Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 25 February 2021 (→‎Uncontroversial technical requests: done 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Technical requests

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Consistency - in general, most of our articles about places with Arabic names don't use macrons in the title. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the above fall under the following exception, since the sources in the articles capitalize the work "Like": Apply our five-letter rule (above) for prepositions except when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalize, in the title of a specific work, a word that is frequently not a preposition, as in "Like" and "Past".
That is a "potential exception", and does not apply to many high profile articles such as Loser like Me (song), She's like a Star and Someone like You (Adele song), despite the media coverage of each of these examples often capitalizing the "like". We don't capitalize definite articles and other prepositions just because other websites do or because the artist does. --Whitevenom187 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A memoir still adheres to WP:BOOKDAB under the "etc." Also not listed are (autobiography), (biography), (anthology), and I'm sure there are others. -2pou (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOOKDAB provides:

To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", "(short story collection)", "(dialogue)", "(essay)", "(play)", "(poem)", "(poetry collection)", etc. If none of these specific qualifiers applies, "(book)" can be used. Note, however, that this qualifier may be perceived as indicating a non-fiction type of writing.

If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)", etc.

In specifying "literary works" and only listing forms of literature apart from nonfiction prose, I don't interpret that "etc." as including "(memoir)". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That is exactly how I did interpret it; (diary) would be another. Anyway, a discussion from the community is better than the differing opinions of two. Regards, 2pou (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves