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: 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}}
the - 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
- Who Really Cares → Who Really Cares (disambiguation) (currently a redirect back to Who Really Cares) (move · discuss) – there is only one album named "Who Really Cares" Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is only one album that has an article devoted to it, but there is also a song that has an article devoted to it, and there are several other topics by the same name that are treated as subtopics in other articles. If there is a primary topic argument, there should be a multi-page move – i.e., the album article should also be moved, but this is only requesting to move the disambiguation page without moving the album article. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Super Smash (women's cricket) → Women's Super Smash (currently a redirect back to Super Smash (women's cricket)) (move · discuss) – As of other league and women's cricket Fade258 (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Draft:William Denson is invalid. Must create Draft:William Denson before requesting that it be moved to William Denson.– Move from draft space; the page William Denson is currently a redirect to William Henry Denson. I have no objection to disambiguating the pages more explicitly by adding parentheses descriptions, e.g. William Denson (laywer, born 1913), but I don't think it's necessary. Tserton (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC) --Tserton (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hakon Hakonarson (currently a redirect to Haakon IV) → Hakon Hakonarson (scientist) (currently a redirect instead to Hákon Hákonarson (scientist)) (move · discuss) – This title should again redirect to the Norwegian king as he is the primary topic for this title. The only incoming link is referring to the king. 194.105.229.5 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Administrator needed
Edit this section if a request requires an administrator (e.g., because the page to be moved is move-protected or the target is creation-protected). Place the request in another section if it only requires a page mover.
Contested technical requests
Australian railway lines
- Joondalup railway line (currently a redirect to Yanchep line) → Joondalup Line (currently a redirect instead to Yanchep line) (move · discuss) – official name, has been informally discussed at WT:WA. Steelkamp (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Mandurah railway line (currently a redirect to Mandurah line) → Mandurah Line (currently a redirect instead to Mandurah line) (move · discuss) – official name, has been informally discussed at WT:WA. Steelkamp (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fremantle railway line (currently a redirect to Fremantle line) → Fremantle Line (currently a redirect instead to Fremantle line) (move · discuss) – official name, has been informally discussed at WT:WA. Steelkamp (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to help with these, but from reading the discussion at WT:WA, It's not 100% clear to me if there is consensus or not. I've left a comment there, so I'll be watching that over the next couple of days. Happy to help if there is consensus. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Line" should not be capitalised per MOS:CAPS, given that there are plenty of usages which don't to so: [1][2]. Better to keep at the current descriptive title, although I am less concerned about removing "railway". — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- All official sources use capital Line. There are also many unofficial sources that use it: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. There is also precedent on Wikipedia for a capital line: Orange Line (MBTA), Wairarapa Line, Red Line (Doha Metro), C Line (Los Angeles Metro), Cumbernauld Line. Steelkamp (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I have documented my reasons at WT:WA. @Amakuru:, in these instances, Line is part of the proper names by which the primary subject matters of these articles are known to almost everyone of the over two million residents of the Perth metropolitan area because that is what their operator calls them, and consequently as per MOS:CAPS its capitalization is NOT unnecessary. The proposed names satisfy four of the five criteria enumerated for WP:CRITERIA, and all five when one accepts that the article is primarily about the service rather than the physical infrastructure used by it – similar to Eurostar, InterCity (British Rail), Acela, and A (New York City Subway service)–J/Z (New York City Subway service). Betterkeks (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Line" should not be capitalised per MOS:CAPS, given that there are plenty of usages which don't to so: [1][2]. Better to keep at the current descriptive title, although I am less concerned about removing "railway". — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - the discussion was not 'informal' - it is where western australian items are discussed be interested editors, and as such is considered the central discussion point of the subject area. I have total indifference to what betterkeks is enthusiastic about, I fail to see any long term benefit for the changing of the titles of the articles. I see no attempt to offer the Akas in the lead sentence or paragraph - as such I believe changing names/titles is pointless if there is no specific designation of what the line might have been known as - and in my view the moves suffer WP:RECENTISM as there is no specific attempt (that I have seen) to indicate effort to provide alternative naming in wikidata or in the article itself. It is this reason that I do not support or object moving a page - but observe that the lack of thoroughness in offering the reader understanding of context of alternate names is an error that requires effort to fix. JarrahTree 05:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- A discussion on a WikiProject page is always "informal" when it comes to naming issues, because it is the wrong venue. Naming discussions always belong at WP:RM unless they're uncontroversial. But this one is contested (by me), and to be honest issues of capitalisation are nearly always controversial, so it needs to be opened into a full RM discussion. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thats why I said it was informal. Because it wasn't at RM, and didn't have move templates placed on the article pages. Can the articles be moved to lowercase line in the mean time, while a discussion takes place at RM? Steelkamp (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I have no objection to moving to Fremantle line etc. Use of "railway line" in sources seems to he limited. — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I think it ought to be Fremantle Line etc, but I also have no objection to moving to Fremantle line etc. Betterkeks (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I have no objection to moving to Fremantle line etc. Use of "railway line" in sources seems to he limited. — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your wrong here. A WikiProject is never the wrong venue for an uncontroversial naming issue. The discussion had already started at Talk:Airport Line, Perth#Are railway and service being conflated? and it was rather a "don't we all agree" discussion. There definitely had been no need for a RM.
