Misplaced Pages

talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:57, 7 April 2009 view sourcePiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers286,167 edits →Rationale for votes← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:09, 8 January 2025 view source TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers400,998 edits →Several editors have been moving/discussing whether Influencer or Social media influencer is the proper page name: resolved 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no|shortcut=|WT:RM}}
|-
|<big>'''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions at ].</big> {{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|
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
*] (2005)
|-
*For why RM was created, see:
!align="center"|]<br/>]
**]
----
{{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}}


== Best way to handle a complicated move? ==
== Proposing move for multiple articles ==


I need help with something, if you don't mind. I came across a weird situation with ] and ]. The original list has been pretty static for a long time, and the sorted list is fuller, better cited, and better maintained. I proposed merging them and have ], but it's not really a merge, because other than a couple of citations that needed to be copied over (which I've already done), all of the content will come from the sorted list. So it seems counter-productive to copy and paste it over the original list--the history should be with the content. How is this sort of thing handled? Move the original list to a subpage to preserve ''it's'' history, maybe, and then move the sorted list to ]? Thanks! ] 02:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The instructions on this page for proposing moves to multiple pages are extremely unclear about what the user is supposed to do with that chunk of code, if it's supposed to be combined with the template that is otherwise used to list requested moves, and if it is supposed to be combined, how to do so. Just copying that code and using it instead of the template results in a request that looks strange and wrong compared to the other requests listed. At the very least, if that IS what is supposed to be done and what the request is supposed to look like, it would seem that the page titles listed for moving could be bolded.
:Redirect the former page to the latter, tag it with {{t|r from merge}} and {{t|r with history}}, make sure to add all of the appropriate talk page attribution templates (e.g. {{t|merged from}}) and call it a day. Just because there isn't actually any text being merged doesn't mean that the pages can't be merged. ] (]) 11:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::And if you want ] to go to ] after the merge, a ] will be required, which can be performed by a page mover or administrator. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 17:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:You'd have to be more specific as to what you mean by "strange and wrong". ] (]) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Is that better than using the templates to point to the history? I have now completed the merge, so right the history of what is now ] is at ], which is a redirect. ] 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::''sigh'' you did exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting, though in fairness my statements were based on the (sorted) version being the final target. I have sorted everything out though. ] (]) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry! I misunderstood. But thank you for fixing it! I think having one list instead of two will be a lot clearer to readers. ] 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No worries, I should have been clearer and it was a fairly simple fix. ] (]) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs ==
== Help ==


It looks like a potentially inexperienced user (@]) has tried to help with closing RMs today and and then brought , which shone light on it.
For Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we have 2 pages, one with (film) and one with (films). I want to move (films) to (film), however, since it was moved already and the pge is already created, it will not let me do it. How can I move this now?] (]) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Their ] appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at .


:The answer is, make a move request. (But don't, because you already did, and it's under consideration.) --] (]) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sure the editor means well to help, but it might require someone reviewing all of them and potentially vacating the RM closes. ] (]) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


:It looks like there are also a lot of closes that ''weren't'' contested and none have ended up at ]. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the standard procedures if discussion participants have issues. Feeglgeef definitely needs more practice writing close rationales, but I don't think a public flogging here will be productive. ] </span>]] 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== Help text ==
:I was surprised by the close as well, as there was only overwhelming consensus for only one of the two moves. My guess is that perhaps in their inexperience conflated partial consensus for full consensus, but it wasn't anything that was really going to concern me until I saw his talk page with multiple other people talking about other closing actions. Admittedly I remember when I first began doing NAC closures back in the beginning and not quite getting it right, perhaps some simple coaching if they're open to it is all that's needed. ]&thinsp;] 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I have been informed that ] should not be used for pages that do not already exist and not for discussing new article creation. Would it be appropriate to add to Step 3 of "]" the text 'Do not add the page to the "Other proposals" list if the page to be moved is located in your userspace and the destination does not yet exist'?--] (]) 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell (based on the anon editor's comment on your talk page) the issue is not that the move requires moving an article from your userspace to the namespace, but whether the article would survive AfD in the namespace. WP:RM is not really the place for that discussion, since it's essentially a content issue, not an article naming issue. Raising the question at the Heroes talk page would probably be a good start towards determining if the article meets notability guidelines. ] (]) 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for clarifying. I've already posted at the Heroes talk page. To limit others making the same mistake, I think it might be good to clarify the help text then by adding to Step 3: 'Do not add a move to the "Other proposals" list if there are only content issues with the article. The list is for articles having issues regarding their names.'--] (]) 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
::I've just added the above note to step 3. Please clarify it if necessary. Thanks.--] (]) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:::JPG-GR has reverted your edit, and I agree with him: this is not something that comes up often (this is the first time I've seen it). If other editors come along with the same misconception, then it would be worth it to change the instructions; until then, it's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis.--] (]) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Understood. If it later decided to change the instructions, it might also be worth noting that for such cases, the move template is not appropriate either. The use of the move template was also removed from my userpage since the request was no longer posted at WP:RM.--] (]) 06:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


== Move ] to ] ==
==Double redirects==
You may have noticed a recent change in the software under which double redirects now display both pages in the format ] Name ] Name. This is also a functional change essentially eliminating the problem with double redirects; if A → B and B → C, clicking on A will now take one directly to C. Note that this change does not propagate past doubles—triple redirects and higher are not "fixed". Policy, guideline and instruction pages have not yet been updated to reflect the changes but things are coming down the pike on this, and I thought a heads up for regulars was appropriate.--] (]) 12:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


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)
== Diacritics ==


: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. ]&thinsp;] 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It is becoming clear to me that RM has lost the capability to find any consensus on moves to add or remove diacritcs from article titles. I don't think we are making any progress through having three to five of our most reliable commenters make the same arguments over and over again every day. I know there were efforts long ago to develop a standard guideline for the treatment of diacritics, and that they failed, but we need some sort of a centralized discussion to take the place of these helpless !votes.
::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. ]&thinsp;] 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== Move ] to ] in place of redirect page ==
In the meantime, while I know it's better not to create any new cabals, I propose that we institute an informal corollary to ], agreeing to oppose all move requests based on diacritics until we can come up with a working system for dealing with them. It wouldn't work, of course, unless both Pmanderson and Húsönd were to sign on.


<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)
''Some'' of our naming conventions are very good. We have a clear system for treating things with strange mixed caps. We have a clear system for the treatment of company names and products. We have clear systems set up for how to disambiguate between soccer players with the same name, movies with the same title, etc. Can't we figure out something to do with diacritics that doesn't raise anyone's blood pressure? ]<small>]</small> 14:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


:@]: 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">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:The larger problem, as I see it, isn't strictly "diacritics vs. not diacritics", but the pursuit of the most accuracy vs. common names. This doesn't just impact Slavic articles; the numerous plant-related move requests we've had recently (such as ]/Joshua tree) are essentially the same issue. There are those who favor using common names/spellings, and those who favor the most "correct". Until that issue is resolved, I don't think any progress can be made in the specific areas this larger issue affects. As far as I can tell (or at least based on my interpretation), the naming conventions, particularly ], favor the former approach (to use common names), yet we have most plant names at their scientific names (even when they have a well-known common name, like the Joshua tree example). Most Slavic-related articles are with diacritics (with the exception of a handful, like ]), despite the fact that the vast majority of English-language sources don't use them. Essentially, we have naming conventions that specify one thing, but everyone does the exact opposite. The question is, do we change the naming conventions to reflect reality, or do we rename the pages that don't comply with the conventions? ] (]) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
:I don't think that I embody the whole pro-diacritics battlefront in my single person, to the point that if both me and Pmanderson would agree to back off then the war would be over. The war will continue to exist, because there will always be people like me who view this issue as accuracy versus "dumb-it-down", while others like Pmanderson view it as common usage versus "make-it-look-like-Chinese". So basically Parsec is right, it does come down to accuracy vs. common usage, and one's position on this matter will change dramatically depending on what one considers more important for this encyclopedia. It doesn't mean that either me or Pmanderson is right and the other wrong, we just see things very differently. And by all means no, it's not just the two of us who will be fighting forever. This has always been a major source of disputes on Misplaced Pages (and certainly some of the weirdest)~, and always will. I can foresee no practical compromise, as both sides disagree on the essential. The only workable solution is to keep a more or less stable equilibrium, where none of the sides tries to impose a policy or guideline on the other, and no user tries to enforce his or her views unilaterally. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:56, 16 March 2009 (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.
::Húsönd is right; there isn't a compromise here, as the two positions are mutually exclusive and there really isn't a gray area in between them. The only real options here are to go forward with a massive Wiki-wide discussion (it won't be much fun to keep up with the hundreds of thousands of kbs of text that will be posted, and a strong consensus one way or the other is highly unlikely) or to basically sweep the larger issue under the rug and continue to argue over individual articles (which is a waste of time, in my opinion). So we're essentially at an impasse. ] (]) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (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.
:::"Essentially, we have naming conventions that specify one thing, but everyone does the exact opposite." No, most editors for most articles follow the naming conventions. There is no reason why we should not use verifiable reliable sources in English to determine the name of articles. "Parsec is right, it does come down to accuracy vs. common usage," How do you know what is "accurate" if you do not use reliable sources in English to determine what the name is in English? --] (]) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


