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.

• If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
• Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
• If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.

• 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.
• 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.

• Shepherd Rams football team → Shepherd Rams football (currently a redirect back to Shepherd Rams football team) (move · discuss) – redirect blocking move Jweiss11 (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• MPEG-1 Audio Layer II → MP2 (move · discuss) – 1) Better known with the short abbreviation (similar to MP3 article). So far as I see there is nothing else with the name 'MP2' in this format. 2) On Talk:MPEG-1 Audio Layer II#Rename to avoid confusion with specific versions there have already been two previous instances of support to have it renamed to 'MP2' and I think it is not controversial. Shamefurb (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Emperor of India → Emperor of British India (move · discuss) – The current article's name refers to Emperors of present-day India, but the content is about Emperors of British India, so this article should be renamed for clarity to readers. WikiEditPS (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Perry High School shooting → 2024 Perry High School shooting (currently a redirect back to Perry High School shooting) (move · discuss) – Was previously moved via RMTR without discussion, current name violates WP:NCE, specifically, WP:NOYEAR. Name with year is also consistent with related articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Cambodia–Thailand border dispute → Cambodian–Thai border dispute (currently a redirect back to Cambodia–Thailand border dispute) (move · discuss) – Consistency doesn't apply the way the mover thought because "Cambodia–Thailand border dispute" is not derived from "Cambodia–Thailand border" by adding "dispute"—it is "Cambodian–Thai" + "border dispute" ("border dispute", not "dispute", is the descriptor). More general precedent over the years and across centuries is to use adjectival forms for [A country]–[B country] conflicts. Not using adjectivals is a newer trend which I and multiple other editors do not support. The actual precedent is 2008–2013 Cambodian–Thai border crisis, created as 2008 Cambodian-Thai stand-off, and for the longest period named Cambodian–Thai border dispute (it is that redirect which was converted to this article; it was the title of an article for 14 and a half years: 8 February 2011 – 24 July 2025) —Alalch E. 18:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Angelo Iannelli → Angelo Iannelli (athlete) (move · discuss) – There's another Angelo Iannelli, singer-songwriter, writer, and actor, on the Italian Wikipedia (it:Angelo Iannelli). To resolve the homonymy, I propose to change here the name to “Angelo Iannelli (athlete)”. Informations about it:Angelo Iannelli: Q127697555, Treccani, IMDb, Commons, Official Site. 47.53.54.226 (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Until an article on the other person gets created on enwiki this should remain as is. We don't disambiguate against people without an article here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be correct, but the reason for my request is precisely that it's impossible to create an article by translating it from Italian, because an article with the same name already exists here. And even if we created it directly here, disambiguation would be necessary during the creation process. 47.53.54.226 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this is contested, it would probably be best to first create the other article at Angelo Iannelli (singer). When that is done, moving the athlete would then probably be uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• John Ratcliff (cricketer) → John Ratcliff (currently a redirect instead to John Ratcliffe) (move · discuss) – There's no need for the extra disambiguation as there's no other article for a subject titled "John Ratcliff" on Wikipedia. Luis7M (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SMALLDETAILS moves of this sort (there's also John Ratcliffe) are often controversial. This deserves a full discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Agree with Pppery. See also John Ratcliffe (disambiguation) for a lot of people who might be confused with this guy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pppery: and @EdJohnston: Have you guys never heard of the {{confused|}} addnote? This addnote is often used when two people have similar names.

    For instance, two days ago John Aldis (Massachusetts) was moved to John Aldis despite the existence of John Alldis, and then I added the {{confused|}} addnote to avoid confusions. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, these are two different names with two different spellings. The cricketer is not overwhelmingly notable. Uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that someone (two someones in this case) has disagreed with a move makes it by definition controversial, no matter how frivolous you think their reasons are. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• United States Department of the Army → Department of the Army (currently a redirect back to United States Department of the Army) (move · discuss) – Official title does not include "United States." Buckshot06 (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same argument can be made for other military departments within the United States Department of Defense, including United States Department of the Navy and United States Department of the Air Force. Essentially such a move would break WP:CONSISTENT in my opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 11:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft:Avatar 5 (upcoming film) → Draft:Avatar 5 (currently a redirect back to Draft:Avatar 5 (upcoming film)) (move · discuss) – Disambiguation is unnecessary. GTrang (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @GTrang there is little need to make any adjustments to titles while they are in draft state. It is entirely acceptable to have a draft page with a completely incorrect title. When the article is published to the main space this will be corrected. TiggerJay (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is uncontroversioal. FaviFake (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the draft (recently moved back from mainspace following an AfD), it appears that the draft was moved from Draft:Avatar 5 to the disambiguated title only eight days ago. I see no problem at all with moving the draft back to the undisambiguated title, as a corresponding mainspace redirect already exists at Avatar 5, which points to the intended target Avatar (franchise)#Avatar 5 (2031) (about the same topic as the draft). GTrang (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space titles are irrelevant to anyone except the person working on them. There is no problem titling an article Draft:Ava5 and that is totally fine. The only time article titles in draft space really become a concern is when there are people trying to avoid existing bans on topics, or such. These titles are temporary, are not indexes or anything, so the effort of moving them is a waste of time at best. Simply deal with the name change when it is ready for the main space. TiggerJay (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sweet and Sour Pork → Sweet and sour pork (currently a redirect back to Sweet and Sour Pork) (move · discuss) – Stumbled across this mess while perusing WP:RFPPM. Copying my findings that will probably require some histmerges before the article can be moved to fix the capitalizations: Note that Sweet and Sour Pork and Sweet and sour pork was actually unfortunately not a great example to make a case for page mover permissions - on review, you’ll find that there is a long history at the latter as it was merged to Sweet and sour in 2013, as well as a whole mess as the former was (re-)created as a move from Gu Lao Rou, which in turn was only created in 2024 as a manual fork of Sweet and sour. So what we have here is now a pretty mess of “admin required” for histmerge as well as a few “{{copied from}}” on the relevant talk pages and review of the page edit histories to make sure attributions are placed as needed. I’ll copy this over to RM/TR, since I can’t action on the admin required histmerge review. Raladic (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]