Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests: Difference between revisions

Project page to request technical page moves

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:…”

• 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.

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

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if they have been contested.

No English-language reliable secondary sources use “é”. See [[WP:COMMONNAME]. 162 etc. (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request is based on WP:OFFICIAL. English language news sources often don’t include accents and letters of non-English names which have them, not because of WP:COMMONNAME, but because the English language lacks them and most English language media are usually not bothered in writing the correct typology of foreign words written in Latin letters. This does not negate from the fact about the correct typology of the official names of companies or institutions, which include accents and letters that don’t exist in the English language, be it Québecor, L’Oréal, Häagen-Dazs, etc. Oratas (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read WP:OFFICIAL. It does not support your point. Rather, it makes it clear that the common name as used in reliable English-language sources should usually be the title for the article. It even says explicitly, “Official names used only in other languages often have no relevance at all. English usage overrides usage in other languages”.–Srleffler (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Post article you cite in your request does not support your request. It says “The French version will the acute accent will be used in Quebec and the English version without the acute accent will be used in the rest of Canada.” There is no reason for us to follow the French version of the name here.–Srleffler (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pretty much exactly the same with Celine Dion (instead of Céline Dion, also from Quebec) as she tends not to use the accent herself in English, btu does with French. JuniperChill (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WBT-FM → WMXGWMXG (currently a redirect instead to WGMV) (move · discuss) – Call letter changes take effect December 11 — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Source? Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vchimpanzee waiting on sources for these three ASUKITE 15:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can only provide this article and the call sign request here. And I don’t know why the other call sign requests aren’t shown with the other stations.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WLNK → WBT-FM (move · discuss) – Call letter changes take effect December 11 — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• WPZS → WLNK (move · discuss) – Call letter changes take effect December 11 — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This one as well as WBT-FM appear to already have articles and will require some sort of disambiguation. The first one might also as it redirects elsewhere. ASUKITE 15:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WFNZ (AM) → WPZS (move · discuss) – Call letter changes planned for December 11 {{{sig}}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchimpanzee (talk • contribs)

  What do we do with the existing WPZS? HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This could probably be resolved by moving everything without redirect except WFNS (AM), as WMXG can just be WP:MOR‘d instead of any round-robins having to occur. Though this relies on all moves being done and no issues with any of the others. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging resident expert @Sammi Brie: as this all looks rather messy. 162 etc. (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Legal station IDs appear to have changed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pineapple Express (film) → Pineapple Express (move · discuss) – Obvious primary topic based on interwikis and pageviews. I’ve already moved the meteorology Pineapple Express article but it has left a redirect at Pineapple Express, so I cannot move the film. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic grabs are not uncontroversial. I’ve reverted the undiscussed move. Please see WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• IV (Željko Joksimović album) → Ima nešto u tom što me nećešIma nešto u tom što me nećeš (currently a redirect back to IV (Željko Joksimović album)) (move · discuss) – This is the official title of the album. I don’t know why it was put in as “IV”. Barcodc (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barcodc Your previous identical request was contested – please follow the guidance in that contest or open a WP:RSPM. HurricaneZeta^C 16:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The main reason for the contest seems to be the odd history and its likely non-notability as a standalone article, so you might be better off boldly merging this page into Željko Joksimović anyway. HurricaneZeta^C 16:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, from a cursory look, it seems like most music platforms call the album “IV” and the proposed title seems to just be the first individual song in the album rather than the album’s title. HurricaneZeta^C 16:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Deathcamp (song) → DeathcampDeathcamp (currently a redirect instead to Extermination camp) (move · discuss) – The song here should occupy the base name, not be subordinate to a redirect that represents a typo. “Deathcamp” without a space is purely a typo for the other topic, extermination camp –a plausible typo, not an implausible typo (so not eligible for deletion), but a typo nonetheless. In the context, a topic that uses the term in a fashion that is not merely as a potential search term error clearly takes precedence. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 Given the long-term significance of extermination camp this should be discussed in a proper RM Vestrian24Bio 14:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna there’s anonther Dirk II Vestrian24Bio 13:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna there’s anonther Dirk III Vestrian24Bio 13:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]