Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests
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:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
|
- To list a technical request: Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
the - 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 this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.
Uncontroversial technical requests
- Wahhabism → Muwahhidun (Wahhabi) (currently a redirect back to Wahhabism) (move · discuss) – I suggest that this article title should be more precise to denote the Arabian regional movement descended from Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his students.
And this is why I suggested the title Muwahhidun (Wahhabi), since:
i) There are multiple Muwahhidun movements historically
ii) There are multiple movements getting referred to as "Wahhabi"
iii) A seperate article is needed to for the term Wahhabi, which is different from the movement of Muwahhdin-Wahhabi
Hence the title "Muwahhidin (Wahhabi)" shall be more precise, accurate and less confusing. Moroever, the existing links of "Wahhabism" shall always lead to here; since it automatically redirects here. Meanwhile "Wahhabi" when used as a pejoritave epithet or to denote other movements not descended from Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, someone needs to create a separate article for the label. shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- shadowwarrior8 Before working on this request, I suggest we have a separate article on "Wahhabism" or at least a draft. I don't agree proceeding with this request before this. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Al-Baqi Cemetry is invalid. Must create Al-Baqi Cemetry before requesting that it be moved to Al-Baqi Cemetery.– Incorrect spelling of "cemetery". Redirect history suggests that page has been moved and split before, leading to this error somehow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- RSEE (currently a redirect to Russian Society for Ecological Economics) → Russian Society for Ecological Economics (move · discuss) – Current name is used internally in the organisation to some extent (though they use the full name, too) but is not the primary name, and is unlikely to be recognised by the general Wikipedia reader. This change was requested on the talk page in 2016 but not enacted, perhaps now would be a good time. {{{sig}}}
Administrator needed
- Edit this section if a request requires an administrator (see this guide to which moves need administrators). Place the request in another section if it only requires a page mover's permissions.
- Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (currently a redirect to Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine) → Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo–Ukrainian crisis (move · discuss) – per MOS:ENDASH an endash (not a hyphen) should be used as a separator between such as "Russo" and "Ukrainian". This page is fully-move-protected. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Russo-Ukrainian War uses a hyphen-minus, as do other related titles. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Tamzin – as our MOS states, "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between", the endash should be used. And as it expresses, "Russo" does not modify "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian". The hyphen implies that the first modifies the last, which is not the case; therefore, the hyphen should be changed to an endash in all cases. Wikipedia's style guideline, the result of community consensus, clearly leads us to use the endash in these cases, not the hyphen. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Russo-Ukrainian War uses a hyphen-minus, as do other related titles. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Contested technical requests
- Raj Kumar (professor) → Raj Kumar (neurosurgeon) (currently a redirect back to Raj Kumar (professor)) (move · discuss) – he is retired from professor/vice-chancellor/director job, now doing private practice as a neurosurgeon 2409:4063:4CA6:A2F0:3729:87F8:F2A8:9035 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't discussed in the article. It would appear that this individual's claim to notability is as a professor. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bollywood and Beyond (currently a redirect to Bollywood & Beyond) → Bollywood and Beyond (Australia-New Zealand) (currently a redirect instead to Indian Film Festival of Melbourne) (move · discuss) – the most common usage appears to be a festival in Stuttgart [1]; The current title should redirect to the disambiguation page Bollywood & Beyond (disambiguation) after the move -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Contesting only the usage of a hyphen between Australia and New Zealand. Per MOS:ENDASH the proposed title should be Bollywood and Beyond (Australia–New Zealand). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am fine with that update, I am the nominator. Let's go with Paine Ellsworth's updated destination -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Contesting only the usage of a hyphen between Australia and New Zealand. Per MOS:ENDASH the proposed title should be Bollywood and Beyond (Australia–New Zealand). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exeter–Andover rivalry (currently a redirect to Andover–Exeter rivalry) → Andover–Exeter Rivalry (currently a redirect instead to Andover–Exeter rivalry) (move · discuss) – Wikipedia naming convention 1: "Use commonly recognizable names." This is most commonly referred to Andover–Exeter, not Exeter–Andover. Also, this aligns with the score order list in the article (Andover score, then Exeter score). Also fixes capitalization. Dynosol (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure how big a deal reversing the names is; however, this would "unfix" the the capitallization, which should be lower case "rivalry". There is nothing to suggest that the entire proposed title is a proper name or that "rivalry" should be "Rivalry" for any reason. Please see WP:TITLEFORMAT (policy) and MOS:CAPS (style guideline) for guidance. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Requests to revert undiscussed moves
- Holbeach Air Weapons Range → RAF Holbeach (currently a redirect back to Holbeach Air Weapons Range) (move · discuss) – the former page/article title was fine "RAF Holbeach", this is the official name still in use, gate entrance to the site also states "Royal Air Force Holbeach". Nightsturm (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nightsturm: Have you asked Buckshot06? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- My impression was that the official name was Defence Infrastructure Organisation Holbeach Air Weapons Range (a mouthful!!) since transfer to the DIO in 2006-07 (eg. (1) Archived RAF Marham site 2016 at https://web.archive.org/web/20160324181012/http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/stationfacilities/holbeachrange.cfm; (2) MOD 2018 document at https://airspacechange.co.uk/documents/download/328.pdf; (3) 2017 Christmas & NY closure announcement at https://www.spaldingwildfowlers.co.uk/single-post/2017/12/12/dio-holbeach-range-egd-207-closure-for-christmas-and-new-year-grant; (4) Paulspot move at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holbeach_Air_Weapons_Range&diff=1024201323&oldid=1024200336 and second move; plus (5) searches for "DIO Holbeach" on Google). It does not appear to be under the control of the RAF, rather DIO. I only moved the page after I saw in the history that Paulspot had attempted to change the title, in line with several of the other Air Weapons Ranges and the DIO changeover. I would not have moved the page had I believed the official title was still RAF Holbeach. I think we need to have a reliable sources-for-the-site-name compilation, including some sort of photo for the main gate sign!! The DIO pamphlet attached at note-1 is clearly colloquial, written to maximise civilian understanding, who generally wouldn't know or care about the DIO; the Lincolnshire County Council ref is not MOD and thus less accurate.
- My guess is that nobody's changed the gate sign, DIO simply isn't worried about what the gate sign says, and colloquially of course everybody in the locality still calls it an RAF station.
- If that is the case we face a WP:COMMONNAME issue: what the people in the locality call it? or what the organisation charts in HQ DIO Sutton Coldfield designate it? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- MOD estate information, see MOD Establishments, Defence Estate Development Plan Annex A (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33240/DEDP09_annex_a.pdf or https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-estates-development-plan-dedp-2009) which sets out the authoritative framework, looking forward to 2030, for the coherent development of the estate to meet the future needs of defence, and the priorities for investment and rationalisation arising from it. The document indicates: Serial 190, Govt Region: East Midlands, DE Regions: North, TLB: AIR, Core Site: RAF HOLBEACH Lincs, Future years from 2009: 2019-2030, Site Function: RAF Range, Interdependency: DTR, SPEC 024 Code: HOLB, Size Hectares: 716, Postcode: PE12 9NJ, Constituency: South Holland & the Deepings. Its description might be colloquially referred to as an "Air Weapons Range", but the core site is officially RAF Holbeach. Its Top Level Budget-Holder (TLB) is AIR = Air Command (one of the four military commands; Navy, Army, Air, Joint Forces), it does not indicate DIO = The Defence Infrastructure Organisation. DIO is only responsible for operational support. Nightsturm (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is a puzzle. The general descriptive RAF documents from the supervising site, Marham, in 2016, call it DIO Holbeach AWR; 2017, 2018 things; you quote a very authoritative document but which is ten years older. So, (a) I think we need third parties who can give opinions on whether your Estates document from 2009 supersedes the more up to date "DIO Holbeach AWR" official references that I've dug up; (b) can you get a photo of the main gate sign, since you clearly are a local? That might settle the whole issue in your favour!! Cheers 102.140.240.12 