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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

• Jitendra Singh (politician, born 1971) → Bhanwar Jitendra Singh (currently a redirect back to Jitendra Singh (politician, born 1971)) (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]

• World egg → Cosmic egg (currently a redirect back to World egg) (move · discuss) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Pogenplain (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pogenplain - the filler text is still being used as a rationale here, what was the reason and or evidence for a title change? Also, there was an old, very brief merge discussion leading to the current title: Talk:Cosmic egg ASUKITE 18:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asukite I am sorry I wrote an explanation but i think i accidentally deleted it before posting. The rationale is when you look up 'world egg', all other search results are 'cosmic egg', cosmic egg is the much more common way to refer to it both on web articles and in the literature, for example see https://www.britannica.com/topic/cosmic-egg or https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_524 or Michael Witzel, Origins of the Worlds Mythologies, pp121-124. You can also see from Google Ngram that the search for Cosmic egg is currently more than twice as common as the search for World egg: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Cosmic+egg%2CWorld+egg&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3. Pogenplain (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tanhuma → Midrash Tanhuma (currently a redirect back to Tanhuma) (move · discuss) – When 'Tanhuma' is put into a search, all non-Wiki results are titled either 'Midrash Tanhuma' or 'Tanhuma Yelammedenu'. For example https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tanchuma and https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/midrash-tanhuma/, I rarely see just 'Tanhuma'. Tanhuma *is* the more common search, but that (1) is likely because it's simpler than searching the entire phrase (2) it is still an abbreviated form of Midrash Tanhuma. Pogenplain (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No. 321 (Dutch) Squadron RAF → No. 321 (Netherlands) Squadron RAF (currently a redirect back to No. 321 (Dutch) Squadron RAF) (move · discuss) – inline with No. 320 (Netherlands) Squadron RAF. Netherlands is the official name listed in RAF Squadrons. A comprehensive record of the movement and equipment of all RAF squadrons and their antecedents since 1912 (1988) by Jefford, C. G Gavbadger (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Alfred Dunhill, Ltd. → Alfred Dunhill Limited (currently a redirect back to Alfred Dunhill, Ltd.) (move · discuss) – As a British company this should not have the comma included, nor should the Limited be shortened since it is not styled thus in its formal registration - the full name is currently a rediract and this should be the other way around. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

• Machine Gun Kelly (musician) → mgk (currently a redirect back to Machine Gun Kelly (musician)) (move · discuss) – The musician recently changed his name on all streaming platforms and social media to "mgk". It has been suggested if not protested that the rapper change his as it promotes gun violence in some of his concerts. His recent song "Don't Let Me Go" was released under mgk, and since "mgk" already redirects to the current title, this shouldn't be much of a problem. dxneo (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dxneo: I'm contesting this request per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES since still commonly used in articles (such as the ones you linked). Plus the lowercase initialism is a stylization that would likely be controversial in an RM. SilverLocust 💬 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is {{Lowercase title}} for a reason, if he was initially "mgk" would this stylization be a problem? He has been referred to as mgk countless times in older articles and now it's official. Obviously he will still be referred to as Machine Gun Kelly, and so will does the linked source 'cause they are announcing a name change. dxneo (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose per SilverLocust PersusjCP (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and certainly not uncontroversial. MGK and mgk already redirect to Machine Gun Kelly (musician). 162 etc. (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. dxneo (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

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]

This discussion has been quiet for a few days; I think the next step here is to move the article to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus; Mike Selinker has stated that this was a no-consensus close (with the exception of WP:NOYEAR), and while they don't want the article to be moved to this title WP:NOCON is clear, and they have said they are totally fine with an admin moving the page to that title.

Once we have settled where the article should currently be then we can move forward with trying to find a consensus as Mike Selinker is asking for - trying to find a consensus first will make this mess even worse on the likely chance that we fail to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]