Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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: edit 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.
Add a new request
Remove all requests

Technical requests

[edit]
Edit this section if you want to move a request between sections.

Uncontroversial technical requests

[edit]
Most requests should be placed below this heading.

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

[edit]
If your request involves reverting a move, place it here.

Contested technical requests

[edit]
Do not insert new requests in this section. Only move requests here if the requested move has been contested.
  • FAISS → Faiss (currently a redirect instead to Wilbur Faiss) (move · discuss) – The team at Meta has aligned that just capitalizing the first letter is the correct name. That is the way it is named in the original paper. I have updated the references in the page to be "Faiss" already but I cannot change the title to "Faiss". I believe this should replace the existing redirect. Mnorris1921 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contesting based on sources within the article using FAISS more than Faiss - as a reminder for the future, sources preserve the titles as written and do not need to adhere to Wikipedia capitalization rules. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sennecaster, much thanks for your reply! I am new to editing Wikipedia.
The primary research paper uses "Faiss", the Github repository which is the source of truth uses "Faiss", and any titles of sources in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/FAISS use "Faiss" also. I see that Milvus and ANN Benchmarks use "FAISS" when following the links though. If we work with them to update it to "Faiss", can we update this Wikipedia title? Or do you see other blockers?
Thanks! Mnorris1921 (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster Pinging Sennecaster in case she doesn't check back here. She said "contesting" but didn't move this request to the contested section below, so I'm not sure if she meant it in the procedural sense. Toadspike [Talk] 10:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest this needs a discussion. MOS:CAPSACRS suggests that sometimes we could represent the thing as Faiss if that was attested by a majority of reliable sources, but that doesn't seem to be clear at all right now. Default would be to capitalise the acronym normally, as FAISS.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Toadspike @Amakuru @Sennecaster for the replies and moving it to the right place.
I suppose the strongest argument I can make is: Even though other sources are using it incorrectly as FAISS, the primary updated research paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.08281 and the actively maintained Github repository use Faiss. At what point do we follow inconsistent sources versus the original source of truth? The original paper uses Faiss everywhere, and the Github uses Faiss everywhere, and the authors have said that it is intended to be Faiss.
Inconsistent sources:
- source 17 "FAISS vector codecs" is not the right title, it is simply "Vector codecs" (from the official Github, which uses "Faiss").
- 27 and 28 ANN bench repositories are inconsistent, some FAISS and some faiss
- source 29 "Use a FAISS vector database with Haystack" uses Faiss and FAISS inconsistently.
- source 30 "FAISS integration with Langchain" when following the URL actually uses "Faiss" in the title, but uses a mixture of FAISS, Faiss, faiss throughout the page.
Sources that use it correctly as Faiss:
- 1 through 5, 15 (papers or sources by original authors of Faiss)
- 26: "Results of the Big ANN: NeurIPS'23 competition"
Sources using it incorrectly as FAISS:
- 11: "Quicker ADC : Unlocking the Hidden Potential of Product Quantization With SIMD"
- 22: "Amazon OpenSearch Service now supports efficient vector query filters for FAISS" (but this is a web page that can be updated)
- 23: "Milvus Knowhere" (but we can work with them to update it, because we meet with them often) Mnorris1921 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mnorris1921 This is reasonable grounds for a move discussion – I suggest you click on the blue "discuss" link in your original request above to automatically start such a discussion. This page is only for uncontroversial move requests. Since two editors have already objected to your request in one form or another, this is not uncontroversial and must go through a full discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike Got it, I have started a discussion by clicking that button! It is here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:FAISS#Requested_move_22_January_2025 Mnorris1921 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku The current redirect at Nuda serves as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. GTrang (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so can that be changed? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beroidae should stay as the primary meaning, because the rest are just works of art. — Petr Matas 13:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean? Are works of art seen as having lower importance? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works of art may not have lower importance, but real-world meanings come to the mind first. For example, Mammals are a biological class, exactly like Nuda. Other meanings are only artworks and art bands and the primary meaning is the class. — Petr Matas 14:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LIrala Wait for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_14#Trans* to close first --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OKay. LIrala (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skmri there was a discussion back in 2017 leading to the current title. Even though the change is relatively small, it may be worth having a discussion to make sure this doesn't get reverted ASUKITE 15:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That discussion is regarding hyphenations, not the misabbreviation itself. Blood oxygen level is not the same thing as Blood oxygenation level. The page correctly refers to three papers by Seiji Ogawa in 1990 that first describe the phenomenon, all referring to it as Blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signal (paper 1, paper 2, paper 3). Skmri (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to comment on this that the hyphenation it should most definitely be Blood oxygenation level–dependent imaging with an endash since "blood oxygenation level" is a multi-word phrase and is modifying "dependent". See WP:ENDASH. I'll leave the distinction between oxygen and oxygenation to the RM. Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree. Skmri (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion that would be wrong, because an en dash juxtaposes two things, explicitly meaning that the first doesn't modify the second. It's not a longer version of a hyphen. Given the meaning you're specifying, I think Blood-oxygenation-level dependent imaging is the closest you can get with that string of words while still being correct typographically. Either that or join everything except the last word with hyphens . . . which is the existing title with oxygenation substituted. But definitely no dashes.
