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

Sturges' Rule (currently a redirect to Sturges's rule) → Sturges' rule (currently a redirect instead to Sturges's rule) (move · discuss) – per MOSCAPS' guidance on theories etc. Primergrey (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Sturges's rule I think, per MOS:'S — Amakuru (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru That usage seems very rare. Looking at academic papers in Google Scholar, more use the blatantly incorrect "Sturge's rule" (189) than use use "Sturges's rule" (37). The overwhelming majority use "Sturges' rule" (1,920). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ngrams, the Sturges's rule formulation is in clear second place and rising, with more than half of the usage count of Sturges' rule in books. As such, given that this is a style decision not just a straight common name analysis, given that this form is certainly not unheard of, I don't see a good reason not to follow our MOS here. AFAIK the practice of using a trailing apostrophe for words ending in S is a bit old fashioned these days, and when I first saw this title I wrongly misparsed it as being a plural noun. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yun Gwan (currently a redirect to Yun Kwan) → Yun Kwan (move · discuss) – Per WP:NCKO, pre-1945 Koreans titled via McCune-Reischauer Romanization. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CountHacker WP:NCKO says to use go with the common usage in English sources. The two English sources in the article (Reuters and NYTimes) both use "Yoon Gwan". Of course, that said, Google ngrams doesn't even have data for anything other than Yun Kwan. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try searching in Google Books? There are plenty of hits for Yun Kwan there. As seen here: [1], [2][3], [4], [5], [6]. WP:NCKO states that if there is an established common name, it should be used. However, in this case, there is no established common name, so the McCune-Reischauer Romanization should be used. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transportation Bureau City of Nagoya (currently a redirect to Nagoya City Transportation Bureau) → Nagoya City Transportation Bureau (move · discuss) – Official English name per official English website: https://www.kotsu.city.nagoya.jp/en/pc/TICKET/TRP0001071.htm (In fact, both are used, but this is the one that reads as grammatical in English.) Cannot move due to the redirect back to this page already existing. Fpmfpm (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Akhil Reed Amar → Akhil Amar (currently a redirect back to Akhil Reed Amar) (move · discuss) – More concise title, and the subject is known more as simply "Akhil Amar" rather than by his full name. GuardianH (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH: As this was subject to a previous move discussion, as well as several moves, it is not eligible as a technical request. Station1 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH This request was contested as potentially controversial and therefore requires further discussion. If you wish to pursue this move, please click the "discuss" link in your request above. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jitendra Singh (politician, born 1971) (currently a redirect to Bhanwar Jitendra Singh) → Bhanwar Jitendra Singh (move · discuss) – Commonly used full name, that will remove the need for the unnecessary excessive disambiguation present at the moment. MrMkG (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMkG I don't know too much about how Indian names/titles work, but only one of the sources in the article uses Bhanwar Jitendra Singh, while most just Jitendra Singh or Shri Jitendra Singh seem more common. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's like a first first name, if that makes sense. Some people have it. Shri is a honorific like Mister. Only two of the sources in the article are independent news sources and Bhanwar is used by one of them. News sources commonly use Bhanwar so that he doesn't get confused with another Jitendra Singh who is an active politician. Even if it were less used which it isn't, it would still be more accessible without the disambiguation (who knows birth years?). MrMkG (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assizes → Assize (currently a redirect back to Assizes) (move · discuss) – WP:SINGULAR Ost (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might benefit from a discussion, just to be on the safe size. It's almost always referred to in the plural, so could be an exception to WP:SINGULAR. — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to discussion if that is the case, but the first instance I saw was Assize of Clarendon, which then brought me to the general topic. —Ost (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Standard Arabic → Modern Arabic (move · discuss) – Modern Arabic is not standard Arabic, but rather an extension of Classical Arabic, so the title must be transferred to Modern Arabic. أرمز (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSA is the standard and common name; Modern Arabic contains various variations. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is not standard. Normative means that it takes a standard for deducing rules, but this is not true. Classical Arabic is the one that takes a standard for rules. أرمز (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something from me, please tag me. I am on the Arabic Wikipedia + I am not fluent in English. Please search carefully to verify my words. أرمز (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@أرمز: This move is potentially controversial, so it would require a requested-move discussion, which you can begin by clicking "discuss" on your request. You can remove this request after opening a discussion (or if you do not want to continue). SilverLocust 💬 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I place the request? أرمز (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can click "discuss" above, which will start a discussion on Talk:Modern Standard Arabic '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ula993/Arie van Bennekum (currently a redirect to Draft:Arie van Bennekum) → Arie van Bennekum (currently a redirect instead to Agile software development) (move · discuss) – Currently it redirects to the Agile software development page but the article is relevant enough to be in the main space. Ula993 (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Ula993 (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version went through an AfD and was closed as redirect in November 2023. Please go through AfC for a closer evaluation by AfC reviewers. – robertsky (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Housing Development Authority (currently a redirect to Virginia Housing) → Virginia Housing (move · discuss) – Organization rebranded in 2020 and has since been referred to by its new name in a number of independent reliable sources: https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/virginia/1-million-grant-application-open-for-habitat-for-humanity-of-virginia-affiliates/291-42986215-8d0c-4742-95bb-6c02193474cb, https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/virginia-housing-ceo-to-retire/, https://www.wtkr.com/news/affordable-housing-apartment-complex-opens-in-norfolk Joshuabriere (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshuabriere This request was already contested at Talk:Virginia Housing Development Authority#Requested move 4 March 2024. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed