Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:59, 31 August 2005 view sourceDragons flight (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers, Template editors25,792 edits →Polling for requested page move: Which policies?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:38, 13 January 2025 view source Largoplazo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers120,053 edits →Sorting: new section, Would it be useful and practical to implement move request sorting comparable to deletion sorting?Tag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-protected}}
	==Archives==
			{{talkheader\|wp=yes\|noarchive=yes\|search=no\|shortcut=\|WT:RM}}
	* ]
			{{tmbox\|text='''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions given on the ]. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the ].}}
	* ]
			{{notice\|1=Please use the ''']''' process for contested move request closes.}}
	* ]
	* ]		{{central\|text=most subpages of ] that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.}}
			{{old moves
			\| list =
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''No consensus''', ]
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''Not moved''', ]
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, '''Not moved''', ]
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, '''Not moved''', ]
			}}
			<!-- {{bots\|allow=Cluebot III,MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II}} -->
			<inputbox>
			type=search
			namespaces=Talk
			break=no
			default=insource:move intitle:
			searchbuttonlabel=Search for "move"
			</inputbox>
			<inputbox>
			type=search
			namespaces=Talk
			break=no
			default=insource:"requested move" intitle:
			searchbuttonlabel=Search for "requested move"
			</inputbox>
			{{center\|Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"}}
			{{center\|Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search}}

			{{archive box\|search=yes\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|age=30\|index=/Archive index\|auto=short\|
	For the page history of any text before this time stamp please see the Archives ] 16:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			*] (2005)
			*For why RM was created, see:
			**]
			{{cot\|Archives by date\|bg=#e0d2a3\|bg2=#f8eabb}}
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			{{cob}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 225K
			\|counter = 36
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive %(counter)d
			}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Move ] to ] ==
	==Footnote regarding the correct implementation of approval voting==

			The them "]" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at ]. However, it currently redirects to ] as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about ] seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". ] (]) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	I do not think it is necessary.
	* Because if there are only two options by far the most common then the 60% rule is enough.
	* I think the wording above is very confusing. This idea that a bank proposal should be added does not make sense to me.
	* Details of how approval voting is done is coverd by the link to that page. It does not have to be duplicated possibly incorrectly on this page ] 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

			:First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. ] ] 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	Of course the footnote is necessary, while preventing people to try and steer votes like you did on ]. No offense intended, I can perfectly see this happened in good faith. Why I'm nonetheless defending correct application of the procedure as it was fixed after long, and not always easy, debate above, is that a wishy-washy application of the procedure will probably (as usual) not be able to come nearer to a solution accepted by many parties over a longer period of time. And is that not what we want most? Or is this really about trying to prove ''right'' whatever the cost? I'd really think sorry you'd lose your taste for wikipedia over that in the end, while, indeed, I'd think that the consequence of not trying to solve issues by a ''consensus'' type of approach. --] 12:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
			::Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it ''was'' the right move. ] (]) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It looks like @] performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @] if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a ] discussion in the appropriate way. ] ] 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Move ] to ] in place of redirect page ==
	== Polling for requested page move ==

			<nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''subst''':'''requested move'''\|VP-40\|reason=The current page for the modern squadron VP-40 occupies the page VP-40 (1951-Present). It should be moved to the page VP-40 to match the uniformity of other squadron pages however ]<nowiki> is currently a redirect page}}</nowiki> ] (]) 04:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:See ] for the previous discussion on this issue.

