Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

WP:RMT
WP:RMTR
WP:RM/TR
WP:RM/T

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=reason for 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.

Add a new request

Remove all requests

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Sufi–Salafi schism (currently a redirect to Salafi–Sufi relations) → Sufi–Salafi relations (currently a redirect instead to Salafi–Sufi relations) (move · discuss) – This undiscussed page move was done by a relatively new user without an RfC. Additionally, the new imprecise title differs from the topic of the page and is inconsistent with the titling of other pages such as "Catholic–Protestant relations", "Catholic–Eastern Orthodox relations", etc. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Schism is a valid term in the study of religions and their histories, as can be seen in Schism in Christianity or Schism of the Russian Church. However, the article under discussion here is quite convincing on how only non-Muslims consider this to be a "schism" while to Muslims it is a less-dramatic internal debate. My suggestion is to restore the original article title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 and Shadowwarrior8: I definitely agree that it makes sense to revert this. My only small thought is that, while we're looking at this, we maybe ought to reverse the order of the two parties, so instead move to Salafi–Sufi relations. Simply because it is convention that we list parties in alphabetical order by default, unless there's a strong sourced reason otherwise. e.g. France–United Kingdom relations, United Kingdom–United States relations etc. Would that be OK? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Catalan cinema (currently a redirect to Cinema of Catalonia) → Cinema of Catalonia (move · discuss) – WP:TITLECON. The article defines it as the cinema of Catalonia, including films in Catalan and Spanish. That means 'Catalan' refers to Catalonia, not the Catalan language, and excludes Valencia, the Baleares and Andorra. Any hypothetical article about films in Catalan should be named "Catalan-language cinema" or somesuch. NLeeuw (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've disagreed at some of the CFD discussions before, but I don't understand why this is even a problem. So what? As already pointed out, the lede clarifies the scope. If there's ever a separate article on Catalan-language cinema exclusively (unlikely), there might be an ambiguity argument, but there isn't. That some "Catalan cinema" is in Castilian (/English / French / whatever) isn't "bad" or a problem. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Smurf Movie → The Smurf Movie (currently a redirect instead to The Smurfs in film) (move · discuss) – Since the rest of the cast was announced at Cinemacon, I believe it's the right time to move this draft into article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZX2006XZ: Per WP:NFF, the guideline is to wait until reliable sources show that "the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." The draft includes a banner requesting not to publish it until then. SilverLocust 💬 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that's what the notice says. However, I have noticed that when it comes to animated film articles, they are moved from draft to article mainspace when the entire cast was revealed, or if the film is in post-production. Examples include The Wild Robot (moved to articlespace when cast was announced this March), Wish (moved to articlespace when confirmed in post-production last year in April), and The Garfield Movie (moved to articlespace when entire cast was announced in August 2022).

