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:..."

• Domin (disambiguation) → Domin (currently a redirect back to Domin (disambiguation)) (move · ) – Misplaced dab page, no primary topic Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sivagangai-geo-stub → Template:Sivaganga-geo-stub (move · ) – All other categories and pages refer to the district as Sivaganga. See here for full reasoning. OpalYosutebito (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why can't you move this yourself? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:14, 24 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]

• Ako Legal Wife: Mano Po 4? → Mano Po 4: Ako Legal Wife (currently a redirect back to Ako Legal Wife: Mano Po 4?) (move · ) – The title "Ako Legal Wife: Mano Po 4?" is just stylization, and is also missing an exclamation mark from the film's promotional material. Revert back to original title. DasKlose (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, it seems like this is not reverting back to the origional title, which was Ako Legal Wife which was stable from 2009 to 2024, when it was moved to the current title. It does not appear it was ever at Mano Po 4: Ako legal Wife as an article. TiggerJay (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling (currently a redirect to Executive Order 14190) → Executive Order 14190 (move · ) – Consistency with other articles about executive orders –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 15:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the convention, so I won't object, but the current title seems more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 on recongnizability, but I'll leave this to someone else. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cycling data LDL → Template:Cycling data LOL (restricted by the titleblacklist, which page movers can override) (move · ) – change is valid due to the team changing its code from LDL to LOL Maceekim (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Maceekim: can you provide a source fo that? It seems per the template that it should move to LL, not LOL? TiggerJay (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are the sources: [1] official UCI website, and [2] a popular and reliable website regarding cycling ProCyclingStats. Maceekim (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Domoto (band) → KinKi Kids (currently a redirect back to Domoto (band)) (move · ) – As of Feb 2025, the band hasn't fully changed its name to DOMOTO, Starto's site still mentions the KinKi Kids name. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sokol → Sokol (disambiguation) (currently a redirect back to Sokol) (move · ) – Undiscussed. Restore primary redirect to Sokol movement 162 etc. (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the talk page, it's not clear whether there is a primary topic. @Joy: perhaps you might want to comment. older ≠ wiser 20:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, we've been stable for a year now without a primary topic, and nobody engaged at Talk:Sokol. I would say the time window for a technical reversal is gone after a few months of stability, no? So if one wants to make a redirect to the historical movement, that should not be done automatically, rather it merits further discussion in the talk pages. --Joy (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the pageviews you posted at Talk:Sokol, about 70% of pageviews go to Sokol movement. That makes the no primary argument pretty indefensible. 162 etc. (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, they don't, you're not reading that right. Exactly why this needs to be discussed further. --Joy (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it can be reverted, then discussed. That's WP:BRD. 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sokol movement is pretty clearly the primary topic based on pageviews, so throughout this period that has been the primary topic, and nothing that happens on a talk page can affect this objective reality. —Alalch E. 23:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooh, edgy, claims of objective reality :D I'm sorry, but this is why we have discussion pages. The objective reality is also that the article about the Sokol movement encompasses a number of distinct topics that are also very clearly distinct in the page views, and there's a number of other views there that never proceed to the movement page despite it occupying a veritably huge chunk of the top of the list. Instead of trying to procedurally weave around having the discussion, just engage in it, per WP:CONS. --Joy (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ElenaXenaki → Eleni Xenaki (currently a redirect back to ElenaXenaki) (move · ) – undiscussed recent moves which played with spellings against refs Dl2000 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• European Grid Infrastructure → EGI (move · ) – The official name has changed to EGI. The old title could be misleading concerning the current scope of the organisation. Marchitelli (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose per WP:Article titles#Avoid ambiguous abbreviations. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• B-Boy (wrestler) → B-Boy (currently a redirect instead to B Boy) (move · ) – Unnecessary disambiguator. Most notable subject known simply as B-Boy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title is the result of a 2021 RM. Such cases should not be brought to WP:RMT. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Exosquad → ExoSquad (currently a redirect back to Exosquad) (move · ) – ExoSquad is the official spelling per the literature for the franchise. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonny2x4 We use what reliable sources use, not offical names. Most, if not all, refs in article use current capitalization, any particular reason/source to change it? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny2x4 can you provide a reliable source for your confirmation? ROY is WAR Talk! 23:55, 23 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]

• Chadhaibhol → Chadheibhol (currently a redirect back to Chadhaibhol) (move · ) – The spelling Chadheibhol is the original and commonly used name of the village. The current title, Chadhaibhol, appears to be derived from an online census entry, which may contain typographical errors. More reliable sources, such as published books, government records, and local signage, confirm that "Chadheibhol" is the correct spelling.
  A search in Google Books currently does not show any references for "Chadhaibhol," whereas eighteen or more results appear for "Chadheibhol," many of which are from census publications:
  1. 1964: [1]
  2. 1965: [2]
  3. 1972: [3]
  4. 1976: [4]
  5. 1977: [5]
  6. 1980: [6]
  7. 2011: [7]
  Additionally, the name Chadheibhol appears in reliable online sources, including:
  1. The Times of India: [8]
  2. Kalinga TV: [9]
  3. Schools.org: [10]
  4. Housing.com: [11]
  5. ICBSE: [12]
  6. The New Indian Express: [13]
  A previous argument against the move was based on Google search result counts: "Chadhaibhol" (3,060 results) vs. "Chadheibhol" (799 results). However, Google search results are not a reliable metric for determining correct spelling, as they include unrelated pages. A more authoritative approach is to prioritize books, newspapers, and government documents.
  Additionally, the National Highway 49 signboard in the village itself displays "Chadheibhol," further confirming local usage.

  

  Given this evidence, the move to Chadheibhol aligns with Wikipedia’s policy on WP:COMMONNAME, as it reflects the spelling used in historical records, government documents, and local sources. Khaatir (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Khaatir: this is not a uncontroverial move, and thus you need to bring it up in a full RM discussion on the article talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tiggerjay A well-reasoned discussion was initiated on the talk page, but no administrator or experienced user has responded. What can be done to expedite a decision on this matter? Can a specific administrator be notified, or is there any other necessary action? Khaatir (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Khaatir -- this board is only for technical requests of uncontentious nature, so your request does not belong here. What you need to do is open a "full RM discussion" by clicking on "discuss" above next to your request to start a full discussion on this topic. That will gather the attention of others to participate in the discussion. There is currently a big backlog for page moves, so it might take several weeks before your request is handled. After you open the full RM discussion on the talk page, please remove this thread here. Thanks! TiggerJay (talk) 06:17, 24 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 → Félix Ravaisson-Mollien (currently a redirect back to 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]