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=reason for 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]

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

GRB 110328A → Swift J164449.3+573451 (move · discuss) – the current title for this object is no longer the default one used in the astronomical community, but instead its initial discovery name (it was realized it's not actually a GRB, but a TDE).
Happy to provide more info/citations if needed. Ycendes (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yankee Air Museum → Michigan Flight Museum (currently a redirect back to Yankee Air Museum) (move · discuss) – Museum changed name, intended page has redirect back to original name of museum. Noha307 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North East Mayoral Combined Authority → North East Combined Authority (currently a redirect instead to North East Combined Authority (2014-2024)) (move · discuss) – New name from today's date per https://www.northeast-ca.gov.uk/ Tammbeck^talk 10:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:The Secret of Us → The Secret of Us (currently a redirect instead to Gracie Abrams) (move · discuss) – I disagree with TechnoSquirrel69's bold draftification of this article. This is the standard level of coverage that newly announced album articles get, and there's plenty more covering the announcement as well ([1][2][3] and more). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

User:OToToT/Naomi Payton → Naomi Payton (currently a redirect instead to Love Live! Superstar!!) (move · discuss) – Naomi Payton now has more activities than the time when the page was created. (See: ja wiki) I think she can fit the wiki standard now. Thus, I want to move it back to article space, so everyone can know her and make edits to reflect her current status. OToToT (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability. Maybe try WP:AFC? 162 etc. (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If rejected, I will go on that process. Thanks. OToToT (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

needs to go through AFC Polyamorph (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph AFC is not mandatory for autoconfirmed editors. That said, OToToT, the article is missing evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, as the only sources are from her record label and her twitter account, and incubating it through WP:AFC might be a good idea as the article in it's current state would likely end up getting deleted. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the issue.

From another perspective, if I improve the quality of the article first (e.g. extend it based some the ja version), then I can re-request the move here and not go on AFC? OToToT (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OToToT: Your draft is virtually identical to the version of Naomi Payton at Special:Permalink/1067143415. Since you are the only person who has contributed to the draft, and the article that is currently a redirect has more history, you should just copy and paste your completed draft there once it has proper evidence of significant coverage to establish notability. Normally copying and pasting is discouraged, but is allowed in this case since only you have edited your draft per WP:NOATT. However, if you don't show good evidence of notability, there's a chance your article could be deleted, so I would highly recommend going through AfC. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cajeput oil → Cajuput oil (currently a redirect back to Cajeput oil) (move · discuss) – Article was moved from Cajuput to Cajeput in 2014: "Sphilbrick moved page Cajuput oil to Cajeput oil over redirect: predominant spelling". However Wiktionary has "cajuput" as the main listing and "cajeput" as an alternative form. Matt Gies (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might benefit from an RM because it was moved, and there's another reply in the talk page mentioning the title being incorrect. Pinging @Sphilbrick as they're mentioned here. All this occurred many years ago though so things may have changed. ASUKITE 14:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion. I trust you won't surprise anyone that I have no recollection of such a minor issue from a decade ago. That said, I try to avoid rash edits, which means it is likely that I did a search for spellings. Had it been a close call, I would've either done nothing or opened a discussion and would have made the edit without further discussion only if it was fairly clear-cut. I don't consider Wiktionary a reliable source but have no recollection what it said at the time. I've also observed, even in my lifetime, changes in the English language including spelling over time, so I can't discount the possibility that my action was right at the time but no longer correct. I also can't discount the possibility that on such a minor issue my search was too casual. I trust someone will do some research and I'm virtually certain I will be fine with whatever is concluded. (Thanks for the ping.) S Philbrick (Talk) 17:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would need a move request. Google Trends shows that the "u" spelling has indeed gotten more popular worldwide since Sphilbrick moved it in 2014, but it also seems quite close and regional. A majority of the interest comes from Indonesia, Singapore, and Australia, with the "u" spelling being much more popular in Indonesia and the other regions pretty evenly split. In the Western world, the "e" spelling is more common in North America whereas Europe is fairly divided, but overall interest is very low to begin with. Ngrams show that "e" used to be by far the most common spelling, and while "u" got slightly more popular in the late '60s and late '90s, "e" has maintained a slight edge in the "All English" corpus, with "u" being more popular in the British English corpus up until 2012 or so. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt Gies: This move is potentially controversial, so it would require a requested-move discussion, which you can begin by clicking "discuss" on your request. You can remove this request after opening a discussion (or if you do not want to continue). SilverLocust 💬 06:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed[edit]