			:@]: This is because there are/were two squadrons by the name ]. So, the squadron meeting ] criteria will stay at ], the other will be disambiguated using the parentheses. You will need to present a case of why the current VP-40 is the primary topic over the older one. Then, the other editors will deliberate over it, and a conclusion will be reached. <span class="nowrap">—''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Kim Bruning edited WP:RM removing the votes line in the "Create a place for discussion" on the talk page so leaving only one section.I presume under the noble wikipedia idea ]. With only a discussion section recommended one of the first controversial pages formatted this way became confusing. See the history of ] ]

			== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
	Ohkay, if you have to, but people had added a poll that wasn't according to polling guidelines. Actually are you sure you want to normally have a poll there by default? That's kinda broken. ] 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			As part of my work at ], I review a lot of redirects, often working from the back of the queue. Pages which are turned into redirects by users who are not autopatrolled are automatically put into the queue for review, and I find a lot of cut and paste moves happening, which I of course revert and leave warnings about. These aren't just from newer users either unfortunately, and I've been thinking for a while that it could be easier to request page moves.
	In my opinion, Support-Oppose is a good guideline, rather than looser guidelines. But the wording could be changed, e.g "vote -> opinion". I'll make such example (and if you are dissatisfied, you of course reverse). ] 16:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			Which leads me to my suggestion: There should be a form, similar to those at ] (]), to make requesting the moves simpler and more straightforward. Let's face it, some people are offput by trying to use the template, and why not make life easier? I believe this would reduce the issues we have with cut and paste moves and make it easier to direct newer users to make such requests. Suggested fields would be current page title, target page title, reason for move.
	<div style="font-name:arial;background-color:#eeeeee;width:480px;margin:0px 0px 0px 10px;float:none;border:1px solid #888888;padding:10px">
	<nowiki>==Requested move==</nowiki>

			I'd also be for making requested moves easier in a similar fashion, because I do think we'd make Misplaced Pages easier to get into with more form usage, but I figure one step at a time. ] (]) 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	''<nowiki>The reasons for move copied from the entry on the ] page</nowiki>''<br>
	<nowiki>===Polling===</nowiki><br>
	<nowiki>:''Add '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' followed by an explanation of your opinion, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''</nowiki>

	<nowiki>===Discussion===</nowiki><br>
	<nowiki>:''Add any additional comments''</nowiki>
	</div>

			:Last month @] mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. ] ] 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Almost agree, I changed it above for you. The explanation must not be optional, and preferably should actually be longer than one sentence. :-) ] 16:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			::I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on ] would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. ] (]) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. ] (]) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:On ] under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at ], but the functionality is referenced at ]. —] (]) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. ''I'' don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @], I appreciate it. ] (]) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article. ==
	When we moved from having the votes on the WP:RM page to the talk page as you will see from the archive, I originally proposed a more proscriptive solution but the opinion at the time was that was too much ]. The format we have been using for about 9 months seems to have worked well in the vast majority of cases. Particluarly since the agreement to count the proposer as a vote in favour of the change and a 60% threshold (see ]), so no votes 100% consensus in favour of the move, one oppose 50/50 no consensus, One support and one oppose 2/3 so consensus to move.

