Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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: 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=reason for 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]

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

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Most requests should be placed below this heading.

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

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

Contested technical requests[edit]

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
  • Catalan cinema → Cinema of Catalonia (currently a redirect back to Catalan cinema) (move · discuss) – WP:TITLECON. The article defines it as the cinema of Catalonia, including films in Catalan and Spanish. That means 'Catalan' refers to Catalonia, not the Catalan language, and excludes Valencia, the Baleares and Andorra. Any hypothetical article about films in Catalan should be named "Catalan-language cinema" or somesuch. NLeeuw (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've disagreed at some of the CFD discussions before, but I don't understand why this is even a problem. So what? As already pointed out, the lede clarifies the scope. If there's ever a separate article on Catalan-language cinema exclusively (unlikely), there might be an ambiguity argument, but there isn't. That some "Catalan cinema" is in Castilian (/English / French / whatever) isn't "bad" or a problem. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft:The Smurf Movie → The Smurf Movie (currently a redirect instead to The Smurfs in film) (move · discuss) – Since the rest of the cast was announced at Cinemacon, I believe it's the right time to move this draft into article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZX2006XZ: Per WP:NFF, the guideline is to wait until reliable sources show that "the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." The draft includes a banner requesting not to publish it until then. SilverLocust 💬 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that's what the notice says. However, I have noticed that when it comes to animated film articles, they are moved from draft to article mainspace when the entire cast was revealed, or if the film is in post-production. Examples include The Wild Robot (moved to articlespace when cast was announced this March), Wish (moved to articlespace when confirmed in post-production last year in April), and The Garfield Movie (moved to articlespace when entire cast was announced in August 2022).
    So with these examples that I listed in mind, I figure that Draft:The Smurf Movie should be moved to article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilverLocust You can also check the move log for all three of the films I mentioned. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-production means that final animation-rendering/voice-recording has started (or finished). So two of those three examples are consistent with the guideline, WP:NFF. As to Garfield, the reason for the move was not explained, and it may have been too soon. (The mover presumably was not aware of the guideline.) One example of a guideline silently being disregarded doesn't change the guideline. SilverLocust 💬 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilverLocust Fair point. However, post-production in an animated film is when music is being scored and the marketing has commenced, just like a live-action film. The actual production of an animated film occurs when voice recording and animation occur. With that being said, I do believe that The Smurf Movie should still be moved to main article. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ballysheil, County Down → Ballysheil (move · discuss) – No other article exists for this target former DAB title for now; it redirects to the current title anyway. Intrisit (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the change to a primary topic at Ballysheil, to reinstate the disambiguation page. Not sure WP:PRIMARYRED really applies here, there doesn't seem to be a primary topic among the tiny hamlets concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's good you did it, since it looked confusing to me at first glance and that led me to list this here in the first place in the spirit of WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. But isn't there any rule that states something like; No DAB page should contain redlinks, despite those redlinked entries having promising article stuffings in them. I think that's why the user cited WP:PRIMARYRED, because of the aforementioned sort-of rule. If anything at all, it's why I did what I did. Intrisit (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no, actually PRIMARYRED says pretty much the opposite of that. "the normal rules for primary topic still apply. The existing article is not automatically the primary topic nor is there automatically no primary topic". In this case, it had been deemed until recently that there was no primary topic between the Co. Down place and the Co. Offaly place, and that seems correct to me. So the dab page should occupy the base title as it would anywhere else.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @R'n'B: to give clarity of replacing promising DAB titles with more red links than blue links. It's unrelated to this request so I don't list such requests again. Intrisit (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the question is. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't any question – it's a statement I want to inquire from you so I can de-list this entry. I was going to do so on your talk page out of curiosity, but I wanted to try listing supposed unnecessary DAB titles with "(disambiguation)" for G14 deletions and unnecessary DAB qualifier entries like this one, extracted from your contribs page, at RMTR for re-targeting before that. At first, I got confused seeing you refactor supposed/purported DAB titles to straight article redirects, with one being "no other uses found", with "Ballyrory, County Londonderry" (now at Ballyrory) and Ballintemple, Cork (now at Ballintemple (which was itself a former DAB title before a G14 deletion)) the examples I'm citing. As much as you're helping out on DAB matters, this felt odd to me, hence and thus the inquiry, not question. Still don't get it?! Reply back! Intrisit (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at some point in the past there was a Ballyrory disambiguation page that that hatnote pointed to; but it had been changed into a redirect to the article about "Ballyrory, County Londonderry" by another user. So the hatnote no longer made sense, and that's why I removed it. At some point after I did that (actually, just a couple of hours ago), Amakuru restored the disambiguation page at Ballyrory (disambiguation), so now a hatnote might again be appropriate. Of course, the other question raised by this discussion is whether the red links belong on the disambiguation pages, which should be addressed using the standards at WP:DABREDLINK. (As noted above, we had one user who liked to cite WP:PRIMARYRED as the reason for eliminating dab pages that contained only one blue link, but that's not the applicable guideline.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) → Symphony No. 104 (currently a redirect back to Symphony No. 104 (Haydn)) (move · discuss) – WP:PRECISE Okmrman (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is uncontroversial. All symphonies at Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn have (Haydn) after them, and this is de facto the naming convention for all such musical pieces, to include the composer in the name, even in cases where it isn't actually ambiguous.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, per WP:NCM, "generic compositions with a generic article title are always disambiguated by catalogue number and/or the name of the composer". This should not be moved, well-established naming convention. 162 etc. (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed[edit]

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.
@BilledMammal I'm reading the RM as "Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR." as Mike Selinker wrote in the close. I'm also seeing that the page title has never been at your proposed title. Forgive my confusion at this request, but my reading of the move logs is that it was at some form of "bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus" before the move warring started. (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected because of move warring, admin needed anyways. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit - before the disputed moves began it was at "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". Per the consensus in the RM, the "2024" should be removed, and so the title the article should be at is "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to make this move, as I think BM is correct about the order of events. The original move from 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus was indeed an undiscussed WP:RMUM. What should have happened is that the undiscussed move was simply reverted and then a fresh RM started from the original title. But that didn't happen. Nonetheless, if the close at the RM was indeed no consensus, then other than the decision to remove the year, reverting to the original title but minus the year seems like the correct outcome. So as a neutral admin with no particular opinion on this title, I will make this move unless there's a good reason not to, per established practice. But before I do so, courtesy pings to @El C: and @Mike Selinker: as the page protector and the RM closer, for opinions.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me, Amakuru, so feel free to do whatever. I just move-protected alongside creating the edit notice. But I saw that the latest move summary read:
08:27, 14 April 2024 Iskandar323 (talk contribs block) moved protection settings from Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus moved to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): – and also in direct violation of the recent consensus atRM)
That's why I took no additional action. But I admit to not have looked too deeply into it and sort of took the veracity of that move summary on faith. El_C 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sequence of events leading to that move and the revert involved one editor asking about changing the title, getting a response from a single IP, and then moving it themselves, which occurred after the RM was closed and the page was moved by Mike Selinker --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since no objections raised from El C or Mike, this has been  Done. This is procedural given that the only consensus in the recent RM was for removing the year, thus the page has been moved back to its original title, but without the year. All future moves should go through an RM discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this has now been queried by Novem Linguae with a request to self-revert so I've done that. This has really become a hot mess, and we'll need the RM closer to come in and clarify for us.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nothing personal, my concerns were procedural. I just didn't feel very comfortable having RM/TR set aside a bolded RM close on a sysop-protected page. I think BilledMammal should consider opening an RM for Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus as a logical next step. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to wait to see what the closer says first; let’s get the article at the actual status quo title before muddying the waters further. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the talk page, when I closed this, there was no consensus to change the title from 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus to anything else. However, there was consensus on removing the year per WP:NOYEAR, so I did that. There certainly wasn't consensus to make it Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. If folks want another move, they should make another RM rather than just move it. There's clearly considerable debate on what the title should be; there doesn't need to be debate on what I meant when I closed it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this reply, and their statement There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except WP:NOYEAR, I think we can revert to the title above now? BilledMammal (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1219307047"