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)
::::Well, as far as I know, the vast majority of Slavic and Icelandic names (the two most recent major diacritics move requests&mdash;Novak Djokovic and Teitur Thordarson) use diacritics. The most common argument from those who favor retaining them is "every other article uses diacritics, why is this one being singled out?" The issue is not "what is common in English usage vs. what is correct in English usage", it's "what's common in English usage vs. what is correct ''period''". The latter argument holds that Novak's name ''correctly'' transliterated into the Latin script is indeed "Đoković", and that common usage is largely irrelevant. Again, unless someone wants to start a wiki-wide discussion in the hopes that it would result in a clear consensus, I don't see this as being a resolvable issue. Personally, I don't think such a discussion would result in anything defining, and would therefore not be worth the time it would take away from writing/improving articles&mdash;you know, the more important thing. ] (]) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


: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. ]&thinsp;] 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Non-admins ==
::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. ==
Some of the moves requested here look like they can be done by non-admins fairly easily; is it okay for someone like myself to make the move and remove it from this list, or add it to the controversial moves section? -–] (] • ]) 14:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


:Yes, it's perfectly fine for non-admins to work here. JPG-GR more or less ran the page for a significant period of time before he finally got the bit. ] (]) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (]) 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)
::Okay; just wanted to make sure. -–] (] • ]) 14:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::: You can do any moves except those that require admin tools: deletion of a redirect, moving a large number of subpages or history merge. ] (]) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Okay; and maybe with some moves that do need deletion I could just use {{tl|db-move}}, so that it gets done faster? Or should I just wait until an admin comes through this page? –] (] • ]) 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My personal preference would be to leave it for an admin, so that it gets done in one step. There are, I believe, about four admins who come by now and again. ] (]) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


:Using {{tl|db-move}} is perfectly fine (it's why the template exists, after all). Again, that's how JPG-GR got things done here for a long time. ] (]) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (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. ]&nbsp;] 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Okay; thanks. –] (] • ]) 02:00, 6 March 2009 (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. ]&thinsp;] 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. ]&thinsp;] 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Several editors have been moving/discussing whether ] or ] is the proper page name ==
== Review of ] ==


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)
{{admin|Aervanath}} closed this move proposal as "move", clearly against consensus as arguments provided by the opposition were simply disregarded. Questioned about his rationale, ]. The move of "Teitur Þórðarson" to current "]" not only was clearly non-consensual, as it is not concurred by many articles we have throughout Misplaced Pages that have titles that use every single letter contained in the previous title (e.g. ], ], etc). And which, let's not dispute, was in the Latin alphabet. Furthermore, by moving to "Teitur Thordarson", Aervanath not only eliminated the letter thorn (Þ), as also the letters "ó" and "ð", usage of which is even more widespread throughout Misplaced Pages; and more accurate. In fact, in the discussion one user expressed concerns that, should the thorn be eliminated, the other diacritics should by all means remain. Aervanath ignored this and closed the proposal as move. I request his closure to be reviewed and overturned. Thank you, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:38, 16 March 2009 (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)
: To be fair, I, the user Husond refers to, don't really mind the eth being replaced by a d. He/she is correct, though about how everyone has ignored my arguments as to why even if the thorn and eth are changed, the o-acute should remain. Regardless of whether thorn and eth are part of the Latin alphabet, or the English alphabet, or are generally recognizable to English speakers, the o-acute is a modified o, which is part of the Latin alphabet generally and the English alphabet in particular, and is recognizable as a modified o rather than as a funny Druidic or Viking thingy. No one involved in the move and the debate over it has offered a reason, let alone a convincing one, for the o-acute to be changed to an unmodified o.--] (]) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
{{resolved}}-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to add that only two users, out of five who didn't remain neutral, supported this proposal. This is not even a ], let alone a ] that is necessary to form consensus. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