			(]) I'm not sure why it is doing this, as according to WP:RSPM a bot should have a banner put at the top of the article. You can view my template in the article's talk page. Any feedback is appreciated! ] (]) 20:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	The recent change which ] are IMHO better but I am going to remove the header "===Polling===". The other header "===Cast votes===" had snuck in without me noticing when I cut and pasted back what I thought was the original. Having a header between the proposer and an "opinion/poll" section could re-open the argument that "No one has voted in the poll section for the change, so no change should take place". This would be a pity because many page moves do not attract many votes and keeping it simple has worked well for those moves over the last few months. The idea behind what was as a compromise, to keep instruction creep to a minimum, while making sure that an administrator can easily work out what the result is without opening up a can of worms. (see ] which sparked the ] section mentioned above). ] 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			:I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. ] ] 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	I had an edit clash so I will also answer the last comment by kim Bruning. Yes the comment should be optional and yes it should only be one sentence long. Take a look at a vote like ] and compare that with ] to see why. ] 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			::Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! ] (]) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. ] ] 06:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name '''at all''' as of now. ] (]) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. ] ] 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Several editors have been moving/discussing whether ] or ] is the proper page name ==
	The subtitle "polling" (or, earlier, "cast votes") should be kept, since it helps the actual editing process. With it, a voter (an "opinionator") needs not take the whole length into the edit window, when writing the vote. The size of edit window is important to many, with lesser net capacity. You have seen that the discussion portion could be '''somewhat''' full and long in certain cases. ] 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			I created this page and moved it to article space on December 2 at Influencer. It has moved to Social media influencer and back and forth since. Discussion on the talk page suggests that a consensus has not been properly achieved and that the article should be nominated properly at RM. However, I believe an admin is needed to properly restore the page to its original location before commencing a formal RM discussion. Can we get some help in relocating the page in order to commence an RM.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	We should make a convention to admins that the proposer is counted as supporter (if not explicitly stated otherwise - there are submissions where the original proposer has forgotten to list it, but an opponent or a bystander desires to have a conclusion to a "tagging"). When closing admins know it, it should not be a problem - besides, in difficult cases, proposers themselves also seem often to register a separate vote, just to be sure. ] 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			:To be clear, I just need someone to move Social media influencer back to Influencer, so that we can properly consider the page name as a RM nomination.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{resolved}}-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== When to do the actual move? ==
	I am in favor of trying to limit the main explanation - there are always people who write an "Agatha Christie" novel to give their reasons and much more else. It would be good to have main explanation of a couple of sentences, and all the else in commentaries-section. Perhaps it would be good to require at least one sentence, on the other hand. ] 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			There are two details I noticed that ] doesn't cover:
	:No the sentence should remain be optional (we don't want an arguments over "That vote does not count because you did not comment"). Fair point about the block edit. However I would suggest that it could be retrofitted (like proposals are) if the discussion starts to get large. But if we have a second header as you suggest, then we ought to have a section on WP:RM explaining that in a simple vote (only 2 options) the proposal counts as a vote. Perhaps we should have that section in the article anyway and formalise the talk page. ] 18:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			# "Write a clear, concise closing statement" explains how to write the closing statement, but not what to do with it. It should be put after the RESULT in subst:RM, not added as a comment below the discussion before the discussion is closed, right?
			# "Moving procedures" says nothing about performing the actual move itself! Presumably it be done after closing the discussion with result "Moved," not before, but noting the specific step in these instructions would be helpful.
			I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the process to update the instructions (if desired), or I'll update them later myself if no one objects. - ] (]) 02:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Good points / questions. For the first one, the reason has always traditionally been placed inside of the template. There have been some rare exceptions, but I have also noticed a new newer closers making this mistake -- but you would hope that before someone jumps in to do NAC that they are very experienced as a contributor and see what proper closes look like. To the second point, that is often but not always the case, sometimes when someone is doing a NAC they lack the permissions to actually perform the move, so what they do is close the discussion and then raise it over at ] so that an admin can just do the move without having to do the dirty work of determining consensus and closing discussions. ] ] 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== 60% ==
			::The second paragraph of {{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Closing_the_requested_move}} specifically uses {{tlxs\|RM top\|'''result of the discussion'''.}} as what to do (unless I'm misinterpreting your concern from #1). ] (]) 16:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Relisting ==
	The "rough consensus (60%)" comment is laughably incorrect. I only hope that no-one is applying it. It's such an amazingly vile violation of policy that I'm surprised that I'd not noticed it before, but then I suppose I can't go around expecting people to actually understand policy and word things correctly. :-(

			Has anyone else noticed the number of requests that have been relisted has gone up a lot these last few months. There are 116 relisted requests today. Compare that to 82 on this same day last year and 43 two years ago . ~~ ] (]) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	] ] 14:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

