Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

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:..."

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place. If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here. Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself. If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.

• Le Lieu unique → Le Lieu Unique (currently a redirect back to Le Lieu unique) (move · discuss) – Proper name, needs capitalisation. Error message when I tried to move: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. However, could not find page with same name. Orange sticker (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Duchniewicz → Robert Duchnevič (currently a redirect back to Robert Duchniewicz) (move · discuss) – Although the foreign spellings of names were recently allowed in Lithuania, it is unclear whether Duchnevič chose to change the spelling to Polish "Duchniewicz". Either way his official social media accounts and government websites state his name as "Robert Duchnevič", showing that Duchnevič prefers and is more commonly known in Lithuanian-spelled name Blowwhite ^(Talk) 18:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Blowwhite: There is no clear advantage of one form over the other. In English texts, the form "Duchniewicz" is more common, including in academic works ([1]). It is better to leave it as it is.82.177.10.229 (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ, official English language version of Vilnius district municipality website (Duchnevič is the mayor of Vilnius district) clearly states his name as Robert Duchnevič. As well as his personal Instagram account and official LSDP party account . So undoubtedly the original spelling is preferred in English and Lithuanian sources. Blowwhite ^(Talk) 11:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that you state in your request above "it is unclear wheather" -- should mean this should probably go to a full RM by clicking on discuss next to your request. I would further support that this should go to a RM discussion since you have made a clear case of what their official name is, but that is different from how articles are titled per WP:OFFICIALNAME. TiggerJay (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hugh Lucas-Tooth → Hugh Munro-Lucas-Tooth (currently a redirect back to Hugh Lucas-Tooth) (move · discuss) – WP:COMMONNAME per Hansard JJLiu112 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that his official name is Munro-Lucas-Tooth, but the other citations on the article from secondary sources show the omission of Munro, as such it would seem like the commonname is without Monro. TiggerJay (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season → 2025 SE Palmeiras season (move · discuss) – Per main article. Also for the previous seasons 2024, 2023,..., 2008. Svartner (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Svartner, are you suggesting to change the entire category of articles? ie. Category:Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras seasons. – robertsky (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they changed the name of the main article and forgot to change the relative forks. Svartner (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mason & Associates → IAMJAMES (move · discuss) – The company rebranded, this is the correct title now Jamesmasonusyd (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Source? The company website is still referring to it by the old name. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesmasonusyd This has already been contested on your talk page prior to this request, plus your article you created for this title has been denied. As such, this is a contested move and cannot be handled at this venue. You can start a full RM by clicking discuss next to your request above, but be prepared to present evidence that complies with WP:NAMECHANGE TiggerJay (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need this a consensus for this per TiggerJay, and need a source that "IAMJAMES" is the new name of the company. ROY is WAR Talk! 21:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Garhwal Kingdom → Kingdom of Garhwal (currently a redirect back to Garhwal Kingdom) (move · discuss) – More appropriate when talking about kingdoms in the past. S.S Rautela (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't follow that logic at all... "Garhwal Kingdom" and "Kingdom of Garhwal" both seem to mean the same thing, with the former slightly more concise and ngrams not hugely conclusive.[2] I think I'd like to see a more concrete reason for this move if it's to be deemed uncontroversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S.S Rautela Contested - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hussein Sirri Pasha (1894–1960) → Hussein Sirri Pasha (currently a redirect back to Hussein Sirri Pasha (1894–1960)) (move · discuss) – Can't remove disambiguator due to pre-existing redirect. Apparently there was a dispute over how his name should be spelled, and this mess is the result. Regardless of whether it's "Sirri" or "Serry", he's the only person of that name with an article and doesn't require disambiguation.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanuil Per your own admission the spelling is contentious, further evidenced, by the multiple page moves since 2016 and the recent edits today to the article itself. Seems like a clear case for a full RM discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]