- Your comment here was the first objection. That's fine and there is no problem to discuss the move now but you can't twist this around and claim that something had been controversial when there hadn't been any comment opposing the move. If Dr. Vogel had moved the pages before your comment, it would have been completely fine. --PhiH (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thats why I said it was informal. Because it wasn't at RM, and didn't have move templates placed on the article pages. Can the articles be moved to lowercase line in the mean time, while a discussion takes place at RM? Steelkamp (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- JarrahTree, while I respect your decision to withdraw from this discussion, I still want to respond to your post for the sake of everyone else that follows this discussion. The concerns raised by JarrahTree were in fact discussed, and the suggestion (if not consensus) was that it WOULD be covered within the articles as secondary or tertiary matter. As for WP:RECENTISM; there is the past, the present, and the future. The past will be covered as secondary or tertiary matter, the nature of the primary subject matter means the first four of, if not all of, the five criteria in WP:CRITERIA are very much about the present, and if we ignore the developments of the present (that are changing the way we in Perth look at the primary subject matter), three of the five criteria in WP:CRITERIA will not be met in future (specifically, as soon as Airport Line commences). Betterkeks (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- A discussion on a WikiProject page is always "informal" when it comes to naming issues, because it is the wrong venue. Naming discussions always belong at WP:RM unless they're uncontroversial. But this one is contested (by me), and to be honest issues of capitalisation are nearly always controversial, so it needs to be opened into a full RM discussion. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - the discussion was not 'informal' - it is where western australian items are discussed be interested editors, and as such is considered the central discussion point of the subject area. I have total indifference to what betterkeks is enthusiastic about, I fail to see any long term benefit for the changing of the titles of the articles. I see no attempt to offer the Akas in the lead sentence or paragraph - as such I believe changing names/titles is pointless if there is no specific designation of what the line might have been known as - and in my view the moves suffer WP:RECENTISM as there is no specific attempt (that I have seen) to indicate effort to provide alternative naming in wikidata or in the article itself. It is this reason that I do not support or object moving a page - but observe that the lack of thoroughness in offering the reader understanding of context of alternate names is an error that requires effort to fix. JarrahTree 05:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- In "All official sources use capital Line", the "official sources" are likely to be all in the railway organization, and thus are likely to (1) respectfully capitalize their own company's parts and property, and (2) treat "line" as by default meaning "railway line" rather than anything else which may be called a line. Less so likely the general public who do not work for the railways. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind we are not talking about railway lines. The current article titles are misleading which is why we decided to fix the scope of these articles and move them. These so-called "railway lines" are in fact services that have the word "Line" in their proper names. --PhiH (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Anthony Appleyard: No, not just the operator. Besides Transperth (the public transport system serving the city and suburban areas of Perth, and which the service called "Airport Line" is a part of), the proper name "Airport Line" is also used by the Public Transport Authority[1] and the Government of Western Australia.[2] In addition, Steelkamp provided (above) five examples of unofficial use; more can surely be provided if needed. And, anecdotally, I've always known the services (and I live in Perth and have used the public transport here for nearly 40 years) by whatever name they are called on timetables, signage, operator website, local literature such as newspaper, television and radio, and everyone else I speak with about the service, which currently is "Fremantle Line" etc. (It would be confusing – and rude – to call someone "Barry", for example, when everyone else calls that person "Darryl" because that person has decided his name is "Darryl".) Betterkeks (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @PhiH: This image of the Joondalup line at a station looks to me a lot like a railway. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Anthony Appleyard: That is a picture of physical infrastructure, including railway, and not of a SERVICE, which you will find is called “Joondalup Line” for that station. You would find a picture at Bayswater Station look very similar, but at this station you will (when the new services commence), in contrast, find it being serviced by THREE services, namely: Midland Line, Airport Line (new), and Morley–Ellenbrook Line (new). Betterkeks (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to help with these, but from reading the discussion at WT:WA, It's not 100% clear to me if there is consensus or not. I've left a comment there, so I'll be watching that over the next couple of days. Happy to help if there is consensus. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Public Transport Authority (2021-09-22). "Planning is well underway for the integration of the METRONET Airport Line to the public transport network, adding new bus routes and increased train capacity". METRONET (Media statement). Western Australia: Public Transport Authority, Department of Transport, Government of Western Australia. Retrieved 2021-11-07.
- ^ Saffioti, Rita (2021-10-19). "Community to have say on bus services to Airport Line stations". Media Statements of the Government of Western Australia (Media statement). Western Australia: Government of Western Australia. Archived from the original on 2021-10-19. Retrieved 2021-11-07.
Comment This discussion has been going on for days now, but RM/T is clearly not the right place for it. Looks like a formal RM is necessary. Lennart97 (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Requests to revert undiscussed moves
- Cheyanne Turions (currently a redirect to Cheyanne turions) → Cheyanne turions (move · discuss) – subject appears to style the name as {{lowercase title}}, e.g. on https://artmuseum.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Akimbo-Press-Release_ds.pdf and https://canadianart.ca/news/news-brief-battat-contemporary-to-close/ Kj cheetham (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- This seems like a similar case to E. E. Cummings so it seems likely to remain in Title Case. Benjamin112 ☎ 00:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Norway municipality (currently a redirect to Template:Infobox kommune) → Template:Infobox kommune (move · discuss) – Rv series of moves by sockpuppet of banned user * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Romania subdivision (currently a redirect to Template:Infobox Romanian subdivision) → Template:Infobox Romanian subdivision (move · discuss) – Rv series of moves by sockpuppet of banned user * Pppery * it has begun... 03:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Albania place (currently a redirect to Template:Infobox Albanian settlement) → Template:Infobox Albanian settlement (move · discuss) – Rv series of moves by sockpuppet of banned user * Pppery * it has begun... 04:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)