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.
To list a technical request: 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.
I'm not sure what the best thing is here... it seems like the common name for the Amtrak station is just "Pomona", while the MetroLink station is called "Pomona–Downtown". Not seeing that much coverage for "Pomona Transit Center", do you have sources confirming that? There are also Pomona stations elsewhere, so I wonder if the present name is just the best, as a sort of
WP:NATURALDIS and it is the name of the MetroLink after all... —
Amakuru (
talk) 11:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This species is the only member of its genus, therefore per the guidelines at
WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, the current name is the correct one - "the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus". Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk) 12:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth→Bank Nationalisation Case (currently a redirect back to
Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth) (
move·discuss) – Bank Nationalisation Case is the common name for two cases: Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth and the appeal case of Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales. Previously there were two stub pages that I merged into one page. As there is no need to disambiguate the pages now, the common name of Bank Nationalisation Case should be used. I don't think I can move it, as it currently redirects to Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth
Safes007 (
talk) 14:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If your request involves reverting a move, place it here.
Contested technical requests
Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
W. D. Gaster→W.D. Gaster (currently a redirect back to
W. D. Gaster) (
move·discuss) – The name of this character is W.D. Gaster without a space between W. and D. It looks like there's a space because in Undertale a period takes up the same space as any other character.
Diamantinasaurus (
talk) 20:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Other aspects of Wikipedia styling conventions are certainly applied to fictional subjects – for example, there's the
WP:TITLETM example of
Invader ZIM →
Invader Zim. Considering fiction an exception seems like it would lead to all sorts of randomness. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Object to speedy move I think this should have a discussion, since recusal is not restricted to this judicial sense. If it moves to recusal, the article would need a rewrite to make it more generalized. --
65.92.244.143 (
talk) 05:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is already a section entitled:
Administrative agency and other matters. I agree the article needs to be rewritten, but do not see the harm in having an article entitled 'recusal' that, for the time being, largely focuses on judges? Seems a bit of a chicken and the egg situation when the move performed in 2007 (by a banned editor with no consensus at the time) should never have happened and if it hadn't, the article would have a wider array of examples in it.
Superb Owl (
talk) 18:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, the word 'disqualif...' is used only 17 times in the article vs. 61 for 'recus...'. Full case for recusal can be found
here.
Superb Owl (
talk) 00:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Some sourcing demonstrating that the proposed name is more common would be useful here. It seems like both names are in use. —
Amakuru (
talk) 15:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That doesn't seem to match common English usage. For example Charles de Gaulle is always De Gaulle, not Gaulle. Britannica also uses De Sade.
[1] —
Amakuru (
talk) 15:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is Gaulle that doesn't match common English usage. You will find that the vast majority of works about Sade refer to him as such in the context we are talking about, from famous books, to famous essays, to even the English Wikipedia page of the writer itself. Taking a quick look at that page and its references will show that "Sade" is, beyond the correct linguistic choice, the common usage in literature and academia as well.
P. T. Tabayi (
talk) 09:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure if that's a strong enough argument to declare the politician to be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the music project. That music article could be expanded, and the current name-only redirect could become a new disambig page, IMO. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I created a dab at the base page name purely as a procedural matter to avoid
WP:MISPLACED while this technical move request is being discussed. I have no opinion on the primary topic.
Rotideypoc41352 (
talk·contribs) 02:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SusImposter49: 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💬 06:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Could the music project be expanded? I was looking into its background just out of curiosity, I'd say it barely even qualifies a page of its own. But the disambig page is a fine solution.
SusImposter49 (
talk) 12:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Contest this one, we don't particularly use the
WP:OFFICIALNAME and need evidence that the present name isn't the common name. —
Amakuru (
talk) 11:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Administrator needed
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.