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- A flickr.com user has two photos referencing RAF Holbeach, showing the site's main gate entrance both taken/dated 13 May 2018, one photo shows the left-side wall gate entrance "Royal Air Force Holbeach" (https://www.flickr.com/photos/97001900@N06/42160576462/in/photostream/) and another photo shows the right-side wall with the signage Defence Infrastructure Organisation…Holbeach Air Weapons Range (https://www.flickr.com/photos/97001900@N06/27335571567/in/photostream/). Nightsturm (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Savills who are selling this area/site as an agent since July 2019 on behalf of the private owner, also indicates the sale is subject to a lease to the Ministry of Defence and reference RAF Holbeach, who use the north part of the land as an academic air weapons range, see: https://assets.savills.com/properties/GBLNRULIR180024/LIR180024_LIR19000403.PDF. Nightsturm (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Commander of RAF Lakenheath (USAFE), in Lakenheath Instruction, Nuclear, Space, Missile, Command and Control, AIRFIELD AND FLYING OPERATIONS, document dated 15 June 2021, on pages 68 & 70, specifically references "RAF Holbeach" (https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/lakenheath/publication/lakenheathi11-250/lakenheathi11-250.pdf). Nightsturm (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly we've both dug up lots of official documents saying that *both* names are in use. I would argue that usages of "RAF Holbeach" are colloquial, but that's up for discussion. The gate sign(s) lists *both* names, and could be used as evidence for both article titles, or even DIO Holbeach AWR, as Paulspot originally advocated. I think we definitely need some third opinions here. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: I would suggest Keith D might well be in a position to offer a third opinion. Nightsturm (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your suggestion. I think there are lots of potential third opinion givers: I have made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Holbeach_Air_Weapons_Range_or_RAF_Holbeach? to ask for third opinions, and please do make some comments there to put your side of the story. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this just be a full RM? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your suggestion. I think there are lots of potential third opinion givers: I have made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Holbeach_Air_Weapons_Range_or_RAF_Holbeach? to ask for third opinions, and please do make some comments there to put your side of the story. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: I would suggest Keith D might well be in a position to offer a third opinion. Nightsturm (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly we've both dug up lots of official documents saying that *both* names are in use. I would argue that usages of "RAF Holbeach" are colloquial, but that's up for discussion. The gate sign(s) lists *both* names, and could be used as evidence for both article titles, or even DIO Holbeach AWR, as Paulspot originally advocated. I think we definitely need some third opinions here. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is a puzzle. The general descriptive RAF documents from the supervising site, Marham, in 2016, call it DIO Holbeach AWR; 2017, 2018 things; you quote a very authoritative document but which is ten years older. So, (a) I think we need third parties who can give opinions on whether your Estates document from 2009 supersedes the more up to date "DIO Holbeach AWR" official references that I've dug up; (b) can you get a photo of the main gate sign, since you clearly are a local? That might settle the whole issue in your favour!! Cheers 102.140.240.12 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- MOD estate information, see MOD Establishments, Defence Estate Development Plan Annex A (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33240/DEDP09_annex_a.pdf or https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-estates-development-plan-dedp-2009) which sets out the authoritative framework, looking forward to 2030, for the coherent development of the estate to meet the future needs of defence, and the priorities for investment and rationalisation arising from it. The document indicates: Serial 190, Govt Region: East Midlands, DE Regions: North, TLB: AIR, Core Site: RAF HOLBEACH Lincs, Future years from 2009: 2019-2030, Site Function: RAF Range, Interdependency: DTR, SPEC 024 Code: HOLB, Size Hectares: 716, Postcode: PE12 9NJ, Constituency: South Holland & the Deepings. Its description might be colloquially referred to as an "Air Weapons Range", but the core site is officially RAF Holbeach. Its Top Level Budget-Holder (TLB) is AIR = Air Command (one of the four military commands; Navy, Army, Air, Joint Forces), it does not indicate DIO = The Defence Infrastructure Organisation. DIO is only responsible for operational support. Nightsturm (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nightsturm: Have you asked Buckshot06? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)