Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

Welcome to Requested moves/Technical requests

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 experienced editor to approve of your new article or proposed rename, you are in the wrong place.

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection or click the big blue button 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. Do not edit the article's talk page, just click the button below.

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 or click the big blue button 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}}

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.
Administration needed

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).

Technical requests

[edit]

Uncontroversial technical requests

[edit]
I presume Gò Công (disambiguation) is to be moved over the base title in this case. ASUKITE 17:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
No! Vietic2 (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I suppose I find WP:VIETPLACE a bit confusing as it suggesting we override the default behavior of only using a parenthetical in the event of ambiguity, with the expectation that the primary topic or disambiguation page or primary redirect goes over the base title (this applies to a few other reqs here also). In that case, if adding a (parenthetical) to each of these titles, we need to decide what goes at the base (a redirect to the disambiguated title would be WP:MISPLACED) ASUKITE 13:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The main topic is Gò Công - a ward in Đồng Tháp province, not an former provincial city in the former Tiền Giang province. Vietic2 (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That makes sense then, thanks! I won't object to these, but since there will likely be links that need fixing, I'll just leave these up for now as I am low on time. ASUKITE 15:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply


Requests to revert undiscussed moves

[edit]
I completed this move yesterday, and will note that the requester (User:Ragnarvrollo) stated that official Danish government sources use "Danish Armed Forces" as the English translation. I looked into that claim and found it convincing, while English WP uses English article titles. No objection from me if the move is reverted, but I found the original request to be legitimate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Contested technical requests

[edit]
@LOL369YT Primary redirect is likely okay. This needs an RM. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 00:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
IMO, this is uncontroversial. Cheromaniii (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Why exactly do you believe this is uncontroversial? Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 12:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary disambiguation in titles is typically avoided. There may be some other naming conventions in play here though. I'm not an expert in Vietnam-specific placename disambiguation, though I do recall seeing a recent discussion on the topic here somewhere. 162 etc. (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hmm...I wonder which page that discussion you remembered took place. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Upon further review, WP:PLACE#Vietnam, as it reads today, does ask us to always use "province". There is a trainwreck of a talkpage discussion concerning this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). 162 etc. (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Lü Jia (Nanyue) → Lữ GiaLữ Gia (currently a redirect back to Lü Jia (Nanyue)) (move · discuss) – "Lữ Gia" is the overwhelmingly common name used in English-language scholarship on Nanyue/Nam Việt history (e.g., Taylor, Holmgren), while "Lü Jia" is primarily the Pinyin transcription rather than the established English historiographical convention. This person is from Thanh Hoá Province, Vietnam. Quangtrung.nguyen.2016 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Mild Oppose - Taylor and Holmgren are historians of Vietnamese history I assume. I'm familiar with Taylor's A History of Vietnam but all I could find for Holmgren is Chinese Colonisation of Northern Vietnam from 1980. I have a copy of Record of the Grand Historian translated by Burton Watson that uses Lü Jia. The difference in preference is that one is focused on Vietnamese history and the other Chinese history. The person is obscure enough to be little covered in English literature, so I don't think there's going to be much to go on. Another argument is that this is a native "Vietnamese" person and therefore should be spelled with Vietnamese letters. But this creates some awkwardness because Nanyue and practically all Nanyue-related articles use pinyin since it has been determined to be a "non-Vietnamese" or "Chinese" dynasty in modern times by both Vietnam and China. So is the precedence that individuals in Nanyue should be spelled with Vietnamese if they are determined to be of Vietnamese origin? Are there any other articles that this would be subject to? I'd prefer to just have pinyin and have Vietnamese in parenthesis but I can see why others would feel strongly against this. Qiushufang (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Preparations (album) → PreparationsPreparations (currently a redirect instead to Preparation) (move · discuss) – Preparations already exists as a redirect to Preparations (album) Cringechancellor (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Comment I retargeted the redirect to the disambiguation. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@1isall: When making this sort of edit, it's important to check the incoming links and update accordingly. 162 etc. (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I apologize, I forgot to do that. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Fixed all three. DisamAssist is the tool I used to do so. Note that I usually do not forget. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose; not the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Cringechancellor Moving this downwards due to the opposition. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Since the titles are not an exact match, no need for disambiguation; just a hatnote is needed. Annh07 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Haoreima each of these (without redlnked targets) has had previously-reverted moves and is thusly controversial. The others may potentially be too if they have similar rationales, but I don't see move disputes for them yet so I left them untouched. The redlinked ones can be moved by anybody and do not need to be listed here, unless I'm missing something. If you decide you want to go with a RM discussion, see WP:RMPM on how to bundle them together, or just ping/message me and I'll help you list them. ASUKITE 13:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Asukite Sure! Please help me. :-) Sanguis Nobilissimus 🩸👑 (Tibi loqui licet! 💬 — "Speak!") 15:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I have one RM for the Naga -> people moves at Talk:Chakhesang Naga, feel free to add any before discussion starts (after might need consensus) - I can create RMs for the language and capitalisation topics as well if you want, just not as sure about those or if you want to attend three separate RMs at the same time. ASUKITE 15:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Asukite Can't all of it be merged into one discussion platform somewhere else for community inputs? Sanguis Nobilissimus 🩸👑 (Tibi loqui licet! 💬 — "Speak!") 18:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
In general, it is more helpful for RMs to be grouped by their general topic, rather than adding several different topics to the same RM, otherwise we run the risk of a fragmented discussion which is difficult to close. ASUKITE 19:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Vietic2 This article does not need disambiguation because it is the only one with the title. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 15:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Vietic2 This one has a large move history. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Administrator needed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1378961331"