Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requested moves

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AmorPatiturMoras (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 21 April 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Uncontroversial technical requests

Most requests should be placed below this heading.

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
  • Akhil Reed Amar → Akhil Amar (currently a redirect back to Akhil Reed Amar) (move · discuss) – More concise title, and the subject is known more as simply "Akhil Amar" rather than by his full name. GuardianH (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GuardianH: As this was subject to a previous move discussion, as well as several moves, it is not eligible as a technical request. Station1 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jitendra Singh (politician, born 1971) (currently a redirect to Bhanwar Jitendra Singh) → Bhanwar Jitendra Singh (move · discuss) – Commonly used full name, that will remove the need for the unnecessary excessive disambiguation present at the moment. MrMkG (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrMkG I don't know too much about how Indian names/titles work, but only one of the sources in the article uses Bhanwar Jitendra Singh, while most just Jitendra Singh or Shri Jitendra Singh seem more common. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like a first first name, if that makes sense. Some people have it. Shri is a honorific like Mister. Only two of the sources in the article are independent news sources and Bhanwar is used by one of them. News sources commonly use Bhanwar so that he doesn't get confused with another Jitendra Singh who is an active politician. Even if it were less used which it isn't, it would still be more accessible without the disambiguation (who knows birth years?). MrMkG (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assizes → Assize (currently a redirect back to Assizes) (move · discuss) – WP:SINGULAR Ost (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this might benefit from a discussion, just to be on the safe size. It's almost always referred to in the plural, so could be an exception to WP:SINGULAR.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to discussion if that is the case, but the first instance I saw was Assize of Clarendon, which then brought me to the general topic. —Ost (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@90.80.18.81: "Clearly" original research? The reference for the name (ESPON 1.4.3.) is provided in a reference right next to the name, it is repeated five times in that document. "Upper Silesian" without "Moravian" is also used in the same report – but to refer only to the part within the borders of the Polish state, while the article topic covers the whole of it. And the scope of the article hadn't changed for over 15 years! Original move to the previous name (which you request back) was not only also undiscussed, but cited the very same document as a reason for the name change – if the title of the article has to match its scope, the previous name was simply a mistake due to lack of awareness on the slight difference between the two terms.
Additionally, it seems that you went on a kind of "reverting spree" of my edits on the topic, e.g.:
  • Revert of map change for the article in vi and it wikis – with an edit summary of "Moravian POV" – while it's true the old map doesn't spell "Ostrava" in bold letters, it covers the exact same area – so this revert has nothing to do with the reason stated for it
  • Revert on Metropolitan areas in Poland – the "reverts" was also reasoned with "Moravian POV" – Moravia isn't even in Poland?? the edit changes two distinct references to two areas of different scope so they link to the same article, which is clearly wrong – Kraków is not a part of Upper Silesian metropolitan area by no definition
  • Various reverts in wikidata:Q3495359, especially bringing back the "Metropolia Górnośląska" as Polish label – this is clearly wrong, this is not a name of this area, this name is used to describe the direct metropolitan area of Katowice (eg. without Rybnik, Bielsko etc.) in basically all available Polish language sources, which is not this item
These changes lead me to believe that you fell victim to the confusing naming of the various overlapping and differently-sized areas in the region, for some of which the established names in various languages don't even match 1:1 when translated – the main reason for which I've started to put my work into the articles on the topic myself was the realization of amount of misconceptions and mismatches there were between the different articles and language versions.
Also, please stop accusing me of "Moravian POV", I don't think I'm even able to have it, I've spent there a few tens of hours of my life in total at most…
Regards, --Dżamper (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here we discuss changes made exclusively on English Wikipedia. The name "Upper Silesian-Moravian metropolitan area" is never used anywhere. There are many sources using the name "Silesian metropolitan area" or "Upper Silesian metropolitan area". Even if there was one source for your name (IF), it doesn't matter to rename name of the article because there is only one source when many other sources use the term "Silesian". Also analyzes show that the word "Moravian" should not be used in the name of the article. This metropolitan area has only tiny pieces that historically belonged to the historical land of Moravia. I would like to remind you that the administrative region of the Moravian-Silesian Region includes the Silesian areas adjacent to the Polish border and these Silesian areas (Czech Silesia) are part of the metropolitan area. There is almost no Moravia in this metropolitan area [21]. Moravia may cover (maybe) 1% of the metropolitan area. More covers different region - Lesser Poland, which is estimated to cover 10% of metropolitan area. And what now? Can you think of a name of the Upper Silesian-Lesser Poland-Moravian metropolitan area? Let's be serious. The most popular name is common used simply "Silesian" (see sources in Google). Also the metropolitan area covers mainly the Silesian areas in Poland and Czech Republic, the little bits on the periphery are just tiny bits of two other historical region. Besides, the Wikipedia:Common name is clear and obvious. 90.80.18.81 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not majorly reword half of your reply after posting. It makes discussion more difficult than necessary.