== When to do the actual move? ==
:Of the 5 editors who commented one way or the other, two supported, two opposed, and one proposed dropping the eth and thorn but retain the "ó". From a straight head-count, the result would be no-consensus, but the evidence presented also needs to be considered. Those who favored the move provided a number of reliable sources that support the transliterated name. The single source found by Húsönd turned out to be a Misplaced Pages-mirror. In cases where there appears to be no strong consensus either way, evidence of wider English-language usage can tip the scale. ] (]) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::Going back and reviewing the discussion, I saw the same thing that Parsecboy just pointed out: the only source that used the original spelling was a Misplaced Pages mirror; all other sources use "Thordarson", with no special characters at all, not even diacritics. So, according to ], my decision should be upheld, even if consensus does ultimately hold that "thorn" and "eth" are English characters after all. But that's a discussion for another day and another page.--] (]) 07:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


There are two details I noticed that ] doesn't cover:
:::That was not the reason you pointed out when questioned about the closure of the proposal, clearly indicating that it was not your rationale upon deciding to move. The rationale you presented, as per the discussion on your talk page, was that the letter thorn "was not in the Latin alphabet". Now gripping on the common name argument presented above (which would definitely be better explored in the discussion if you hadn't closed it) and treating it as if it had been the motive behind your closure is not the least convincing. You closed the discussion in err, and now are trying to justify it with a rationale that you did not use. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 07:44, 18 March 2009 (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?
::::I am going to copy this conversation onto the talk page of the article as it seems to be article specific. Please carry on the thread there. --] (]) 11:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
# "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. ]&thinsp;] 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It is not just article-specific, it is wider-feedback-needed-specific. That's why the discussion should occur here and not on the article's talk page where it would have virtually no effect. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::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)
::::::Husond is right that this is a discussion that should occur here, since he's asking for a review of my closure by other editors, not just a new discussion.--] (]) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
*After some thought, I can see Husond's point. While I think the '''result''' of my decision was the correct one, based on ], that wasn't the rationale I initially judged the discussion on, and I can see that switching rationales when challenged could seem somewhat shifty. Therefore, I'll re-open the discussion there, and we can continue the move discussion so that a discussion can take place about how ] applies to the move decision. I still think the use of non-standard English letters should be discouraged, but that's a separate argument that should take place on the article talk page, as well as the talk page of ].--] (]) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
::"non-standard English letters should be discouraged" I don't think so. Their usage should neither be discouraged or encouraged, we should follow the usage in reliable English language sources. Just like we do for ]. --] (]) 11:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


== Relisting ==
:::I applaud and commend Aervanath on his decision. Such decisions are sadly not as frequent as they should be. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


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)
::::By the way, if the discussion was reopened, shouldn't the article be moved back to ] until a final decision is made by another closing admin? <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Keep it where it is, and if the final judgment is "no consensus", then move it back by default.--] (]) 12:17, 21 March 2009 (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. ]&thinsp;] 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Disputed. If the closure of the discussion was undone, it is imperative that the resulting action be undone as well (doesn't make any sense otherwise for a move proposal if the proposed title is already in place, which often makes it ''de facto'' effective). I'll move it back to ], it won't be wheel warring as the closing admin revoked his own decision. If the next closing admin decides to move the article, then he/she is free to move to Thordarson again. Last but least, the discussion was reopened but not listed at ] as it should have, so how are other users supposed to know that there is an ongoing discussion? I'll list it back. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 16:32, 21 March 2009 (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">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's fine.--] (]) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


== How long do Uncontroversial technical requests take? ==
::::::::Heh, I know I'm a pain. Somehow I actually have friends in real life. :-) <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::*grin* ] ]--] (]) 03:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


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)
== Backlog subsections ==
: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)
Unless you are on a 300 baud modem, breaking down the backlog into sections would seem to just cause confusion - like does multiple mean it has been proposed more than once? I would recommend just keeping the backlog in one section. Just indenting the ones that are included works fine. ] (]) 16:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:I don't really see a need for it either. ] (]) 16:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed. ] (]) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Heh. I had removed them without even seeing this thread. I was under the assumption that it was a temporary thing, just because there were a couple different multiple noms active at the time; once I closed them, I deleted the subsections. Looks like I wasn't the only one who saw no need for them.--] (]) 08:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

== Review of ] to ] move ==

Review request of unilateral undiscussed move of ] to ] move . The move has never gained consensus in subsequent discussions. See previous discussion at ].

