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.

Most requests should be placed below this heading.

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

@TryKid It’s been nearly 2 years since that move, so I believe it’s been too long to revert per WP:RMUM. HurricaneZeta^C 17:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The punctuation of the title seems incorrect, as if describing a slaughter riot that is anti-cow. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal. If there were no “anti”, then the hyphen would be between “cow” and “slaughter”. But with an “anti” before it, the hyphen goes between “anti” and the next word:

— Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr slav999 Actually, after looking at this, I reverted the undiscussed move on the main article since there was some disagreement in 2018 to moving the page (WP:RMUM #2). No objection to opening an RM about this, since it’s been 7 years since that last discussion. HurricaneZeta^C 20:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Killgirlswatch Hi, I believe this is discouraged by WP:NCPLURAL since it doesn’t look like titles like this are in one of the exceptions. HurricaneZeta^C 21:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

arm warmers are items though? and you wear them in pairs so it makes sense

you wouldnt just say “arm warmer” because you don’t just wear one kgw :3 ♡ talk to me! ♡ contributions i’ve made :0 06:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two similar actions started by the same requester are currently being discussed at Talk:Leg warmer, where the consensus leans toward keeping the title singular due per WP:NCPLURAL. —DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom → Gun control in the United KingdomGun control in the United Kingdom (currently a redirect back to Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom) (move · discuss) – Moving over redirect to more common and easier-flowing name, in line with main Gun control article and some others e.g. Gun control in Germany and Gun control in Italy. Elshad (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the concise argument, but firearms regulation is the correct terminology in British English, referenced by gov and legislation such as Firearms Act: a stock short title used for legislation in Canada, Hong Kong, Jamaica, and the United Kingdom, making Gun control not the parent topic in this case. CNC (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WTPS (AM) → WDCJWDCJ (currently a redirect instead to WLNO (FM)) (move · discuss) – Call sign change on 12/11. Radio One is certainly not making RM’s life easy at the moment, lol. Xenon54 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can’t find any reference to the new callsign in the article, moving to contested. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  [1] fwiw. The callsign did change. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn’t make any sense to update the article before the move, but thanks for your needless bureaucracy! Xenon54 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Type C3-class ship → Type C3 shipType C3 ship (currently a redirect back to Type C3-class ship) (move · discuss) – The type C3 ship wasn’t a class of ship but a type of ship, also to make the title more consistent with similar pages such as “Type C2 ship” and “Type C1 ship”. Spiny Alligator 321 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiny Alligator 321 The page was moved to ‘Type C3 class ship’ in 2009 and then to ‘Type C3-class ship’ in 2013 with the last moving editor quoting WP:NC-SHIP. This should go to a full move discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this sound strange but WP:NC-SHIP can not be applied to the Type C3 ship because it is not a ship class at all, but a type of cargo ship (keyword “type”), with multiple different ship classes based on the hull of the C3, such as Bayfield-class attack transport and the Bogue-class escort carrier. As such the C3 ship should not be classified as a ship class. Spiny Alligator 321 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmenage Contest per above, can’t find any reliable sources for this change but I’m not very familiar with this. HurricaneZeta^C 22:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aschiff-emco There was an RM which didn’t move to this title in 2022, so this needs a full discussion. HurricaneZeta^C 01:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jprg1966 MOS:DATERANGE says that it may use the full year, but there’s no need to revert back to a title that was previously contested (see move history). HurricaneZeta^C 01:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said you can open an RM about this, since the page also says that such titles are preferred. I would err on the side of caution when moving pages relating to controversial topics as well. HurricaneZeta^C 01:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]