			:I think there is a combination of factors, including a higher number of both contentious moves, as well as a number of undiscussed requests that is triggering this. Coupled with the number of recent BADNAC as made even experienced NAC movers cautious. It's been a few years since I was an active page mover and so much has changed that I'm still only comfortable with !voting until I get all of the changes and perspectives updated in my thought process... But I might just have to jump in sooner than latter. ] ] 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I don't have time to really start the discussion now, though I do hope to come back this. However, in the mean time, would you care to list which "policies" it is a violation of? The community has long resisted defining consensus. The closest we have is the "guideline" at ], which says (among other things) that 66% is the typical minimum threshold for consensus in VFD. ] 14:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
			:I have noticed that plenty of recently backlogged RMs have no comments at all, or very few comments. While it is within policy to close such discussions, I have noticed a tendency to wait and give it another round of relisting to attempt to improve participation. Frequent relisting might also be a reason for a vicious cycle that causes too many open requests at once, reducing overall RM participation. The last systematic study about duration of open RMs was probably ] by Colin M almost 3 years ago. And situation may have declined since that time. RMCD bot's table list shows 154 RMs to be less or equal to 7 days old and 141 RMs to be open for more than 7 days. It seems that number of RMs opened has also seen a slight increase recently, and the overall number of open discussions older than 1 week has decreased, but the number of discussions open for even longer has increased quite significantly. I see that somewhat contentious discussions as old as 10-20 or more days lay idle in backlog section without a close. <span class="nowrap">—''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== How long do Uncontroversial technical requests take? ==

			I have a Uncontroversial technical move request on the ], may I ask on average how long does a uncontroversial technical move request take? ] (]) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Noting first that this was enacted about two hours after this post was made, but second that requests are usually handled with 24-48 hours. Patience is a good thing sometimes. ] (]) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yeah I understand. Just wanted to ask in case I ever need to make another one. ] (]) 10:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Sorting ==

			Would it be useful and practical to implement move request sorting comparable to deletion sorting? ] (]) 00:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:38, 13 January 2025

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until March 26, 2025 at 04:13 UTC.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:RM

NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.

Please use the Misplaced Pages:Move review process for contested move request closes.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, most subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.

This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, No consensus, 7 June 2007
RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, Not moved, 11 February 2018
RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, Not moved, 19 September 2018
RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, Not moved, 22 July 2024

Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search" Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Administrators' noticeboard/Move requests (2005)
For why RM was created, see:
- requested moves -- policy change?

Archives by date

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Move Virginia High School (Virginia) to Virginia High School

The them "Virginia High School" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at Virginia High School (disambiguation). However, it currently redirects to Virginia High School (Virginia) as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about Virginia High School (Minnesota) seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". Bernardgeorgeh (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. TiggerJay (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it was the right move. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @Nardog performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @Bernardgeorgeh if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a WP:RM discussion in the appropriate way. TiggerJay (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Move VP-40 (1951-present) to VP-40 in place of redirect page

{{subst:requested move|VP-40|reason=The current page for the modern squadron VP-40 occupies the page VP-40 (1951-Present). It should be moved to the page VP-40 to match the uniformity of other squadron pages however VP-40 is currently a redirect page}} Chilichongoes (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chilichongoes: This is because there are/were two squadrons by the name VP-40. So, the squadron meeting WP:Primary topic criteria will stay at VP-40, the other will be disambiguated using the parentheses. You will need to present a case of why the current VP-40 is the primary topic over the older one. Then, the other editors will deliberate over it, and a conclusion will be reached. —CX Zoom 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Request: Implement a form for requests at WP:RM/TR

As part of my work at NPP, I review a lot of redirects, often working from the back of the queue. Pages which are turned into redirects by users who are not autopatrolled are automatically put into the queue for review, and I find a lot of cut and paste moves happening, which I of course revert and leave warnings about. These aren't just from newer users either unfortunately, and I've been thinking for a while that it could be easier to request page moves.

Which leads me to my suggestion: There should be a form, similar to those at WP:RFPP (direct link to a form), to make requesting the moves simpler and more straightforward. Let's face it, some people are offput by trying to use the template, and why not make life easier? I believe this would reduce the issues we have with cut and paste moves and make it easier to direct newer users to make such requests. Suggested fields would be current page title, target page title, reason for move.

I'd also be for making requested moves easier in a similar fashion, because I do think we'd make Misplaced Pages easier to get into with more form usage, but I figure one step at a time. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Last month @RaschenTechner mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. TiggerJay (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on WP:RM/TR would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nohomersryan: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

On Twinkle under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Twinkle/doc, but the functionality is referenced at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_42#RM_requests. —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. – robertsky (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. I don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @Robertsky, I appreciate it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article.

