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: 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 this section if you want to move a request between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Most requests should be placed below this heading.

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

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

Contested technical requests

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.

• Wreck of the Mexico → 1837 wreck of the Mexico (move · discuss) – This is not the only wreck of a ship named Mexico with an article on Wikipedia which has also been the subject of much coverage. Another wreck is covered at Southport and St Anne's lifeboats disaster -- and depends on whether you are British or American on which is prominent -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I processed the related move already, I'm caught on this one, 1837 Wreck of the Mexico is a good WP:NATDIS, however, it may also imply that the same ship was wrecked more than once. Wreck of the Mexico (1837) or something similar might be slightly better. ASUKITE 15:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  A move is not necessary. The year is mentioned in the first sentence and there is already a hatnote pointing to Southport and St Anne's lifeboats disaster. Station1 (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  A cursory Google search would suggest you are wrong there. The 1886 wreck is also frequently referred to as the "Wreck of the Mexico" -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't suggested otherwise. But without a title conflict, a hatnote is sufficient. It serves the same function as a dab page. Station1 (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think it is a WP:NOPRIMARY situation here. The 1886 wreck is simply located at a NATDIS alternate name title. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is. And because it is already located at a naturally disambiguated title, no further disambiguation of titles is necessary. Station1 (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The point of WP:NOPRIMARY is that in such cases the plain title should be a disambiguation page. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  It applies to cases where two articles would have identical titles, such as the John Quested example. Where two articles properly have different titles, there's no benefit to any reader to sticking a dab page in their way. Station1 (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The comment above does not match longstanding procedure and guidelines. Where there's no primary topic, we have a disambiguation. Whether one, both or neither of the pages is actually titled with the ambiguous name is irrelevant. If everyone's in agreement that there isn't a primary topic between the two, then the move should simply go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Norkam Secondary School → NorKam Secondary School (move · discuss) – correct spelling of school name has a capitalized letter K Ghafeli (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ghafeli Usage of the term appears to be inconsistent in other sources, often used without the stylized K. We generally use sentence case for article titles, but we can create a redirect from the other one. Raladic (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Éric Marty → Eric Marty (essayist) (move · discuss) – in order to better disambiguate from Eric Marty the football player. 2605:8D80:13B5:DA45:C5EA:381:69B8:26DC (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that both article titles could remain as-is, because the essayist has the diacritical mark in "É" and the footbal guy does not, while both articles already have the appropriate hatnotes at the top. Also, a reverse request to better disambiguate to footbal guy from the essayist would use the exact same logic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that the accent is often omitted for capital letters in French-language sources. Support. 162 etc. (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• If anything, it's only reason to rename the football player article, as the accented title is already precise and unambiguous. Nobody looking for the footballer will type in "Éric", but readers looking for the essayist might type in "Eric" without the accent. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Football player was at Eric Marty and was just moved, with a dabpage created. I oppose this. The football player is the primary topic. Reverted. 162 etc. (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thapelo Letsholo (politician) → Thapelo Letsholo (move · discuss) – Politician gets 3 page views a day, as oppose to cricketer's 1. Politician also appears first when searching “Thapelo Letsholo” into Google, Roasted (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Roastedbeanz1 Primary topic takeovers are rarely uncontroversial, especially when the pageviews for both are so low that it's difficult to draw any real conclusions from them. This would probably require opening a move discussion, which you can do by clicking the "discuss" link in your request above, with notifications to Talk:Thapelo Letsholo and Talk:Thapelo Letsholo (cricketer). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Flag of Kannada → Kannada flag (currently a redirect back to Flag of Kannada) (move · discuss) – Ethnic flag, WP:CONSISTENT with Ainu flag. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • In that case, shouldn't the target be Kannadiga flag instead? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    • This is an unofficial cultural flag of both Kannada language, ethnic Kannada people (Kannadigas), also Karanataka state, therefore common name for all three is Kannada not Kannadiga. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 21:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Bandar Gavater → Gwatar (currently a redirect back to Bandar Gavater) (move · discuss) – The article was originally at Gwatar, which is the most common English spelling, distinguishing it from the nearby and similarly-named city of Gwadar. Gwatar is also the name of the bay on which it stands - see Gwatar Bay. The current name appears to be an attempt to transliterate one of the Persian names of the town to English. Gedrose (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The title hasn't been at Gwatar for 10 years, so this is beyond a simple WP:RMUM case. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Iran states If no common English usage is found, use the official name, including Shahrak ("town") and Deh ("village") – as these terms often distinguish the place from another place of similar or identical name. While I am guessing Bandar ("port") would also fall under this, the title also mentions another name of Shahrak Maskūnī-ye Gavāter ("residential village of Gavater"). Of the sources linked in the article, the only one I can access uses "Gwatar", so good arguments could be made for all three names pending further information. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Modern Dog → Moderndog (currently a redirect back to Modern Dog) (move · discuss) – As it was discussed a long time ago on the article's talk page, the band's now dead official website used "Moderndog" instead of "Modern Dog" without the space. This goes for the band's page on streaming services as well such as Apple music and Spotify which has them as "Moderndog", along with their album covers omitting the space. Despite this, most sources about the band either use "Modern Dog" or "Moderndog", especially English sources. Spinmeisters (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The article's sources say Modern Dog. So this seems like an WP:OFFICIALNAME / stylism issue rather than how it's actually called in sources. Not uncontroversial anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is true that most of the sources say Modern Dog, mostly the English ones, though the Thai sources use Moderndog without the space. Also, if you translate the bands name from Thai to English in Google Translate, you get Modern Dog with a space instead of Moderndog. Would it be more accurate to have the space or not for all the reasons given? If not, then I wouldn't object the article move any further and just have it as the name being "Moderndog" sometimes as it already states. Spinmeisters (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please do not try to use Google Translate this way; it is totally misguided to think that the system has any ability to recognise proper nouns or distinguish minor punctuation nuances. Especially in this case, where there is no Thai name—it's just "Moderndog/Modern Dog" written in Thai. (For what it's worth, I would support the move per the original rationale, and as there was already consensus back in 2006 but which was never actioned upon.) --Paul_012 (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Save the Music Foundation → Save The Music Foundation (currently a redirect back to Save the Music Foundation) (move · discuss) – The "T" in "The" should be capitalized.[1]. JSFarman2 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  MOS:THETM: "Do not capitalize the word the in a trademark regardless how the name is styled in logos and the like, except at the beginning of a sentence." RachelTensions (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'll note that per WP:MOSTM, "Do not "correct" the spelling (...) to be different from the reliably sourced spelling." 162 etc. (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's referring to spelling, not capitalization.

