Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

The bold, revert, discuss cycle applies to uncontroversial moves (see Wikipedia:Be bold) and reverts of undiscussed moves. The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

• There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title
• There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
• Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. In either case, if you are unable to complete/revert the move, request it below.

• To list a technical request add the following code at the top of the sub-section Uncontroversial technical requests below:

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|<!--reason for move-->}}

This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.

• If you object to a proposal listed in Uncontroversial technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below.

• If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the Contested technical requests section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

• Alternatively, if the only obstacle to a technical move is another page in the way (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history—if it has a single history line, see WP:MOR instead), add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:

{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}

This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

• Ross Parker (composer) → Ross Parker (move) (discuss) – I started an article for Tony Award winning composer Ross Parker. Someone created an unnecessary disambiguation page for Ross Parker. The other entry is a redirect to an article about a murdered youth. I have no doubt that most people will be looking for the cowriter of We'll Meet Again and not for the voctim of a 2001 crime – Bwaybaby77 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over 25,000 people viewed the Murder of Ross Parker article in its highest traffic month, including 7,504 visits in one day. That's without it ever being submitted to any main pages for DYKs, and should also be viewed in the context of a media outlets such as BBC failing to give the case anything like an appropriate level of coverage in relation to the crime notability. It's a highly significant case and there is clearly a lot of interest in it. Also please note that all the categorisation of Ross Parker the murder victim was deleted by the above editor and replaced with the article about the composer rather than placed at Ross Parker (murder victim) as should have been the case. On the other hand I have not removed any material from anywhere.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bwaybaby77 moved the murder victim out of the way, and created a stub at base point. This move should be refused and Bwaybaby77 advised not to put in a RM, it won't pass. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well my point was that they deleted all the categories by doing so. In fairness they are a new editor here so its understandable that mistakes will be made. Anyway i agree with your points, thanks for your input.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Parker is not simply a composer. He won a Tony Award as a performer in a Broadway show (for which he also wrote the English lyrics). He had a small role in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. He is known for a variety of things, over the course of a long and successful career. When I discovered that there was no article for him (or occasional partner Hughie Charles) I was surprised. Google's Ngrams suggests that the 2001 murder had no noticeable effect. Bwaybaby77 (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "composer" is the incorrect descriptor for Parker than feel free to change it. Perhaps "songwriter" would be better?--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that simply Ross Parker is the correct title. There is no need to have a dismabiguation page at all. Bwaybaby77 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bwaybaby77. The "English pianist, composer, lyricist, and actor" is clearly the primary topic. 46.107.65.193 (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bali Accord → Bali Package (move) (discuss) – per BRD-cycle reverting to earlier name, which I think is the common name – L.tak (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]