Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Project page to request technical page moves From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request a technical move 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 "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.

  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • 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.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves 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. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
  • 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. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.
Add a new request
Remove all requests
Shortcuts

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.
  • Simca 1307 → Chrysler AlpineChrysler Alpine (currently a redirect back to Simca 1307) (move · discuss) – per WP:CARNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME; this car was always known as the Chrysler Alpine in UK markets (until it was replaced by the Talbot Alpine). It was also known as the Simca 1307, but ONLY in France, and possibly elsewhere in Europe, not in the UK. Per WP:COI I owned a total of three of these many years ago, one Chrysler, and later two Talbots, so I know what I am talking about! WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Bamboo coral → Keratoisididae (move · discuss) – Switch namespace with redirect; current namespace (common name) applies to other species as well. Aiming to turn Bamboo coral into its own page Anthropophoca (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
If it is the WP:COMMONNAME, as you suggest, then the current title is the correct one. Handle other cases using a WP:DAB page and/or WP:HATNOTE. Polyamorph (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
As i said, it's a common name that is shared with other families of coral, so the namespace should at least not be restricted to Keratoisididae. I believe @Kevmin and @Plantdrew have something to say about this matter. Anthropophoca (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Polyamorph its a "common" name, but is very much NOT an unambiguous name, due to a number of families being called "bamboo" with regional/geographic differences as to if/when its applied. WP:Common does not at any point say to avoid the official name of a taxon, it says use whatever is the most frequently used AND unambiguous, which in this case is Keratoisididae.--Kevmin § 17:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
We discussed it previously at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_68#Bamboo_coral. I don't think any move is needed. Prior to July 2024, the article covered the family Isididae, and pretty much any source that discusses "bamboo coral" as a taxon is going to call them Isididae. Recent research has led to the corals with a bamboo-like appearance being split across several families, not just Isididae. Having Keratoisididae in the taxobox of bamboo coral (and as a redirect) is a totally arbitrary move by Wikipedia; there aren't any sources that equate bamboo corals with Keratoisididae only.
The solution isn't any move, but to rewrite the article about corals with a bamboo-like appearance (titled bamboo coral) to better cover the current and former classification and whatever else can be said about them aside from the taxonomy, and to create a new article for Keratoisididae. I'll make a stub for Keratoisididae now. Plantdrew (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

If your request involves a technical request for reverting a recent undiscussed move, place it here.

Contested technical requests

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if they have been contested.
@Tibian1654 This is being contested for now, unless the new name's use in sources can be demonstrated. 1isall (talk | contribs) 16:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Left a note about this at Talk:Botryosphaeria viticola. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Earned wage access → Earned Wage AccessEarned Wage Access (currently a redirect back to Earned wage access) (move · discuss) – Earned Wage Access is a financial service that's a proper noun. All words should be capitalized. Eric (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Eric1985 Funny - I started looking into this and on my regular history check realized that I was the one who originally moved it. I repeated the same check of every listed source on the page to be safe and found that the vast majority used the title as lowercase within body text, excepting mentions of "Earned Wage Access" specifically as a product such as this source. When being described in a generic sense, it does still seem that lowercase is favored. This is of course not an exhaustive search of all available sources. I'm not aware of any naming policies or conventions specifically requiring us to treat a topic such as this as proper outside the context of individually-branded products (which may be referred to by the institutions offering the service). A discussion may benefit if a solid case for capitalization could be made. (Also noting that the titles for sources will likely always use title case, so we usually have to ignore those when deciding on this sort of thing) ASUKITE 03:43, 14 March 2026 (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.
  • Wikipedia:Recent additions → Wikipedia:Did you know archive (move · discuss) – Per consensus at Special:Permalink/1340829865#Requested move 20 February 2026. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    Note: Bots need to be updated before moving the title, so please don't move until they're done. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    Further note: This action should ideally be carried out only by @Theleekycauldron or @Shubinator as their bots are dependent on the page. – robertsky (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    Given that this will require updates to bots, this should probably get at least 1 relist. I'm not going to do that relist myself, as I'm involved. TarnishedPathtalk 08:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    If the bot operators have been notified, do we really need to relist? – robertsky (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    Only two substantive participants and last comment a day ago. YMMV, but I would normally relist something like that. However, there's been no descent.
    A side comment, if it is closed, whoever does it should not use rmCloser, BilledMammal's Move+ or my MovePlus as there is a known issue with moving when the discussion occurred on a page other than that to be moved. TarnishedPathtalk 06:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    Scrap my comments above, I see the discussion has already been closed. Just waiting on the move now. TarnishedPathtalk 06:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    Any other bots that utilize the page? 1isall (talk | contribs) 02:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    What's the plan for the ~266 subpages? Shubinator (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Shubinator: I generally assume subpages are also moved to match the main page (commenting as uninvolved party). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Ok, it sounds like we need a) someone who will perform the move (this move sounds more complicated than I'm comfortable with performing myself), and b) more technical detail on how the subpages will be moved, as ~266 subpages is over the 100-page default limit for subpage moves. Shubinator (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Shubinator, I can carry out the move at any time (we have a script that can deal with the subpages)—just waiting for the all-clear from you and theleekycauldron. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Oh ok. Should be good on my end, just let me know the day & time at least a couple days in advance. As long as the move is sometime between 00:30 UTC and 14:00 UTC, I should be able to make it work. Shubinator (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Okay Shubinator, I'll plan to move it around 02:00 UTC on the 16th unless I hear otherwise from you or theleekycauldron. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    could you make it 04:00? that way I have a 23-hour window to update instead of a 1-hour window. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, sounds good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI