Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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=edit summary for the 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.

Technical requests[edit]

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

  • Alpha Cephei  Alderamin (currently a redirect back to Alpha Cephei) (move · discuss) – This is by far the commonly-used name in the vast majority of reliable sources. Most peer-reviewed papers that give significant coverage in the star, use the name Alderamin. See some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. A search in Google Scholar show that 19 sources use the name Alderamin, while only 7 use the name Alpha Cephei. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This same move was disputed back in 2014, and while it's been a while, the editor who disputed is still active, which might beg for an RM to be safe, even if there is a strong case to be made here. ASUKITE 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: That discussion was in 2024, not 2014. While I support this move, it's inappropriate for a technical request given that there was a RM just recently that failed - it needs a new RM. SnowFire (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InTheAstronomy32 If you wish to proceed with this move you will need to click on the "discuss" link in your request above and open a new move discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    )
    17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't even see the RM. I was referring to an old move from 2014, but the RM is much more relevant. ASUKITE 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debdeb18, this request is similar to your move, any opposition? If so we should open a full move discussion instead. ASUKITE 17:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to contested via script (may be disputed as this was moved recently) ASUKITE 14:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Showerlemon: This move was already the subject of a failed move request at Talk:Smörgåsbord#Requested_move in 2010. Opinions may have changed in the last 14 years, but you'd need to open a new move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link in your request above if you wish to proceed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed[edit]