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: the 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=reason for move}} - 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]
Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]
- Glendon (lost settlement) → Glendon, Northamptonshire (move · discuss) – Standard DAB, unlike Althorp (lost settlement) there isn't a local meaning at the base name. Also move Glendon (version 2) to "Glendon (lost settlement)" without leaving a redirect per WP:RDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Broughderg, County Tyrone → Broughderg (move · discuss) – Target title was disambiguated for 2 other entries which till date haven't been created. No primary topic claim however. Intrisit (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The DAB has now been restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Buccaneer Yacht Club (Alabama) → Buccaneer Yacht Club (currently a redirect back to Buccaneer Yacht Club (Alabama)) (move · discuss) – Target title was disambiguated for 4 other entries which till date haven't been created. No primary topic claim however. Intrisit (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Morning @Intrisit: I thought we discussed all this last week... the incorrect primary topic grabs by this now-retired editor should just be reversed, particularly since you're asserting "no primary topic claim". — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Morning to you back and I thought I said this before Bensci54 remove my last entry set as withdrawn that, "expect more of these to appear here". By looking at the page histories of these and the other ones I've listed here, at the time, Wikipedians thought of DABbing titles with articles in them, like say "Mingo" (which they rename it to "Mingo (TV series)") so there will be space for "Mingo (café)" and "Mingo (film)" only for say 5 years to pass and nothing was/were created for "Mingo (café)" or "Mingo (film)", and then another user in 5 years' time uses the PRIMARYRED instance to revert back to where it was before. I stated the "no primary topic claim" so you won't bring it up in your reply. You know what, I'll be considering proposing a policy that will check the "unnecessary" DABbing of article titles for the "other similar ones" when those ones aren't created within a year of the DAB creation, that way, this issue will be resolved completely. I wholly support the continuous encouragement of article and DAB creations and improvements here since it helps in building the encyclopaedia, but I fear that this continuous "left-overing" of red links in DAB titles when they were originally and should still be actual articles will degrade this tool (WP) rather than uplifting it like we wanted and hoped. So my point is, this ain't primary topic grabs like you're stating, I want to help eliminate the instance where when titles are DABbed, the other entries, especially those focusing on info relating to some recent events or media releases, are left as red links when they could be created or proposed for creation. Intrisit (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really understand your contention here, I'm afraid. PRIMARYRED is clear that the lack of an article does not mean a particular topic is not in contention for primary topic, and the actions of that now-retired user in unilaterally blanking disambiguation pages without consideration for whether the extant page might be primary topic over the red link, is not in line with the guidelines. It makes no difference whether the article is created within a year, two years or ten years, it's still worthy of consideration. I get that something should be done in these cases since the situation is now inconsistent following this editor's unilateral actions, but the default fix in the absence of a positive and active determination that there's a primary topic (possibly through RM) should be to reverse the undiscussed blanking of the disambiguation pages. Looking at Boune, for example, I see nothing to suggest the tiny patch of desert in Niger is more important than the hamlet in Senegal. These are certainly not uncontroversial moves. — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- By you not getting my contention means at least you get my confusion of even listing them here. Of course all these bothers on the actions of/from that one user, but it could be any other user doing this as well and that is where my focus is/was on. The fact of it not being a policy or guideline is also my suggestion of it to be that so this won't pop up again. So does this mean that through that contribs page where I get these entries from, I straight up instigate RMs for them so the community will have their take on which direction these titles and target could/would go? Because that's where I feel the issue will be resolved. Intrisit (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just reverse the blanking of the disambiguation pages though? That blanking was made as a result of a misapplication of guidelines, and the prior stable status quo should be restored absent any other consideration. The situation with these pages is incorrect, and I can see why you listed them here, but I disagree with that approach. There is not "no policy or guideline", there is WP:PRIMARYRED, which states that we should have disambiguation pages and the previous edits that nixed those dab pages were wrong. You could start RMs if you feel that any of them merit primary topic treatment, but in the majority of cases these are fairly small entities anyway with not a lot of page views, and we rarely bother too much about one tiny entity being slightly more prominent than another tiny entity. — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The aforementioned editor used the wrong edit summary for their bot run. The correct edit summary would have been "redirect to only entry with valid blue link". While doing that via an unapproved bot was wrong they were correct on the merits - unless a valid blue link can be added to the other entries then this must be done. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say the edit summary was even incorrect. WP:PRIMARYRED also makes clear that each entry still needs to have a bluelink where it's mentioned, linking MOS:DABMENTION. SilverLocust 💬 17:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The aforementioned editor used the wrong edit summary for their bot run. The correct edit summary would have been "redirect to only entry with valid blue link". While doing that via an unapproved bot was wrong they were correct on the merits - unless a valid blue link can be added to the other entries then this must be done. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just reverse the blanking of the disambiguation pages though? That blanking was made as a result of a misapplication of guidelines, and the prior stable status quo should be restored absent any other consideration. The situation with these pages is incorrect, and I can see why you listed them here, but I disagree with that approach. There is not "no policy or guideline", there is WP:PRIMARYRED, which states that we should have disambiguation pages and the previous edits that nixed those dab pages were wrong. You could start RMs if you feel that any of them merit primary topic treatment, but in the majority of cases these are fairly small entities anyway with not a lot of page views, and we rarely bother too much about one tiny entity being slightly more prominent than another tiny entity. — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- By you not getting my contention means at least you get my confusion of even listing them here. Of course all these bothers on the actions of/from that one user, but it could be any other user doing this as well and that is where my focus is/was on. The fact of it not being a policy or guideline is also my suggestion of it to be that so this won't pop up again. So does this mean that through that contribs page where I get these entries from, I straight up instigate RMs for them so the community will have their take on which direction these titles and target could/would go? Because that's where I feel the issue will be resolved. Intrisit (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really understand your contention here, I'm afraid. PRIMARYRED is clear that the lack of an article does not mean a particular topic is not in contention for primary topic, and the actions of that now-retired user in unilaterally blanking disambiguation pages without consideration for whether the extant page might be primary topic over the red link, is not in line with the guidelines. It makes no difference whether the article is created within a year, two years or ten years, it's still worthy of consideration. I get that something should be done in these cases since the situation is now inconsistent following this editor's unilateral actions, but the default fix in the absence of a positive and active determination that there's a primary topic (possibly through RM) should be to reverse the undiscussed blanking of the disambiguation pages. Looking at Boune, for example, I see nothing to suggest the tiny patch of desert in Niger is more important than the hamlet in Senegal. These are certainly not uncontroversial moves. — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Morning to you back and I thought I said this before Bensci54 remove my last entry set as withdrawn that, "expect more of these to appear here". By looking at the page histories of these and the other ones I've listed here, at the time, Wikipedians thought of DABbing titles with articles in them, like say "Mingo" (which they rename it to "Mingo (TV series)") so there will be space for "Mingo (café)" and "Mingo (film)" only for say 5 years to pass and nothing was/were created for "Mingo (café)" or "Mingo (film)", and then another user in 5 years' time uses the PRIMARYRED instance to revert back to where it was before. I stated the "no primary topic claim" so you won't bring it up in your reply. You know what, I'll be considering proposing a policy that will check the "unnecessary" DABbing of article titles for the "other similar ones" when those ones aren't created within a year of the DAB creation, that way, this issue will be resolved completely. I wholly support the continuous encouragement of article and DAB creations and improvements here since it helps in building the encyclopaedia, but I fear that this continuous "left-overing" of red links in DAB titles when they were originally and should still be actual articles will degrade this tool (WP) rather than uplifting it like we wanted and hoped. So my point is, this ain't primary topic grabs like you're stating, I want to help eliminate the instance where when titles are DABbed, the other entries, especially those focusing on info relating to some recent events or media releases, are left as red links when they could be created or proposed for creation. Intrisit (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Morning @Intrisit: I thought we discussed all this last week... the incorrect primary topic grabs by this now-retired editor should just be reversed, particularly since you're asserting "no primary topic claim". — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Mumbai Port Trust → Mumbai Port (currently a redirect back to Mumbai Port Trust) (move · discuss) – Article is about the port and not its legal entity. 137.97.114.78 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Kamarajar Port Limited → Kamarajar Port (currently a redirect back to Kamarajar Port Limited) (move · discuss) – Article is about the port and not its legal entity. 137.97.114.78 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- V.O. Chidambaranar Port Authority → V. O. Chidambaranar Port (move · discuss) – Article is about the port and not its legal entity. 137.97.114.78 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Paradip Port Authority → Paradip Port (currently a redirect back to Paradip Port Authority) (move · discuss) – Article is about the port and not its legal entity. 137.97.114.78 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Clariant Chemicals India → Heubach Colorants India (move · discuss) – Company was renamed in 2022 following its acquisition by Heubach Group. See [1] [2]. 110.225.59.211 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]
Contested technical requests[edit]
- NoBull → NOBULL (move · discuss) – The official company name is NOBULL, not NoBull, and is always stylized NOBULL Jcostas81 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:TRADEMARK HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should be Nobull, I think, based on third-party news articles pretty evenly using Nobull or NOBULL. E.g., CNBC, Business Insider. I see rather fewer with "NoBull" (MOS:CAMELCASE) or "No Bull". SilverLocust 💬 18:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:TRADEMARK HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Color of Crime (book) → The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment and Other Macroaggressions (currently a redirect back to The Color of Crime (book)) (move · discuss) – Per WP:SUBTITLE. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the proposed title violates WP:CONCISE. Bensci54 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Mugwumps (band) → The Mugwumps (currently a redirect instead to Mugwump (disambiguation)) (move · discuss) – No other page with this name. Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Mugwumps should redirect to Mugwumps, the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)