Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]
Edit this section if you want to move a request between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

[edit]
Most requests should be placed below this heading.


Requests to revert undiscussed moves

[edit]
If your request involves reverting a move, place it here.

Contested technical requests

[edit]
Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 I am not seeing where this a reversion of a previous move, so I am changing the section this is in. Bensci54 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like unnecessary disambiguation and goes against WP:CONCISE. Unless there's something I'm missing, it seems like if other international CN channels also include "TV Channel" they should have it removed as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bensci54 and Ahect: Don't mind if I list similar requests here for move reversions; actually, VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 is right, they are! Looking at the page history for this and similar others, WP:NCTV was cited as the reason. Even check out Nickelodeon (Israel). Intrisit (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Intrisit You're probably thinking of WP:NCBC ( WP:NCTV is about TV shows, not channels), but I don't see anything in there that says to use "TV channel" when just the country (or region) name is unambiguous. Looking at the page history of Nickelodeon (Israel), you tried to move it to Nickelodeon (Israeli TV channel) and an administrator immediately moved it back to Nickelodeon (Israel) because "TV channel" was unnecessary disambiguation. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: pinging the administrator who made the move reversion on mine with this without any addressing at my talk page (since I knew not at the time that it was twice moved to that title prior to their quick move reversions) to see if there'll be an agreement to remove the "(TV channel)" disambiguation in these such titles. Intrisit (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: Even check out the page history of Nickelodeon (Israel). Intrisit (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky The original video game was "Spy Hunter", not "SpyHunter". See WP:SMALLDETAILS. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is bascially the same. A move could make it a lot less confusing --FMSky (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky I don't always agree with WP:SMALLDETAILS either, but the consensus around here is generally that small differences in spacing and punctuation are sufficient, so this wouldn't be uncontroversial. If you want to discuss adding the additional disambiguation, you can click the "discuss" link in your request above to open a formal move request. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miklogfeather The current name is standard per WP:USPLACE. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Doomsdayer520. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to Democratic and Popular Union for the time being, as I think this is sufficently murky that a full discusison would be warranted in this instance. WHile there doesn't seem much call for adding Party on the end, I can see a case for either Union or Unity and Union is the long-term status quo. Ngrams show that in the party's heyday English sources were mainly using Unity, but in recent years there is a preference for Union.[1]  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is an example of a feedback loop in which the name of the article on Wikipedia influences the wording used in other sources. As shown by the Ngrams, the name "Democratic and Popular Union" begins gaining traction around 2010, the same year the Wikipedia article name was changed. Given that, I think it would be appropriate to move back to the more accurate name. The current name would not have reflected most sources when it was first moved in 2010 and is only the status quo now because it was never corrected. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krisgabwoosh moved to contested as it looks like a discussion may be necessary (technical requests are for simple situations, this looks like it might need some scrutiny to make sure we get it right) ASUKITE 14:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who moved this to "...Party" yesterday and that was an informed action based on my reading of available sources (at least in English). If that was the wrong way to go then so be it, but it indicates the confusing state of sources on this organization. Also, the article is such a mess in its current form that I'm surprised it was never nominated for deletion. If anyone plans to actually clean it up, their research might help nail down the best way to present the organization's name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Intrisit (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

[edit]
Edit this section only if your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators). Place your request in another section if it only requires a page mover.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1250551377"