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:..."

• Saad Rizvi → Saad Hussain Rizvi (currently a redirect back to Saad Rizvi) (move · ) – MalangSufi requested that the page Saad Hussain Rizvi be moved to Saad Rizvi. Muscat's Finest supported the move, and DrKay fulfilled the move request [1]. However, both MalangSufi and Muscat's Finest are sockpuppets of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial, and therefore this was not a legitimate discussed move. Please move Saad Rizvi back to Saad Hussain Rizvi. HyperShark244 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delicious Party Pretty Cure → Delicious Party PreCure (currently a redirect back to Delicious Party Pretty Cure) (move · ) – There was a page move consensus on Talk:Wonderful PreCure! that this page and several other pages listed as "Pretty Cure" should be using the correct English title of "PreCure". Most of these moves have gone through okay but this one isn't able to move for some reason even though the new name has a redirect. Rebochan (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Rebochan, you can't move a page over an existing one unless it's a single-revision redirect to the page being moved in its place, otherwise you are correct to ask here. For the record, @Cubching90's closure was slightly irregular as it is expected that a closer is able to carry out the actual moves, which they clearly can't. ASUKITE 20:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also note that this particular page wasn't listed in the RM in questions. Wouldn't WP:NOTOTHERPAGES apply? The closer was correct not to move this page as part of their close. Bensci54 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, thanks! I hadn't even checked that part, this whole situation is fishy to me. ASUKITE 21:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, Cubching90 was blocked for sockpuppetry, I think that closure needs to be reverted, which means my move earlier might have been invalid as well. (Or... I don't know what to do, an admin should handle that as it looks like a couple other editors were blocked there, might be better even to just void the entire discussion and start over at this point) ASUKITE 21:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point of the discussion was that all of those pages are not using the correct names of the shows according to primary sources. These all should have been uncontroversial moves, but people fight them anyway. Now all of my moves trying to follow what I had no reason to believe was a bad faith closure have been reverted by Hey man im josh who scolded me for it on my talk page. Rebochan (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebochan Contested as recent activity shows there is controversy - after the related move is closed it may be possible to move this, but even then a discussion might be a good idea. ASUKITE 15:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebochan, I would suggest to discuss this on talk page. This is a controversy move and it needed a consensus on other editors. ROY is WAR Talk! 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Margot Isaacs, Marchioness of Reading → Margot Irene, Marchioness of Reading (move · ) – By lack of reference in obituaries e.g., The Independent, The Peerage, The Times which refer to her surname as either 'Duke' or the title of 'Reading' (as is traditional for British nobility) it does not appear she took the name of her husband and children. This is therefore likely an error. JJLiu112 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, we should probably do the formal thing and title the article with her forenames. --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose; this request based on an assumption/misunderstanding by the user. If she took the title, she defintely took the surname too even if she didn't use it. The obits may just be refering to her pre-marital name OR her case is similar to Rose Hanbury who is better known by her maiden name. Since she is referred as "Lady Reading" or "Reading" in the articles post-marriage, then she definitely took her husband's name. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for correcting me on this point. Still I wonder because I can see very little reference online to her being referred to as Margot Isaacs whether it would not be better to still correct the title with her forename(s) as above. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Random aside - The Peerage is deprecated per WP:RSP as self-published and can't be used as a source, I just happened to notice while I was scrolling here. ASUKITE 18:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Pakistan Air Force non-flying equipment → List of equipment of the Pakistan Air Force (currently a redirect back to List of Pakistan Air Force non-flying equipment) (move · ) – Undiscussed controversial move, restore previous title per WP:CONSISTENT see: Category:Lists of armies (air forces) equipment Ainty Painty (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC) Ainty Painty (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Executive magistrates of the Roman Republic → Magistrates of the Roman Republic (currently a redirect instead to Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton#Magistrates of the Roman Republic) (move · ) – See Talk:Executive magistrates of the Roman Republic#GA Reassessment under "Title". I agree with original poster. Target title is currently a redirect, it should be dropped. I've put in a {{for}} template on the original title page for disambiguation. Ifly6 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This appears to be a contentious PTOPIC grab between a redirect to a marginally viewed article, with the potential for a different article with also very marginal view numbers. The referenced talk page discussion was from over 5 years ago and the article has been stable at the current title for a while. It would seem like a full RM discussion would be required, especially because it would impact not only this page, but also the current redirect as well. TiggerJay (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ravaisson-Mollien (currently a redirect to Félix Ravaisson-Mollien) → Félix Ravaisson-Mollien (move · ) – common name Xpander (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xpander1 This page was recently moved, so this would be considered contentious, please start a full RM discussion by clicking discuss next to your request. TiggerJay (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xpander1, Tiggerjay, Arbitrarily0, and Omnipaedista: because it was recently moved without discussion, and is seemingly contentious, I have reverted back to the long-term title of Félix Ravaisson-Mollien. Any further moves should be through a formal RM discussion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cyanagraea → Cyanagraea praedator (currently a redirect back to Cyanagraea) (move · ) – Cyanagraea is the name of the genus, not that of the species. The article is dedicated to the species, not the genus. This causes a translation problem: the French, Dutch and Cebuano articles are named "Cyanagraea praedator", and they cannot be linked to the English article because of that. Captaindory (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Captaindory The way this is set up is established enwiki practice. See WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. I have fixed the Wikidata so that the enwiki article links to the species articles on other wikis rather than the genus article. Bensci54 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Berar sultanate → Berar Sultanate (currently a redirect back to Berar sultanate) (move · ) – capitalization Prakashs27 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Prakashs27 This has been discussed before here. You will need to open another discussion to gain consensus to move it back. Imcdc Contact 03:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2010 Australian Sports Sedan season → 2010 Kerrick Sports Sedan Series (currently a redirect back to 2010 Australian Sports Sedan season) (move · ) – The page is about a specific series rather than a "season". Please see National Sports Sedan Series GTHO (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Before you changed it here it was about the season. When I look up "Australian Sports Sedan" in books, I got a lot of "Australian Sports Sedan Champtionship", but only lowercase "Australian sports sedan series", since there are series involving Australian sports sedans, but that's not their proper name. So it seems some discussion is in order on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC West Midlands → BBC Midlands (move · ) – In short there is no 'BBC West Midlands', the BBC English Region which serves the West Midlands is named 'BBC Midlands', that is their corporate directorate identity and the noun used to describe that part of the organisation. Indeed the rest of the page refers to it as BBC Midlands. Other examples use the correct noun for the service, see BBC North East and Cumbria. At the moment, the BBC Midlands page points to a page which displays both the East and West Midlands variant, however this page should probably be deleted as it adds nothing, persons looking up BBC East Midlands will find this, and BBC Midlands already points to the East Midlands being a separate region. 37.60.87.245 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some sourcing confirming this would be useful, I'm not seeing an awful lot online. In fact, I'm not certain what "BBC West Midlands" even does; is it just the news region? A lot of other content seems to be divided into other sorts of regions, for example the website has Birmingham and the Black Country, Coventry and Warwickshire etc. This page here seems to use "West Midlands", as our article does. It seems like maybe the east and west split some time ago, and perhaps there's no primary topic. Absent more positive evidence I'd think an RM is in order anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC English Regions are subordinate to the wider English Regions directorate, and control local programming and radio stations within their set geographical area. The brand name for that directorate is BBC Midlandshttps://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/local_tv_news_laughton.pdfhttps://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/local_tv_news_laughton.pdf

