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

• SIMCA (currently a redirect to Simca) → SIMCA (disambiguation) (move · discuss) – Move to make SIMCA a primary redirect to Simca; it's an acronym too. 162 etc. (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Devonian Gardens (Calgary) (currently a redirect to Toronto-Dominion Square) → Devonian Gardens (currently a redirect instead to Toronto-Dominion Square) (move · discuss) – per WP:ONEOTHER 162 etc. (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

• Young Stunners (music duo) (currently a redirect to Young Stunners) → Young Stunners (move · discuss) – There is no other article titled as "Young Stunners" so there is no need for brackets. TatesTopG (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator needed since Young Stunners is creation protected. Steel1943 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the current title was just chosen to get around creation protection, it should probably be moved to draft space until evaluated and deemed adequate in the WP:AfC process. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

• Aventine Hill → Aventine hill (currently a redirect back to Aventine Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Caelian Hill → Caelian hill (currently a redirect back to Caelian Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Capitoline Hill → Capitoline hill (currently a redirect back to Capitoline Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Esquiline Hill → Esquiline hill (currently a redirect back to Esquiline Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Palatine Hill → Palatine hill (currently a redirect back to Palatine Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Quirinal Hill → Quirinal hill (currently a redirect back to Quirinal Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Viminal Hill → Viminal hill (currently a redirect back to Viminal Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vatican Hill → Vatican hill (currently a redirect back to Vatican Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pincian Hill → Pincian hill (currently a redirect back to Pincian Hill) (move · discuss) – decap "hill" per MOS:CAPS Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contesting all of these—Ngrams indicate that the capitalized versions are substantially more common than the uncapitalized ones, so I think there's a strong argument that the MOS:CAPS threshold is satisfied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

• My My My! (song) (currently a redirect to My My My) → My My My! (Troye Sivan song) (move · discuss) – clearly a controversial undiscussed move In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Lucifer (2019 Indian film) → Lucifer (film) (currently a redirect instead to Lucifer (disambiguation)) (move · discuss) – Primary film compared to Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film), based on page traffic, incoming wikilinks, no. of reliable sources - within the articles and on internet (not to mention the Nigerian film's sources are based on a single event), and the Indian film dominates in Google search too. A hatnote should be used on primary as per WP:ONEOTHER. 137.97.96.191 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a request to revert a recent undiscussed move. Concur with IP, moved to correct section. Station1 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Bearcat who made the move on 4 August. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you say for certain that the Indian film dominates Google search everywhere, even in Nigeria? – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete disambiguation rules apply here. There can only be a "primary topic" for the plain title "Lucifer" itself — the moment any disambigation has to be applied, all disambiguated topics must be fully disambiguated. That is, as neither film can be at just "Lucifer" itself, there is no such thing as one film still getting to outrank the other one as "primary topic" for the partially disambiguated "Lucifer (film)" — if there are two or more films in the mix, then the first-level disambiguator "film" is completely off the table for any of them, and all of the films must be fully disambigated at the "YYYY film" or "YYYY country film" level. There is no such thing as "this film is more notable than that film for the purposes of getting to claim primary topic over a partially disambiguated title" — if neither film can claim the completely undisambiguated title Lucifer itself, which obviously neither film can, then both films have to be fully disambiguated by year and/or country. A film can only be disambiguated as "film" if it's the only film that needs to be disambiguated — if there's more than one film in the mix, then there's no such thing as "this film gets to be the primary 'film', while the other films have to be bumped down another rung".
    If you'd like to try nominating the Nigerian film for outright deletion at WP:AFD, then go right ahead, and if it gets deleted, then the Indian film can be moved back to just "film" — but as long as the Nigerian film still has a Wikipedia article, there's simply no such thing as one film getting to outrank another film for the incompletely-disambiguated title "film". Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but that's incorrect. See WP:INCDAB. There was an RfC about this a while back. But in any case, this is a discussion to be had on the article's talk page if you want to propose a move, and I can elaborate further there. In the meantime, 2 editors have objected to the move, so it must be moved back per BRD and then discussed. Station1 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with Bearcat. Partial disambiguation is very rarely justified. I agree that if there is a lack of consensus about it, the title should revert to the partially disambiguated title, but I personally suggest not using that title and suggest holding an RM discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely agree. It is rarely justified, but this is one of those rare cases. Station1 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Revert, and light trout unless a completely new editor who doesn't know about RMs, if anyone wants to argue against rules, then go ahead and initiate a disruptive RM, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Partial disambiguation is never used for films; see WP:PRIMARYFILM. 162 etc. (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You can't 'oppose' an request to revert an undiscussed ambiguation contrary to rules. There is no such thing as "Primary Film". In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not commenting on the move, but that Nigerian film's notability is questionable, with no independent sources (WP:NF). Among the 7 references, 3 of them doesn't have any mention and remaining gives only passing mentions, "[Award Category] - Lucifer".--2409:4073:4E1B:8333:3D54:5403:4F11:2D6F (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A deletion discussion is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]