I do not understand how one can say that a name is not only original research, but also a hoax, and that is not used anywhere (as was originally stated in the reply and in article edit summary), when a reference containing a link to an European Union funded report, where pages on which the name is used are listed in the same reference, is given literally next to the name in the article. Do you really believe ESPON is not a "reliable source"? I've even managed to find an entire article that is an analysis on the data from the source.
Yes, I agree it's true that the name "Upper Silesian metropolitan area" is used more commonly as a term – but that's probably because almost all of the time it refers not to the item of the article, but to what other wiki articles are dubbing as the "Katowice metropolitan area" – that is, to the the 2-3M pop. area of Katowice urban area cities and their neighbouring communes – which is only about a half of the area described in the article.
If you really believe in your rationale, why you are reverting my edits as a whole without adding any references supporting your claims? After your edits, the result is an article containing names without "-Moravian" suffix, yet these names are still only referencing the sources which contain the "-Moravian" suffix (in the parts of the document where the area being analysed corresponds to the area which is the topic of the article). This is wrong no matter who is "right". And how is that not OR? If the case is really that obvious, providing a proper reference shouldn't be a problem, so why you do not do it?
--Dżamper (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been making some edits to my content. Your answer refers at most to the previous version. I'm inserting my new version of the justification again because you almost didn't respond to it at all. Well: the name "Upper Silesian-Moravian metropolitan area" is never used anywhere. There are many sources using the name "Silesian metropolitan area" or "Upper Silesian metropolitan area". Even if there was one source for your name (IF), it doesn't matter to rename name of the article because there is only one source when many other sources use the term "Silesian". Also analyzes show that the word "Moravian" should not be used in the name of the article. This metropolitan area has only tiny pieces that historically belonged to the historical land of Moravia. I would like to remind you that the administrative region of the Moravian-Silesian Region includes the Silesian areas adjacent to the Polish border and these Silesian areas (Czech Silesia) are part of the metropolitan area. There is almost no Moravia in this metropolitan area [22]. Moravia may cover (maybe) 1% of the metropolitan area. More covers different region - Lesser Poland, which is estimated to cover 10% of metropolitan area. And what now? Can you think of a name of the Upper Silesian-Lesser Poland-Moravian metropolitan area? Let's be serious. The most popular name is common used simply "Silesian" (see sources in Google). Also the metropolitan area covers mainly the Silesian areas in Poland and Czech Republic, the little bits on the periphery are just tiny bits of two other historical region. Besides, the Wikipedia:Common name is clear and obvious. 90.80.18.81 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, there is no point in continuing the discussion here. The page is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I reported the problem in the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section. As you can see above, the topic is very debatable and controversial. This promises to be a long discussion. Consensus is needed for the new name of the article. I am asking administrators to restore Wikipedia:Stable version (revert undiscussed move by User:Dżamper) and so that we can start a discussion on this topic (in Talk:Upper Silesian metropolitan area) and get a consensus on a new name of article. Now, undiscussed move by User:Dżamper is a typical example of undiscussed move, on a topic that, due to its controversial and debatable nature, requires consensus to changing the name of article. Therefore, maintaining this new controversial name of article without Wikipedia:Consensus is unacceptable, therefore it is necessary to restore the previous article name - Wikipedia:Stable version which has existed for 20 years. 90.80.18.81 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Let's continue the discussion here. Dżamper (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, especially since I have an idea for another name (third name), that could be discussed. I think you can be happy with the new idea. For now, I'm waiting for the technical issue - to undone by administrators new undiscussed move and restore Wikipedia:Stable version that has been in existence for last 20 years. 90.80.18.81 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern Standard Arabic → Modern Arabic (move · discuss) – Modern Arabic is not standard Arabic, but rather an extension of Classical Arabic, so the title must be transferred to Modern Arabic. أرمز (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSA is the standard and common name; Modern Arabic contains various variations. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is not standard. Normative means that it takes a standard for deducing rules, but this is not true. Classical Arabic is the one that takes a standard for rules. أرمز (talk) 13:16, 21 April 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.