I am requesting a move back to ] or at least a cleansing of its edit history so I can do it myself per ]. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:don't you think that after two additional RMs have been made and failed, this is a bit too late? ] (]) 06:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

== Rationale for votes ==
How valid is ? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:I think, if I were to guess, it's a ] concern; i.e., his concern is probably that the vote there is going by nationality block voting, Polish editors vs. Lithuanian editors (+ a few international editors), and that there's simply many more Polish editors. So simply the larger number of voters will ensure victory, irrespsective of the arguments (or quality of the song in Eurovision). Does that make sense? :) ] (<small>]</small>) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::In don't care particularly which conspiracy theory a person may follow; I am asking if such theories, leading a user to vote with no concern to content, but with concern to who has voted how previously in a RM vote, represent a valid rationale for RM votes. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:09, 8 January 2025

Page semi-protectedEditing 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.
Shortcut
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
Archiving icon
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
Archives by date
  1. Oct 2004 – Jan 2005
  2. Jan 2005 – Feb 2005
  3. Feb 2005 – Mar 2005
  4. Mar 2005 – Aug 2005
  5. Aug 2005 – Dec 2005
  6. Dec 2005 – Jun 2006
  7. Jun 2006 – Sep 2006
  8. Sep 2006 – Feb 2007
  9. Feb 2007 – May 2007
  10. May 2007 – Nov 2007
  11. Nov 2007 – May 2008
  12. Jun 2008 – Oct 2008
  13. Nov 2008 – Jan 2009
  14. Jan 2009
  15. Jan 2009 – Jun 2009
  16. Jun 2009 – Oct 2009
  17. Oct 2009 – Jun 2010
  18. Jun 2010 – Oct 2010
  19. Oct 2010 – Jan 2011
  20. Jan 2011 – Sep 2011
  21. Sep 2011 – Jan 2012
  22. Jan 2012 – Apr 2012
  23. Apr 2012 – Aug 2012
  24. Aug 2012 – Dec 2012
  25. Dec 2012 – Dec 2013
  26. Dec 2013 – Nov 2014
  27. Nov 2014 – Apr 2015
  28. Apr 2015 – Jun 2016
  29. Jun 2016 – May 2017
  30. May 2017 – Mar 2018
  31. Mar 2018 – May 2019
  32. May 2019 – Jun 2020
  33. May 2020 – Mar 2022
  34. Mar 2022 – Jan 2023
  35. Jan 2023 – Jun 2024
  36. Jul 2024 –

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

Best way to handle a complicated move?

I need help with something, if you don't mind. I came across a weird situation with List of mandolinists and List of mandolinists (sorted). The original list has been pretty static for a long time, and the sorted list is fuller, better cited, and better maintained. I proposed merging them and have heard no objections, but it's not really a merge, because other than a couple of citations that needed to be copied over (which I've already done), all of the content will come from the sorted list. So it seems counter-productive to copy and paste it over the original list--the history should be with the content. How is this sort of thing handled? Move the original list to a subpage to preserve it's history, maybe, and then move the sorted list to List of mandolinists? Thanks! blameless 02:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect the former page to the latter, tag it with {{r from merge}} and {{r with history}}, make sure to add all of the appropriate talk page attribution templates (e.g. {{merged from}}) and call it a day. Just because there isn't actually any text being merged doesn't mean that the pages can't be merged. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
And if you want List of mandolinists (sorted) to go to List of mandolinists after the merge, a WP:PAGESWAP will be required, which can be performed by a page mover or administrator. —CX Zoom 17:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Is that better than using the templates to point to the history? I have now completed the merge, so right the history of what is now List of mandolinists is at List of mandolinists (sorted), which is a redirect. blameless 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
sigh you did exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting, though in fairness my statements were based on the (sorted) version being the final target. I have sorted everything out though. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry! I misunderstood. But thank you for fixing it! I think having one list instead of two will be a lot clearer to readers. blameless 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I should have been clearer and it was a fairly simple fix. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs

It looks like a potentially inexperienced user (@Feeglgeef) has tried to help with closing RMs today and has closed several RM discussions today and then brought some to RMTR, which shone light on it. Their User talk page appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at RMTR.

I'm sure the editor means well to help, but it might require someone reviewing all of them and potentially vacating the RM closes. Raladic (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there are also a lot of closes that weren't contested and none have ended up at Move review. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the standard procedures if discussion participants have issues. Feeglgeef definitely needs more practice writing close rationales, but I don't think a public flogging here will be productive. Toadspike 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I was surprised by the close as well, as there was only overwhelming consensus for only one of the two moves. My guess is that perhaps in their inexperience conflated partial consensus for full consensus, but it wasn't anything that was really going to concern me until I saw his talk page with multiple other people talking about other closing actions. Admittedly I remember when I first began doing NAC closures back in the beginning and not quite getting it right, perhaps some simple coaching if they're open to it is all that's needed. TiggerJay (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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:

  1. "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?
  2. "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)