Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

< Wikipedia:Requested moves
Shortcuts

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=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.
Add a new request
Remove all requests

Technical requests

edit
Edit this section if you want to move a request between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

edit
Most requests should be placed below this heading.

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

edit
If your request involves reverting a move, place it here.

Contested technical requests

edit
Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
This one doesn't work, since "Nickelodeon" can also refer to unrelated topics. See Nickelodeon (disambiguation). In fact, Nickelodeon (UK and Ireland), Nickelodeon (Middle East and North Africa), and Nickelodeon (Sub-Saharan Africa) should be reverted back to their stable titles. 162 etc. (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yeagvr Okay, I'm contesting this because the original move rationale (concise) makes sense. It is a railway station, but that doesn't have to be in the title. Toadspike [Talk] 10:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP Moving to contested as there is no response to Sammi's question. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemant Dabral Are you able to prove that it is the WP:COMMONNAME because of google scholar, it shows up as a pair as being both. Agrahayana is also mentioned more than the latter on Scholar. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a number of "Revelations" entries at Revelation (disambiguation) which are not included in this draft article.
Is a second dabpage really necessary? 162 etc. (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc., yes it is indeed necessary, you can refer Revelation (disambiguation), The Revelation. I intend to include all entries of "Revelations" into the draft. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 19:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C1K98V Contested by @162 etc: Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this move is made, it should be to Revelations, not Revelations (disambiguation), since there is currently no consensus primary topic, and Revelations redirects to Revelation (disambiguation).—ShelfSkewed Talk 20:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ShelfSkewed, I'm okay with it. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 01:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that the draft includes all relevant entries before moving it to mainspace. 162 etc. (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc., Yes, I'm working on the same. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ShuturEli Contested by @Peaceray: Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam Webster is the standard dictionary for American English. Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/matrilineal-society/Historical-views-of-kinship-and-matrilineal-societies Open encyclopedia of anthropology: https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/matriliny#:~:text=What%20is%20matriliny?,both%20sides'%20of%20a%20family. Try a search for "matriliny" in Google Scholar to see how frequent it is in journals as well.
The Oxford English Dictionary tells me that "the earliest known use of the noun matrilineality is in the 1950s.
OED's earliest evidence for matrilineality is from 1956, in Journal of Politics." For matriliny, I see that "the earliest known use of the noun matriliny is in the 1900s. OED's earliest evidence for matriliny is from 1906, in the writing of Northcote Thomas."
What is the point of using the longer and newer word for the title? We could always link that to this title. ShuturEli (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patrilineality → Patriliny (currently a redirect back to Patrilineality) (move · discuss) – There is no such word as "patrilineality"; check Merriam Webster ShuturEli (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oxford English dictionary would disagree.
    • "patrilineality, n. meanings, etymology and more". Oxford English Dictionary. 2023-07-01. Retrieved 2025-03-20.
    Peaceray (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both dictionaries agree patriliny is a word. Both don't agree that patrilineality is a word. Why not change the title to the version accepted in both American and British English, a shorter word to boot? What is the point of the longer version? ShuturEli (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ShuturEli Contested by @Peaceray: Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Akshadev This is clearly not the name used by the Centre itself [5]. This WP:OFFICIALNAME can be overridden if you show a WP:COMMONNAME in sources, but the references in the article show no evidence of such a common name. Toadspike [Talk] 07:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MimirIsSmart I don't think there is a clear primary topic here. The 1959 film has the most page views. Bensci54 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

edit
Edit this section only if your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators). Place your request in another section if it only requires a page mover.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1281674503"