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-annual-plan-2024-2025.pdf

  https://x.com/bbcmtd

http://web.archive.org/web/20080209004822/https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tvbranding/artwork3b.shtml

• It's a minor technical distinction, BBC Midlands serves the West Midlands, and manages regional programming for that area which includes regional news, local radio, but also some programming for the East Midlands to this day (most recently was We are England for BBC One).

  There has never been a 'BBC West Midlands' directorate. 37.60.87.245 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cathepsin L2 → Cathepsin V (currently a redirect back to Cathepsin L2) (move · ) – The name Cathepsin V has come into majority use over Cathepsin L2. See Google Scholar hits since 2021 using both. Gold Broth (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gold Broth - can you provide a link to your GS results? When looking at V vs L2 in since 2024 I see about a 2x return in results, but there is still clearly use as L2, and I don't have the subject matter expertise to understand that these two are the same, but I'm not sure that 90 vs 180 is showing a significant shift. This seems like there might be a shift going on, and I would suggest a full RM discussion on the talk page, which you seem to have started an informal one already. TiggerJay (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Koreans in the United Kingdom → British Koreans (move · ) – Recognizable, natural, and concise name. Consistent with other names like British Chinese or British Indians. The current disambiguation page of the singular British Korean includes two non-existent pages and other phrases which need an additional qualifier (namely, "Relations"); it really isn't a proper disambiguation page. —Caorongjin 💬 10:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By that logic, a lot of the pages in Category:Asian diaspora in the United Kingdom should be renamed. I agree with your reasoning, but I think there's a naming convention already in place. Also, the United Kingdom is different from Britain/England (Scotland is part of the UK)... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• George S. Vasey (currently a redirect to George Vasey (botanist)) → George Vasey (move · ) – The latter is a redirect created after a move. See the talk page of the former. Briefly, the name "George S. Vasey" was introduced sometime during the 20th century but the source of that name is unknown. In other words, the middle initial can not be verified. Tom Scavo (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any evidence that this George Vasey is the primary topic. Based on page views, it seems George Alan Vasey is the most viewed, and indeed he was at the base name until a 2008 bold move. I have reverted the move of George Vasey and this should be discussed in a formal RM. If anythign I'd favour moving George Alan Vasey back, and is neither George S. Vasey nor George Vasey (botanist) are suitable names then another one again will have to be found. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Carlos Coloma Nicolás → Carlos Coloma (cyclist) (currently a redirect back to Carlos Coloma Nicolás) (move · ) – COMMONNAME per Spanish refs, doesn't use maternal surname. DAB as per NCSP Ortizesp (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All three of the article's refs, as well his Spanish Wikipedia article, call him Carlos Coloma Nicolás. A bit more evidence required I think... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did some searching and agree with Amakuru – it is not clear that the shorter name is more prevalent in sources. I'm contesting this request, if you would like to open a move discussion please click the blue "discuss" link in your request. Toadspike [Talk] 10:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]