So with these examples that I listed in mind, I figure that Draft:The Smurf Movie should be moved to article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust You can also check the move log for all three of the films I mentioned. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-production means that final animation-rendering/voice-recording has started (or finished). So two of those three examples are consistent with the guideline, WP:NFF. As to Garfield, the reason for the move was not explained, and it may have been too soon. (The mover presumably was not aware of the guideline.) One example of a guideline silently being disregarded doesn't change the guideline. SilverLocust 💬 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust Fair point. However, post-production in an animated film is when music is being scored and the marketing has commenced, just like a live-action film. The actual production of an animated film occurs when voice recording and animation occur. With that being said, I do believe that The Smurf Movie should still be moved to main article. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) → Symphony No. 104 (currently a redirect back to Symphony No. 104 (Haydn)) (move · discuss) – WP:PRECISE Okmrman (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is uncontroversial. All symphonies at Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn have (Haydn) after them, and this is de facto the naming convention for all such musical pieces, to include the composer in the name, even in cases where it isn't actually ambiguous. — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:NCM, "generic compositions with a generic article title are always disambiguated by catalogue number and/or the name of the composer". This should not be moved, well-established naming convention. 162 etc. (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus (currently a redirect back to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus) (move · discuss) – The page was recently moved boldly from "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"; a RM was opened proposing moving it back, but closed without consensus for anything except to remove the year. As such, the undiscussed move should now be reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal I'm reading the RM as "Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR." as Mike Selinker wrote in the close. I'm also seeing that the page title has never been at your proposed title. Forgive my confusion at this request, but my reading of the move logs is that it was at some form of "bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus" before the move warring started. (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected because of move warring, admin needed anyways. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit - before the disputed moves began it was at "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". Per the consensus in the RM, the "2024" should be removed, and so the title the article should be at is "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to make this move, as I think BM is correct about the order of events. The original move from 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus was indeed an undiscussed WP:RMUM. What should have happened is that the undiscussed move was simply reverted and then a fresh RM started from the original title. But that didn't happen. Nonetheless, if the close at the RM was indeed no consensus, then other than the decision to remove the year, reverting to the original title but minus the year seems like the correct outcome. So as a neutral admin with no particular opinion on this title, I will make this move unless there's a good reason not to, per established practice. But before I do so, courtesy pings to @El C: and @Mike Selinker: as the page protector and the RM closer, for opinions. — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me, Amakuru, so feel free to do whatever. I just move-protected alongside creating the edit notice. But I saw that the latest move summary read:

08:27, 14 April 2024 Iskandar323 (talk contribs block) moved protection settings from Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus moved to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): – and also in direct violation of the recent consensus atRM)

That's why I took no additional action. But I admit to not have looked too deeply into it and sort of took the veracity of that move summary on faith. El_C 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of events leading to that move and the revert involved one editor asking about changing the title, getting a response from a single IP, and then moving it themselves, which occurred after the RM was closed and the page was moved by Mike Selinker --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since no objections raised from El C or Mike, this has been

Done. This is procedural given that the only consensus in the recent RM was for removing the year, thus the page has been moved back to its original title, but without the year. All future moves should go through an RM discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this has now been queried by Novem Linguae with a request to self-revert so I've done that. This has really become a hot mess, and we'll need the RM closer to come in and clarify for us. — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nothing personal, my concerns were procedural. I just didn't feel very comfortable having RM/TR set aside a bolded RM close on a sysop-protected page. I think BilledMammal should consider opening an RM for Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus as a logical next step. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to wait to see what the closer says first; let’s get the article at the actual status quo title before muddying the waters further. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the talk page, when I closed this, there was no consensus to change the title from 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus to anything else. However, there was consensus on removing the year per WP:NOYEAR, so I did that. There certainly wasn't consensus to make it Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. If folks want another move, they should make another RM rather than just move it. There's clearly considerable debate on what the title should be; there doesn't need to be debate on what I meant when I closed it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this reply, and their statement There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except WP:NOYEAR, I think we can revert to the title above now? BilledMammal (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would suggest taking the discussion to the talk page for the article, since there is quite a lot of discussion there. It doesn't make sense to me to have one group discussing one outcome and another group discussing another. That's just my take, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Selinker: Per WP:NOCON, When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title. If there is no prior stable title, then the default is the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. There isn't a stable title that can be gleaned from the article's move history as the article is relatively brand new. Therefore it should be back to the title at which the article ceased to be a stub, which would have been 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, as this was not only the original title, but as well as the title at which the article was rapidly developed from stub to an article. Curiously, you had moved the the article to this title before, Special:Permalink/1218658797, which would have made you an involved editor with respect to closing the discussion. I suggest that you either vacate your close, or respect WP:NOCON and move back to the initial title (albeit respecting the NOYEAR consensus of the close). – robertsky (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the move you linked was the one after they closed the move request, so I don’t think they are INVOLVED - apart from that, though, I agree. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the move they made as part of closing the RM --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to Mike for the mistake made in determining if Mike is involved. But the NOCON should still be respected. – robertsky (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology and respect that you believe strongly in your position. I encourage you to act on that belief and, per User:Novem Linguae and others, consider RMing it to a title you prefer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]