Edit: Also, with just level-dependent joined, it can be taken as meaning level-dependent imaging of blood oxygenation, which isn't quite the same meaning. (Reading it that way, the dash looks like a typo for a hyphen.) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does use endashes this way, see WP:SUFFIXDASH. The potential confusion with "level-dependent" is exactly why it's done this way. Bensci54 (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that, after commenting here. (I somehow missed that subsection the first time). I still don't think it achieves its object in this case. Maybe that's because of the different structure: in the suffix examples, the first part is a coordination (an A and B–suffixed C, traditionally A- and B-suffixed), where the suffix would be meaningful with either element, and there are only two of them. In this case there are three and they're not a coordination but each modifies the next (An A B C–suffixed D). So the grammatical structure is significantly less simple, and it's not immediately obvious to a reader how many of the three form a unit. They can work it out, but they shouldn't have to.
I might start a discussion about that guideline, on the relevant MOS talk page. To my mind it's one which in cases like this will only work for a reader who knows about a relatively obscure punctuation usage. Punctuation should help the reader, not potentially hinder them, and ideally make the meaning intuitively obvious.
In this case I think the key thing is for blood oxygenation level to be unambiguously identified as a three-word unit, which is best done by hyphenating it together. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Florian Blaschke Best to discuss. C F A 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nidzovantije Neither name is obviously more common. Feel free to start a requested-move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link next to your request. C F A 18:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Laptop bird "Zhou-class submarine" appears more common. Feel free to start a requested-move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link next to your request. C F A 19:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffrey34555 This has been through an RM before [1], so this move would have to go through an RM. Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RevolutionaryPatriot One of two sources in article use current spelling, the one using it being more WP:RS. Agree with CFA ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the use of the spelling "Lodhi" is an established common sense fact and is also totally irrelevant to the matter.
Also I'm confused on what you're asking a source for, is it the fact that it's named after the [[Lodi dynasty]]? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can start a requested-move discussion by clicking the "discuss" link next to your request. C F A 00:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kehkou Was moved the other way in March. If you want to proceed with the move, please start a full RM using the discuss link above. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MimirIsSmart Colons are commonly used to separate subtitles from the main title of a work. See the end of WP:SUBTITLE. References in this article also show that the name with a colon is commonly used. Toadspike [Talk] 10:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astronomical catalog → Astronomical catalogue (currently a redirect back to Astronomical catalog) (move · discuss) – Because of See also links, hatnotes, and titles of listed catalogues, the spelling can can only be made consistent within the article if -ogue is used. There are four incoming redirects. Target page is a redirect, with one bot edit and no human edits since its creation. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Musiconeologist This is an WP:ENGVAR issue, so I don't think the article can or should be moved from the US spelling to the UK spelling. The links to articles titled "catalogue" are, in my opinion, not a problem. Toadspike [Talk] 09:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't feel the article had an established spelling or English variant before I began editing, though there turned out to be more -ogs than -ogues. It was jumping about distractingly between the two, often in quick succession (see talk page), so I had to choose one or other and make it consistent. I chose -ogue as the most workable one and made that consistent throughout, meaning that the title now has the only occurrence of catalog. My impression is that the article started life as a stub using US spelling, then was added to largely by people using UK spelling, and that until now, nobody has tried to reconcile the two. There was no response on the talk page when I proposed standardising on -ogue.
    If it's relevant, the redirect Astronomical catalogue doesn't seem to be from a previous move, so this doesn't undo a previous decision as far as I can tell. I think it's the first attempt at a decision.
    My point about the links is that they can't be piped without getting things like See also [incorrect title], so they affect consistency within the article, not just between articles. Musiconeologist (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Musiconeologist Your assessment that this article started as a stub using US spelling is correct. MOS:RETAIN says that we should stick with the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. Even now, the article is not very long, which makes this tough to define, but I'd argue that this 2005 version or this 2008 version qualify. Both contain some discrepancies, but that is (in my opinion) not a problem, because uses of "catalogue" are for European-connected topics, like the New General Catalogue, Tycho-2 Catalogue, or Hipparcos, which are proper names and exempted from ENGVAR consistency per the second bullet of MOS:ARTCON. I am honestly surprised by how consistent the 2008 revision is with this. As far as I can tell, the Manual of Style requires that this article continue to use US spelling, since that is how it started, except when referring to proper names spelled with other variants of English. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's logical, even though I don't like the effects of changing to the other spelling. I left a request on the wp:WikiProject Astronomy page asking for input earlier, hoping to get a consensus on what to do. The MOS does add "in the absence of consensus to the contrary", and it's possible that some of the people who contributed to the article are there too, so I think I should wait for their input here before changing everything to catalog. It's hard to get a meaningful consensus either way without participation by people involved in the subject area. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bharatiya Janata Party, Odisha → Bharatiya Janata Party (Odisha) (currently a redirect back to Bharatiya Janata Party, Odisha) (move · discuss) – ", Odisha" implies that this is a location, which it is not. Adding parenthesis would be better in this case as it is merely a local chapter of the larger Bharatiya Janata Party, which also happens to be the primary topic. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna procedurally contest this one. 1. This is an issue with all articles in Category:Bharatiya_Janata_Party_by_state_or_union_territory, which is quite a few, and we should try to stay consistent. 2. The official website uses the current title [2], while the sources in the article tend to write "Odisha BJP" or use a descriptive name. I think you have a good point, but this should be decided for all similar articles in an RM, not by moving them one at a time at RM/TR. Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ratnahastin Forgot to ping. Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

[edit]
Edit this section only if your request requires an administrator. Usually, do so if the page has been fully protected or move protected (see this guide to which moves need administrators). Place your request in another section if it only requires a page mover.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1271188988"