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: 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


Contested technical requests

@Kwamikagami I am contesting this request, please press the "discuss" button in your request to open an RM. Toadspike [Talk] 07:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: where are you seeing "significant support for both versions"? The discussion seems to be (among those who offered an opinion) unanimous that it should be Ismailism, with rationales given, so naming policy appears to favour the move. I would be inclined to move this and then if someone objects they can always revert and demand a full discussion later.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru I read the comments of Constantine, Ogress, and Iskandar323 as either partially or fully supporting the use of an apostrophe. Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not opposed to the move and you may perform it if you like. Toadspike [Talk] 14:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AimanAbir18plus This was already moved (by you, two months ago) and then reverted as an undiscussed move. It will require a discussion to move forward. ASUKITE 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

No tags for this post.