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:

  }
  

  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:

  }
  

  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.

• Template:Country data Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Template:Country data Islamic StateTemplate:Country data Islamic State (currently a redirect back to Template:Country data Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) (move · discuss) – Article's title is the Islamic State, so it really doesn't make sense to have the template as the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @HurricaneZeta: is it possible for you to share your own opinions on whether or not you approve of this? I would like to see on if it's a plausible justification of moving the template or not. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:April fools → Template:April FoolsTemplate:April Fools (currently a redirect back to Template:April fools) (move · discuss) – Per consensus at Special:Permalink/1336472455#Requested move 3 February 2026. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 01:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This needs a template editor, as it is template editor move protected. HurricaneZetaC 01:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I thought it was fully move-protected, which led me to believe it needs an administrator. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 01:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Blades of the Guardians: Wind Rises in the Desert → Blades of the GuardiansBlades of the Guardians (currently a redirect back to Blades of the Guardians: Wind Rises in the Desert) (move · discuss) – The official title is Blades of the Guardians by Well Go USA Entertainment that handling the film's North American distribution. [1] M.A.LasTroniN910t@lk 14:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes → Lady Jane FellowesLady Jane Fellowes (currently a redirect back to Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes) (move · discuss) – As a daughter of an Earl she should be styled this was as Lady Joan Zuckerman, Lady Pamela Smith, Lady Jane Lacey and Lady Susan Hussey are daughters of earls and have husbands who were Life Peers. RugbyFan88 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] This article went through two RM discussions last year and is not eligible for WP:RMT. 162 etc. (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Upon further review, User:RugbyFan88, you were the one who proposed those RMs, so you should definitely know better than to bring this here. 162 etc. (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] i want to correct my mistake ~2026-66545-4 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• George Darling (politician) → George Darling, Baron Darling of HillsboroughGeorge Darling, Baron Darling of Hillsborough (currently a redirect back to George Darling (politician)) (move · discuss) – He was a life peer and should be given this link. RugbyFan88 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• George Brown (British Labour politician) → George Brown, Baron George-BrownGeorge Brown, Baron George-Brown (currently a redirect back to George Brown (British Labour politician)) (move · discuss) – He was a life peer and should be given this link. RugbyFan88 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Michael Spicer (politician) → Michael Spicer, Baron SpicerMichael Spicer, Baron Spicer (currently a redirect back to Michael Spicer (politician)) (move · discuss) – He was a life peer and should be given this link. RugbyFan88 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Maie Casey, Baroness Casey → Maie Casey, Lady CaseyMaie Casey, Lady Casey (currently a redirect back to Maie Casey, Baroness Casey) (move · discuss) – as a wife of a Life Peer she should not be called Baroness as she was.t one in her own right. RugbyFan88 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Moving the rest to contested; these are all WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Garage door → Overhead doorOverhead door (currently a redirect back to Garage door) (move · discuss) – This page covers a far broader spectrum of information of upward acting doors than just doors used on garages. Garage door could still direct here, but overhead door is the industry accepted term for these doors and better covers the wide spectrum of products therein. Theoverheaddoorguy (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Theoverheaddoorguy This article is messy, to say the least, but the first few sections clearly talk about garage doors. Maybe revamp this article into one about overhead doors, or make a new one and then propose merging this one into that? Please don't add spam links. HurricaneZetaC 16:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - this is too great a change in scope and would require merging the garage door article, not moving it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Support. These doors are used for way more than just garages (like at the loading dock of a supermarket for example). They don't refer to them as "garage doors". Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose a universally known term – the rest of the world exclusively uses "garage door" aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] This is not RM, save your supports/opposes for if one comes about. It's already been contested so it's not uncontroversial and cannot be moved by RM/TR. Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• German Bundesrat → Bundesrat (move · discuss) – Unnecessary disambiguator. The Austrian and Swiss bodies of the same name are referred to in English as "Federal Council", not by loaning the German term "Bundesrat". Glide08 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Glide08 There is a disambiguation page at the proposed title, and I believe this could be a primary topic grab due to Bundesrat (German Empire). You probably know that those are always controversial. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In this case it would be wiser to move either the page to to Bundesrat (Germany), or the disambiguator to Bundesrat (disambiguation). Glide08 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That's still a primary topic grab, which are controversial and cannot be done as a technical request. Please use WP:RMPM. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Chinese independent high school → Chinese independent high school (Malaysia)Chinese independent high school (Malaysia) (currently a redirect back to Chinese independent high school) (move · discuss) – As per discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_76#Heavily_uncited_Wikipedia_page, it was recommended for the page title to be more specific as the current title is too generic. The rationale is that the page only talks about Chinese independent high schools in Malaysia, not globally. However this boy @Whyiseverythingalreadyused has a different opinion but won't discuss and sabotaged my last request here. My rationale is clear, let's hear his rationale now. N niyaz (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @N niyaz, Pigsonthewing said that that search might be better for finding sources. There is no other Chinese independent high school article on Wikipedia, thus a disambiguator is not needed. Additionally, this is a WP:PCM. You can open a WP:RSPM, but I think it would lead to the same opposition unless there's another article for Chinese independent high schools. HurricaneZetaC 14:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I already told him that he needed to, say, start an article on independent high schools in China or smth Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Let me be clear: I will "sabotage" (his words) all of N niyaz's attempts to unnecessarily disambiguate this article Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] No one is gonna listen to you brodie go do it yourself N niyaz (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @N niyaz: WP:NPA; also, no one's saying that you absolutely must do it on threat of death or anything It's just not gonna get moved in that situation Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] First of all, you need to understand that there is independent Chinese high schools everywhere around the world. Even though there is no other Chinese high school article on Wikipedia, that article includes UEC, a certificate only used in Malaysia. And to be honest, that article lacks notability and citations and should either be merged or deleted. N niyaz (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In-advance strong oppose to any motion by the other user about this article given his conduct and eagerness to violate Wikipedia policy after being told about it Also, this diff warrants a reminder of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 15:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Elizabeth Somerset, Baroness Herbert → Elizabeth Somerset, 3rd Baroness HerbertElizabeth Somerset, 3rd Baroness Herbert (currently a redirect back to Elizabeth Somerset, Baroness Herbert) (move · discuss) – She was a hereditary baroness in her own right so adding "3rd" distinguishes her from baronesses by marriage. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia looking at the talk page, there was a 2010 RM where it was chosen to move to this title rather than the one including the 3rd, thus this would be a WP:PCM. HurricaneZetaC 18:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:New Ryan Field → Ryan Field (2026) (move · discuss) – publishing as article, keeping draft history. Merging current version with draft started earlier (from which much of the existing article , recently published, seems to have taken its content). SecretName101 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Admitedly, attribution is not my area of expertise, but why can't you just edit the article that's already there? 162 etc. (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @162 etc. no. The correct thing is to move a draft to the article space to preserve the earliest edit history. the editor who recently published directly in the article space instead of doing this was errant. SecretName101 (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In fact, those without permissions to overwrite are given a standard warning to request a move, being warned, “ Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article” SecretName101 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Moving this to admin section; will defer to somebody experienced in WP:HISTMERGE. I've already made some edits to the article in question. 162 etc. (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like Ryan Field (2026) was copied directly from the mainspace article now at Ryan Field (1926) (permalink) rather than Draft:New Ryan Field. In that case a dummy edit for attribution would make more sense than a histmerge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Unless I'm also missing something, running Special:ComparePages on the draft and the new article doesn't reveal any obvious similarities that couldn't be explained by copying from the (1926) article. I think this should just be a normal merge, as the first reply proposes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]