Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request a technical move 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 "This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • 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.
  • To request a reversion of a recent undiscussed move: Review the guidelines at WP:RMUM of whether a reversion of an undiscussed move qualifies as uncontroversial and if so, edit the Requests to revert undiscussed moves 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. Note that in some cases, clerks, such as administrators or page movers may determine that your request for a reversion does not pass the criteria and may move the request to the contested section or open a formal requested move discussion for potentially controversial moves on your behalf.
  • 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. A bot will automatically remove contested requests after 72 hours of inactivity.

Technical requests

edit

Uncontroversial technical requests

edit

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

edit


Contested technical requests

edit
@Humontroup Per this discussion please open full RM for all these PRITOP. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 10:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thilio What about the similar requests that have already been completed? 1isall (talk | contribs) 12:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@1isall Simplest way we should revert the completed ones and let @Humontroup do the bundles RM nom. I did three, then I felt something was off, then I started double checking their talk page and I found what I was looking for. @1isall, you did 4 or 5, I think. @TarnishedPath made it clear, and I agreed with him they/them on that. Also, @Dfadden simplified it to him here I don't know whether they are ignoring it or what; actually, I don't know, so please @Humontroup, next time just go straight to RM to save us from this kind of booby trap. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can undo it all for now and just put it in an RM. Also a quick FYI: I believe TarnishedPath goes by they/them, not he/him. (Unless I am told otherwise.) 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But aren't these all just redundant disambiguation? And these are Australian places, not American ones. 1isall (talk | contribs) 04:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@1isall, for most of them it probably is redundant disasmbiguation and I'm on the side of concision where it is clear that no other locality has the same name. My read of WP:NCAUS, is that it supports that position (there is disagreement on that though). The issue that I see is that I've previously started discussions for a bunch (I think I did about 5 or 6 of them) of bulk RMs about Australian places, in which I argued for losing the disambiguation. Even though everyone of them ended up being closed with most of the entries being moved, they all had at least some opposition and some of them I withdrew 1 or two of the entries (they were about 20 - 50 entries per RM from memory). Ergo, the RMs were contested. I think given that, these should all probably go to RMs. Regarding ones that have already been moved, I see no harm with leaving them as they are and we can address it if/when anyone objects.
Ps, it's he/him, but I'm not that concerned. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pps, See Talk:Stanhope Gardens, New South Wales#Requested move 25 June 2026 where a page that Humontroup had previously moved without discussion was moved back to its original position. They're getting some of their claims of PTOPIC wrong. TarnishedPathtalk 05:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently at Sekong, Laos is a longstanding primary topic, and everything else appears to be WP:PTM. Revert the undiscussed move, and open a discussion per WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both Sekong, Laos and Sekong province were created in 1984, maybe the river existed before that. Henrydat (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Before June 2012, Sekong redirected to Sekong River or Sekong province, I can say that the page was created incorrectly. Are cities or towns always the primary topic? Henrydat (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Henrydat I reverted your move, please create a move request and gain consensus. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 04:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can start a discussion by clicking the move button above. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 04:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

edit