(2025 New Orleans truck attack) I'm not sure why it is doing this, as according to WP:RSPM a bot should have a banner put at the top of the article. You can view my template in the article's talk page. Any feedback is appreciated! Therguy10 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. SilverLocust 💬 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! Therguy10 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. TiggerJay (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name at all as of now. Therguy10 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Several editors have been moving/discussing whether Influencer or Social media influencer is the proper page name

I created this page and moved it to article space on December 2 at Influencer. It has moved to Social media influencer and back and forth since. Discussion on the talk page suggests that a consensus has not been properly achieved and that the article should be nominated properly at RM. However, I believe an admin is needed to properly restore the page to its original location before commencing a formal RM discussion. Can we get some help in relocating the page in order to commence an RM.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I just need someone to move Social media influencer back to Influencer, so that we can properly consider the page name as a RM nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

When to do the actual move?

There are two details I noticed that Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions doesn't cover:

"Write a clear, concise closing statement" explains how to write the closing statement, but not what to do with it. It should be put after the RESULT in subst:RM, not added as a comment below the discussion before the discussion is closed, right?
"Moving procedures" says nothing about performing the actual move itself! Presumably it be done after closing the discussion with result "Moved," not before, but noting the specific step in these instructions would be helpful.

I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the process to update the instructions (if desired), or I'll update them later myself if no one objects. - Brian Kendig (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Good points / questions. For the first one, the reason has always traditionally been placed inside of the template. There have been some rare exceptions, but I have also noticed a new newer closers making this mistake -- but you would hope that before someone jumps in to do NAC that they are very experienced as a contributor and see what proper closes look like. To the second point, that is often but not always the case, sometimes when someone is doing a NAC they lack the permissions to actually perform the move, so what they do is close the discussion and then raise it over at WP:RM/TR so that an admin can just do the move without having to do the dirty work of determining consensus and closing discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Closing the requested move specifically uses {{subst:RM top|result of the discussion.}} as what to do (unless I'm misinterpreting your concern from #1). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisting

Has anyone else noticed the number of requests that have been relisted has gone up a lot these last few months. There are 116 relisted requests today. Compare that to 82 on this same day last year and 43 two years ago . ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a combination of factors, including a higher number of both contentious moves, as well as a number of undiscussed requests that is triggering this. Coupled with the number of recent BADNAC as made even experienced NAC movers cautious. It's been a few years since I was an active page mover and so much has changed that I'm still only comfortable with !voting until I get all of the changes and perspectives updated in my thought process... But I might just have to jump in sooner than latter. TiggerJay (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that plenty of recently backlogged RMs have no comments at all, or very few comments. While it is within policy to close such discussions, I have noticed a tendency to wait and give it another round of relisting to attempt to improve participation. Frequent relisting might also be a reason for a vicious cycle that causes too many open requests at once, reducing overall RM participation. The last systematic study about duration of open RMs was probably Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 34#Size of RM backlog over time by Colin M almost 3 years ago. And situation may have declined since that time. RMCD bot's table list shows 154 RMs to be less or equal to 7 days old and 141 RMs to be open for more than 7 days. It seems that number of RMs opened has also seen a slight increase recently, and the overall number of open discussions older than 1 week has decreased, but the number of discussions open for even longer has increased quite significantly. I see that somewhat contentious discussions as old as 10-20 or more days lay idle in backlog section without a close. —CX Zoom 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

How long do Uncontroversial technical requests take?

I have a Uncontroversial technical move request on the 126th Armed Police Mobile Division (People's Republic of China), may I ask on average how long does a uncontroversial technical move request take? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting first that this was enacted about two hours after this post was made, but second that requests are usually handled with 24-48 hours. Patience is a good thing sometimes. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. Just wanted to ask in case I ever need to make another one. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorting

Would it be useful and practical to implement move request sorting comparable to deletion sorting? Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)