@BilledMammal I'm reading the RM as "Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR." as Mike Selinker wrote in the close. I'm also seeing that the page title has never been at your proposed title. Forgive my confusion at this request, but my reading of the move logs is that it was at some form of "bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus" before the move warring started. (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected because of move warring, admin needed anyways. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit - before the disputed moves began it was at "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". Per the consensus in the RM, the "2024" should be removed, and so the title the article should be at is "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to make this move, as I think BM is correct about the order of events. The original move from 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus was indeed an undiscussed WP:RMUM. What should have happened is that the undiscussed move was simply reverted and then a fresh RM started from the original title. But that didn't happen. Nonetheless, if the close at the RM was indeed no consensus, then other than the decision to remove the year, reverting to the original title but minus the year seems like the correct outcome. So as a neutral admin with no particular opinion on this title, I will make this move unless there's a good reason not to, per established practice. But before I do so, courtesy pings to @El C: and @Mike Selinker: as the page protector and the RM closer, for opinions.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me, Amakuru, so feel free to do whatever. I just move-protected alongside creating the edit notice. But I saw that the latest move summary read:
08:27, 14 April 2024 Iskandar323 (talk contribs block) moved protection settings from Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus moved to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): – and also in direct violation of the recent consensus atRM)
That's why I took no additional action. But I admit to not have looked too deeply into it and sort of took the veracity of that move summary on faith. El_C 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sequence of events leading to that move and the revert involved one editor asking about changing the title, getting a response from a single IP, and then moving it themselves, which occurred after the RM was closed and the page was moved by Mike Selinker --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since no objections raised from El C or Mike, this has been  Done. This is procedural given that the only consensus in the recent RM was for removing the year, thus the page has been moved back to its original title, but without the year. All future moves should go through an RM discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this has now been queried by Novem Linguae with a request to self-revert so I've done that. This has really become a hot mess, and we'll need the RM closer to come in and clarify for us.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nothing personal, my concerns were procedural. I just didn't feel very comfortable having RM/TR set aside a bolded RM close on a sysop-protected page. I think BilledMammal should consider opening an RM for Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus as a logical next step. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to wait to see what the closer says first; let’s get the article at the actual status quo title before muddying the waters further. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the talk page, when I closed this, there was no consensus to change the title from 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus to anything else. However, there was consensus on removing the year per WP:NOYEAR, so I did that. There certainly wasn't consensus to make it Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. If folks want another move, they should make another RM rather than just move it. There's clearly considerable debate on what the title should be; there doesn't need to be debate on what I meant when I closed it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this reply, and their statement There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except WP:NOYEAR, I think we can revert to the title above now? BilledMammal (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would suggest taking the discussion to the talk page for the article, since there is quite a lot of discussion there. It doesn't make sense to me to have one group discussing one outcome and another group discussing another. That's just my take, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Selinker: Per WP:NOCON, When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title. If there is no prior stable title, then the default is the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. There isn't a stable title that can be gleaned from the article's move history as the article is relatively brand new. Therefore it should be back to the title at which the article ceased to be a stub, which would have been 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, as this was not only the original title, but as well as the title at which the article was rapidly developed from stub to an article. Curiously, you had moved the the article to this title before, Special:Permalink/1218658797, which would have made you an involved editor with respect to closing the discussion. I suggest that you either vacate your close, or respect WP:NOCON and move back to the initial title (albeit respecting the NOYEAR consensus of the close). – robertsky (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the move you linked was the one after they closed the move request, so I don’t think they are INVOLVED - apart from that, though, I agree. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the move they made as part of closing the RM --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise to Mike for the mistake made in determining if Mike is involved. But the NOCON should still be respected. – robertsky (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the apology and respect that you believe strongly in your position. I encourage you to act on that belief and, per User:Novem Linguae and others, consider RMing it to a title you prefer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been quiet for a few days; I think the next step here is to move the article to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus; Mike Selinker has stated that this was a no-consensus close (with the exception of WP:NOYEAR), and while they don't want the article to be moved to this title WP:NOCON is clear, and they have said they are totally fine with an admin moving the page to that title.
Once we have settled where the article should currently be then we can move forward with trying to find a consensus as Mike Selinker is asking for - trying to find a consensus first will make this mess even worse on the likely chance that we fail to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is really not what I said. I said that if an admin believes I erred, they can overrule me. But what I encouraged is an RM to a new name, not moving it to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, which almost no one in the discussion wanted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm the third uninvolved admin here (after Amakuru and Robertsky) to say that the close is clearly incorrect; if the stable title was 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus and there's no consensus to do anything other than remove the year, then the page belongs at Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. But I doubt anyone is going to be comfortable moving a page through full protection to "overrule" a closure, so this probably just needs to go to move review. That's regrettable since it'll create even more bureaucracy, but if Mike is adamant about not revising the close, I don't see any other way forward (BilledMammal is right that a new RM right now will likely just make the situation worse). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Extraordinary Writ; this is exactly the problem. The outcome of the RM doesn't match what the closing statement says. To be honest, reading between the lines of what Mike has written both here and at the article's talk page, I think possibly his intention was in fact to close it as "consensus not to move" rather than "no consensus", particularly considering the line here which says "consensus was strong that that name was not what the community wanted". But if that's the case, then the close as worded is not correct and needs to be amended. Conversely, if Mike is still adamant that there's simply no consensus, then closing as not moved is just procedurally incorrect. It would be like closing an AFD as "delete" while simultaneously decreeing as part of the close that the page must remain extant. An MRV sounds like it may be inevitable, but even that faces muddy waters, given that we don't know for certain what the intention of the close even was. Agree with the above that a fresh RM will solve nothing... particularly given that the status quo ante is still unknown. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiment is that a new RM at this junction will simply see a rehash of the same sets of argument, and a move review would be a more appropriate action. – robertsky (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a move review. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1220049974"