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 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:…”

• 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.

It’s still a list article that does not attempt wider coverage of the legislative body in its own right, so “List of…” should remain in the title. After those two words, the requester has a valid point about consistency. —DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would however be consistent with other articles in the series that I checked, 3rd Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, 5th, 6th, etc. They are also just list articles and and should be titled as such per WP:LISTNAME imo. CNC (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 it may not attempt wider coverage in its current state but it likely should. The equivalent lists of “members of” for US Congresses are included as a section of the main US Congress session article (113th US Congress, one example). Considering that, I dont see a compelling reason why there would have to be a separate list for the Verkhovna Rada. If the main 1st Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada article becomes too long from prose and other sections’ content, it can be split off again but I dont think it would have that much more than what a US Congress session article would have. Dan the Animator 16:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also apparently a similar request here over a year ago was successfully carried out for sinilar reasoning. Dan the Animator 16:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RMT is not used for primary topic grabs. Peter Howitt (actor) should be reverted to Peter Howitt, and a discussion opened, per WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Sandro1041 I’m not seeing any secondary sources provided in support of this move. TarnishedPath^talk 07:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral This analysis says the differences in page views are trivial and inconsistent. This should be taken to a move discussion if you wish to pursue this. TarnishedPath^talk 09:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of mayors of Odesa → Mayor of OdesaMayor of Odesa (currently a redirect back to List of mayors of Odesa) (move · discuss) – for consistency with titling of most other mayor articles (Mayor of London, Mayor of Boston, etc.) Dan the Animator 19:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dantheanimator This is consistent with list articles for mayors such as List of mayors of New York City and List of mayors of Detroit. Whereas Mayor of Odesa is a printworthy redirect, or so it would seem. CNC (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CNC There isnt that much content as to justify having an article and a separate list as in the case of New York City. That said, given the long history of the city, there is substantial prose to be added about the city’s different historical eras/country affiliation and explain the many changes in city governance throughout that time. Also explaining current regulations on the position and electoral history. Because of this, it’ll like turn out to be a substantially prose-heavy list similar to the non-list article Mayor of Boston, where the list becomes a section of the larger article. In the case of Detroit, I suppose it’s because there isnt enough content to include as prose but taking a look at it, I think the Detroit page would benefit too from a reassessment, to encourage the addition of more prose about the position responsibilities, rules, history of the city, etc. In any case it’s easy to split off the list again if the main “Mayor of” article becomes too long. Open to starting a move discussion elsewhere if you think it’s needed but I didn’t think this would be too controversial imo. Dan the Animator 16:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are prose beyond WP:SALLEAD to include then it’d make sense to create Mayor of Odesa. But if it’s intended to remain as a list, and the prose are orientated around the subject (the list of mayors), then it would best remain as a “List of” article. I assume the table isn’t going to be removed in a hurry here, which is the main content. CNC (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, the table will likely stay as the main content until I and hopefully others have time to add the rest of the content. That said, the prose would be more than WP:SALLEAD so like you said Mayor of makes more sense. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, not sure there is a need to wait until the prose is added to fulfill this RM, and imo having the new title would maybe encourage others to add more prose/non-list content. Dan the Animator 17:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the table remains as the main content then it’s a list and should remain titled as such. I already tagged Mayor of Odesa as being with possibilities for encouragement here, otherwise drafting at Draft:Mayor of Odesa would be perfectly fine. Hence contesting this, but feel free to open an RM. CNC (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]