Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests
Appearance
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), 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 the move, request it below.
- To list a technical request, go to the bottom of this section that you are reading right now; edit the subsection Uncontroversial technical requests; insert the following code at the top:
{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|reason= <!--reason for 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 it to the Contested technical requests section. Add a note saying "Moved by..." and add your signature with ~~~~.
- If your technical request is contested by another editor, please remove it from the contested technical requests section and follow the instructions at Requesting potentially controversial moves.
- Alternatively, if the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is another page in the way, you can ask for the deletion of the other page. This may apply, for example, if the other page is currently a redirect to the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. To request the other page be deleted, 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.
Uncontroversial technical requests
Contested technical requests
- Fox Networks Group → Fox Networks Group; Fox Networks Group Europe; Fox Networks Group Latin America; & Fox Networks Group Asia (move · discuss) – Fox Entertainment Group recently broke up its Fox International Channels division into Fox Networks Group Europe, Fox Networks Group Latin America, & Fox Networks Group Asia, while also discontinuing the FIC banner.[1] However, Fox Networks Group still exists as Fox Entertainment Group's non-sports cable networks group. – 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Contesting, and suggest withdrawal or reformat - that great big mouthful of text is clearly not a suitable article title. @76.235.248.47: what is your intention here? Were you requesting for the article to be split into four separate articles, one for each region? Obviously there is more work involved in that than just making a page move, and I think it's debatable whether the individual networks are notable in their own right, rather than the consolidated article as it is at present. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of male tennis players
- List of male singles tennis players → List of male tennis players (move · discuss) – Having two separate lists for male singles and doubles tennis players means that the doubles article is neglected. The articles were originally one before I controversially moved the original article to a singles only page and created a doubles only page, against the advice of at least one editor. User:Fyunck(click), User:Wolbo and myself seem to be in agreement that the singles-only article be reverted to a singles and doubles article, with no dissenting opinions having been hitherto expressed. – Rovingrobert (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of male doubles tennis players → List of male tennis players (move · discuss) – This is related to the other merge discussed above. – Rovingrobert (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy procedural rejection this is requested "moves" not "merge" For mergers you need to go to WP:PM -- proposed mergers. You cannot move two articles to the same location -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Rovingrobert and 70.51.45.100: Many tennis players likely play both singles and doubles. To avoid much duplication, best have one list, and in each line an index symbol saying whether he plays singles or doubles or both. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's not a function of Requested Moves, that's a function of WP:Proposed mergers. Requested Moves is not the right process -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @70.51.45.100: Sorry dear sir, I would change the location of this request but I am not actually sure what needs to be done. If I cannot move two articles to the same location, then does this preclude merging more than one article? @Anthony Appleyard: Feel free to chime in if you have any ideas also. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am by no means well-versed in this sort of thing, but to me there are a couple of options: 1) Filing the redirect and doubles pages for deletion, then moving the singles page to where the redirect used to be, then restoring the latest revision which has singles and doubles information. 2) Filing the controversial move of male tennis players for undoing, reverting to a previous edit, then merging the doubles page with the standard page. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @70.51.45.100: Rovingrobert has inserted the "please merge" tags into List of male singles tennis players and List of male doubles tennis players. This means text-merging, not history-merging. This is ordinary editing work that does not need an admin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Rovingrobert: please add a listing of the merger to WP:PM --Proposed mergers; which requires you to manually add a listing (it doesn't have a bot listing, unlike Requested moves) That will change the process over completely to WP:PM, where further activity can proceed. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's not a function of Requested Moves, that's a function of WP:Proposed mergers. Requested Moves is not the right process -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)