  Even so, several RS would concur with our guideline of not capitalizing "the" in trademarks: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. RachelTensions (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah. Thank you. That's good to know. (The capital/the thing drives me nuts; lower case is grammatically correct!) JSFarman2 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

RachelTensions! I went through the sources last night and thought: "If the New York Times used lower case, it's correct." Thanks again. JSFarman2 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro) → Moskva-City (Filyovskaya line) (currently a redirect back to Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro)) (move · discuss) – That's ridiculous. The station was renamed several months ago, there are numerous sources, including the official map. But the only opponent blocks the moving for some very formal reasons. Also, they simply stopped answering on the article talk page. Michgrig (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Michgrig: Since this requested move has been open for 7 days, an uninvolved closer will most likely soon decide whether to close the discussion or relist it for further discussion. Please be patient until then. This page isn't for requesting closure of a requested move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 09:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @SilverLocust, thank you. I suppose that this edit by @Reading Beans is the relisting that you talk about. How long will we have to wait? What if the only opponent still does not answer? Michgrig (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Michgrig: In general, a relisted discussion stays open for another 7 days before a closer next decides whether to close it. 162 etc. didn't explicitly oppose the requested move – which would be written as "Oppose" rather than "Comment" (WP:RMCOMMENT) – he just asked for better sources. The standard for closing a discussion as moved is whether there is a consensus for the move based on the weight of evidence and of arguments based on policies and guidelines. Beyond that, I don't have special insight to give on how it will be closed. SilverLocust 💬 01:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrator needed

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.