Ground: NYC Live with the Wordless Music Orchestra, the pageviews certainly depict the Taylor Swift song as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between them. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnCWiesenthal: Contesting this. WikiNav data from Holy Ground shows that last month there were 24 clickthroughs to Sacred space and <10 (too low to show data) to Holy Ground (song). That indicates that this fails WP:PT1. (The absence of a "the" (vs. The Holy Ground) and the different capitalization (vs. Holy ground) are both pretty weak disambiguation. WP:SMALLDETAILS is not always sufficient disambiguation from other likely topics.) SilverLocust 💬 19:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose this one. Not every Taylor Swift song needs to be a primary topic - especially one that didn't even make the Hot 100 chart. 162 etc. (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing that every Taylor Swift song should be a primary topic, just those with much higher pageviews than all other similarly-named topics. (In fact, songs such as "Tim McGraw" [song], "22" [Taylor Swift song] and "August" [song] cannot be primary topics due to failing WP:PT2.) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CAPTCHA → Captcha (currently a redirect back to CAPTCHA) (move · discuss) – Like "laser" an anacronym (former acronym) that's usually no longer capitalized as recorded in all dictionaries, e.g. MW, Collins, American Heritage, OED Espoo (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo The all-caps version still appears to be overwhelmingly the common name based on a quick search. This will require a full discussion. C F A 💬 12:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard dictionaries are conservative and sluggish and they base their decisions on huge databases (which are much more reliable than any searches you or I can do), so we can be sure that the lowercase spelling is much more common nowadays. Otherwise dictionaries wouldn't agree on replacing the older acronym with lowercase spelling! Espoo (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an argument for the move discussion. Feel free to start one by clicking the "discuss" link above. C F A 💬 20:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thicker than Water (2005 film) → Thicker Than Water (2005 film) (currently a redirect back to Thicker than Water (2005 film)) (move · discuss) – consistency with sources xRozuRozu (t • c) 05:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one is already consistent with WP rules on capitalization in titles (MOS:TITLECAPS), and it does not need to be consistent with sources that have their own standards. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spīn Ghar → Safed Koh (currently a redirect back to Spīn Ghar) (move · discuss) – Restore the article to its previously discussed name. The article was moved to a local name [3], but per the discussion on the talk page, it was restored[4] to its original stable WP:COMMONNAME. Ainty Painty (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a 15-year-old move is a bit of a stretch here, in my opinion. I don't really see an obvious common name. A discussion might be a good idea. C F A 💬 12:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - moved to contested. After that long, the title is either the status quo or nobody noticed - either way, a discussion wouldn't hurt. ASUKITE 15:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion. The redirect I mentioned was incorrect. This is not a 15-year-old move. In fact, this is the second time the article has been moved. Previously, it was restored to the romanized title “Safēd Kōh” based on the talk page CONSENSUS, and it remained stable for over 8 years until it was moved by an unconfirmed user in 2017. A discussion was required for moving to a new or undiscussed title. Here, I am simply requesting the restoration of the last discussed title. Ainty Painty (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 7 years since 2017 is more than long enough to be a stable title. See WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:SVTRT. This would require a new RM. SilverLocust 💬 07:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia Hotshots → Magnolia Chicken Timplados Hotshots (currently a redirect back to Magnolia Hotshots) (move · discuss) – Magnolia Chicken Timplados Hotshots is the full name of the team and it is written also in their logo. Gayviewmahat (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we go with the common name rather than the official name. I did a brief search to see if I could see which is the obvious common name, but I'm not finding anything conclusive. I am seeing both usages - ESPN for example seems to prefer the full name at least once in the article, while a few other sources are just using "Magnolia Hotshots" - a discussion may be a good idea as sports team names tend to get a lot of attention. ASUKITE 14:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gayviewmahat moved to contested for now until we can determine the actual common name ASUKITE 15:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perspiration → Sweat (currently a redirect back to Perspiration) (move · discuss) – WP:COMMONNAME, in line with sweat gland and night sweats –Tobias (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tobiasi0 The difference is that the other two examples are never referred to as Perspiration glands (the less colloquial term would be sudoriparous glands) or Night perspiration (the less colloquial term would be nocturnal hyperhidrosis). Perspiration is more precise as "sweat" can refer to any process by which an object (not just a mammal) oozes or exudes moisture. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sweating and perspiration refer to the same process, as mentioned in the lead. There's no significant difference between the terms—'sweat' refers specifically to the fluid secreted by any sweat gland, just as 'perspiration' does. The main distinction is that 'perspiration' is less commonly used. In fact, there is no difference between the two terms except the context they are used in (1,2,3). –Tobias (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobiasi0 I still think this needs further discussion as it relates to WP:MEDTITLE. Feel free to open a discussion by clicking the "discuss" link in your request above, and make sure to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed