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 16:59, 20 December 2006 view sourceGhirlandajo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,661 edits →Mess created, help needed: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:07, 10 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,657 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 36) (bot 
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 ].</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}}


== Move ] to ] ==
== Review of ] and others ==


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)
Re the 17 November 2006 requested moves as discussed at ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]


: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)
I request that the appropriateness of this closing be reviewed.
::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 ==
#] was '''already closed''' by ] after more than five days of discussion with edit summaries "(moved ] to ]: Discussion on the talkpage. Consensus that Arpad Elo is frequently referred to by the simplified English spelling in English texts, hence Misplaced Pages should follow same standard.)" and "moved '] to ]: Ditt the Arpad Elo article"
#*Sjakkalle did not dot all his i's and cross all his t's in closing the nomination, not adding the proper templates on the talk page and not dealing with the entire set of nominations.
#] improperly '''failed to consider part of discussion,''' because in discussion area Mibelz added a second level header (==, the highest level conventionally used on Misplaced Pages). It and the third level header below it were part of the discussion, but the "/div" was placed above them, so they are not included in the part identified as the closed discussion.
#] '''improperly found a lack of ]'''. See summary below.
#After closing it, and at the urging of ] , tariqubjoto moved ] previously closed by Sjakkalle to ] with the edit summary "(moved Talk:Arpad Elo to Talk:Árpád Élő: per result of requested move on talk page (page started here and so "no consensus" should default to it being here))"
#*Since this nomination was an objection to recent moves made without consensus (and without discussion either, and contrary to already long-existing discussion in the case of ] with ), '''the proper "default" should be the name prior to the moves objected to''' if there is no consensus.
#'''N.B. In order for the procedure to make multiple nominations to be reasonable and to have any purpose at all, it cannot be proper to count objections to considering them together to be objections to the individual moves.'''


<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)
According to the discussion:
*Support: Gene Nygaard (nominator), Duk, Septentrionalis, Quale, Andrewa, Masterhatch, Endroit, Croctotheface
*Oppose: Husond (but see below), Mibelz (original mover, counting him there though he doesn't explicitly say so, but could be reasonably though not necessarily implied from comments he did made , some of which was part of the discussion though not considered to be so by tariqubjoto)
*Oppose considering all together: Valentinian, Kusma, Duja
*Support Arpad Elo and similar, oppose Luděk Pachman and similar, "So we should deal it on a case-by-case basis, I think": Ioannes Pragensis


:@]: 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)
I see that as at the least
*8 support
*2 oppose
*4 consider separately


== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
The opposition by Valentinian, Kusma, and Duja was also expressly stated to be objection to lumping all of them together, and Duja at least was specific in saying "No prejudice against some moves on individual basis."


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.
For Arpad Elo, at least 9 (including Ioannes Pragensis) of the 14 editors (64%) involved supported the ] name, vs. 3 opposed (21%), a 3:1 ratio of those addressing it favoring the Arpad Elo name actually used by this 80-year-long American.


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.
], in addition to his oppose vote, specifically identified his opposition as being to certain specific moves.
Omitted from Husond's list were István Fazekas → Stefan Fazekas, Iossif Dorfman → Josif Dorfman, Lucijs Endzelins → Lucius Endzelins. Gedeon Barcza → Gideon Barcza


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)
]: "I support in some cases the English variant (Arpad Elo for example), In other cases I oppose (e.g. Luděk Pachman"


: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)
As pointed out by ] (agreed to by ] and expressed separately by me)
::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)
:"my understanding is that one editor undertook all of these moves at roughly the same time and without discussion or establishing consensus. If they are all related in that way, i'm OK with putting them back where they were before and then placing the burden on those who wanted to move them to where they are now (with diacritics) to establish a consensus for a move."
:::@]: 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. ==
] 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:I don't always agree with Gene; but I do here. I'm not sure '''no consensus''' describes the result; but its effect should be to restore them to where they were; anything else encourages move wars. ] 22:44, 24 November 2006 (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)
:I do agree with Gene; he's correct that most of the ''oppose''s, now that I look at them more closely, are in opposition to having a mass move instead of in opposition to the move, period. I'm not sure how I missed that the first time, as I thought I had noticed a couple of those ''oppose'' votes. As for not dotting ''i''s and crossing ''t''s from the previous admin... um... yes, that would have been nice: the move was still listed on ], the {{t1|move}} template was still at the top, and the {{t1|polltop}} and {{t1|pollbottom}} templates were not used. Regardless, it appears the best course of action might be to do individual move requests. About the ] article, I have no problem skipping an individual move request for that article and moving it back to the version without the accent marks (although I'm not going to do it now, because someone may object). Regarding doing what ] asked, I don't want anyone to think that I was doing that just because he requested it; if the move should have been closed as ''no consensus'' rightfully, the article did belong at the version with the accents as that was the original state of the article, as the start of the move request. -- ''']''' 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::Not to pile on but I've also seen some sloppy goings-on with move requests lately. Someone even forgot to move a talk page with the page itself recently, in addition to forgetting to remove the {{tl|move}} tag. And of course I've been reminded (ever-so-nicely I might add) to fix category re-indexing, esp. when accent marks are involved. —] (]) 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Disagree with Tariqabjotu on the close because as Gene points out, no consensus should return pages to their names before Mibelz' mass renames and Mibelz should make his arguments for each move individually. Even more importantly I am very disappointed that he chose to ignore ] when rerenaming ]. As repeatedly pointed out, there are no ] sources supporting the Árpád Élő name so the page belongs at Arpad Elo, where I believe it was before he moved it at Husond's request. Add ] ("If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.") to the ] problems, and this is beyond ridiculous. Admins refusing to follow established policy and guidelines make trying to improve Misplaced Pages an endurance contest against POV-pushers rather than an enjoyable activity. ] 04:23, 26 November 2006 (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)
:::All I'll say is that when I close a move request, I evaluate consensus (or lack thereof) and act accordingly, even if that consensus is contrary to my opinion or a policy or guideline (see ] for a classic example). Now, in regards to this move, I feel this whole discussion has been blown out of proportion; as I said upfront, I admit I made a mistake &ndash; no one is perfect. Gene could have just pointed out the mistake on my talk page, much in the same way Husond did, instead of making it look like I had sinister motives. Quale, there is no need to pile on accusations of transgressions because it's not going to do anything. -- ''']''' 13:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! ] (]) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't accuse you of having a sinister motive, just of doing a lousy job. Often following consensus ''against'' policy is a mistake, and following supposed ''lack of consensus'' against policy is, in my opinion, a really bad idea. ] 17:13, 26 November 2006 (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 ==
:::::I don't think it was a ''lousy job'', although I know what you mean. There are some underlying logical problems with Misplaced Pages policy here - most of which I don't think we'll fix in a hurry. They may not even be fixable. ''What can't be cured must be endured'', as one wild boar said to another in '']''.


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)
:::::My immediate question is, the result needs more attention so how do we fix it? Having done that, we can then look at how we could do better next time... without recriminations or blame. I'm doing this for ]. ] 20:08, 26 November 2006 (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 also noted this closure with some concern, but had not decided just how to proceed. As noted above I voted to move all the articles back to their previous names, without the diacritics, and I believe that we probably had consensus to do this. Be that as it may, we certainly had consensus to move ] back. ] 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


There are two details I noticed that ] doesn't cover:
I should also note, I think the presence of the diacritics in the titles, while still a hot topic in general, is fairly clearly contrary to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in '''all''' these instances. ] 20:08, 26 November 2006 (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. ]&thinsp;] 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to Tariq for reversing his decision on the Arpad Elo article and moving it back. Like I said in the close when I made the move, I felt there was sufficient consensus and arguments for keeping ''that'' article to the title with the simplified spelling based on the arguments that Elo had spent all his adult life in the United States and not Hungary. I think I also mentioned that this was not to be used as a precedent for the other articles listed in the same request, so I deliberately abstained from taking any action on ''those''. I saw there were several "opposes" on the straw poll, but many of them were opposes to mass moves rather than a move of Arpad Elo. ] ] 07:14, 27 November 2006 (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)


== Relisting ==
Thanks Tariq. I made the request here, then spent the weekend without my internet connection working, have it back again now. ] 14:28, 29 November 2006 (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)
== Incomplete requests (2) ==


: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)
I see this has been covered above under ], but I'd like to bring it up again. When we receive incomplete requests, either because they used the {{tl|WP:RM}} template instead of the {{tl|WP:RM2}} template, or because they failed to set up the discussion on a page, do you all think it would be reasonable to reject the request? It's extremely hard to sift through opinions, and it certainly seems people are less willing to give our opinion (I know I am one). I am even ready to take the extraordinary step of stating at the top (''if your request is not finished, it may be removed as incomplete'') or something like that. I know it's not a vote, but the request headers are set up the way they are for a reason. Thoughts? -]<sup>]]</sup> 10:50, 30 November 2006 (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)


== How long do Uncontroversial technical requests take? ==
:I agree; my opinion is that the admins managing the RM have more than enough job to be able to monitor whether the RMs were properly filled in. The procedure for setting up the RM debate is simple enough that it takes only a bit of basic RTFM and minimal effort for the interested editor. If the user doesn't care about the subject enough to spend 5 minutes to do the job properly, ] For my part, I routinely remove the malformed requests from the backlog. ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 10:25, 5 December 2006 (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)
== How to report non-consensus controversial moves ==
: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)
I've got a situation where a group of editors are carrying out hundreds of controversial page moves, even though a ] is clearly in dispute, and there's an upcoming mediation. What is the proper venue to report these moves, so that articles can be restored to original names, or a "freeze" can be put on things until consensus is established? Should I take this to ], or is there a better venue? --] 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:Your characterization of the situation is misleading. Support of the guideline as it stands has been broad with only a handful of people dissenting. The default position is that the guideline should not be changed until the consensus changes. While a case could be made that a "true" consensus to keep the guideline has not yet emerged (though I and others believe it has), there is certainly no consensus to change it to support Elonka's position. Further, the upcoming mediation is only tangentially related to the specific naming issues and may not result in a decision on that matter directly.

:The moves pertaining to Lost specifically were ratified by consensus at a ] which received a full debate. Other WikiProjects which had an previously established consensus to use the dab tags (] and ]) have been allowed to keep them in the short term. Minor series without a WikiProject or many active editors were moved unilaterally under the assumption that if move requests were held, the previous consensus evidenced by the Lost vote and discussion at ] would prevail. Since dozens of moves were involved, it would be a waste of everyone's time to hold a vote for each one. There has been no disruption as far as I am aware and no one, other the original dissenters at the guideline level, has protested. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Anþony is incorrect. There is considerable dispute about the moves, involving objections from multiple editors. The guideline page at ] has been the subject of edit wars, and is currently clearly labeled as disputed. A few editors continue to insist that they have consensus, and are moving forward with hundreds of moves. I have been choosing not to engage in move wars with them, since I know that anything that's moved, can be moved back once the situation is resolved, but the longer this goes on, the more pages that are being moved (if allowed to continue unchecked, this will affect thousands of pages), which will take considerable damage control to reverse, so it's better to just stop the moves before they happen in the first place. An admin's assistance is requested. --] 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::As an aside, at least five administrators have already examined and/or participated in the discussion at ], and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline (which Elonka opposes). For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq, Steve Block, Radiant! and wknight94<small>(along with many other comments on the subject)</small>. This debate is not exactly unobserved by administrators. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Even if the guideline were changed the way you propose, reasonable exceptions would need to be agreed on for any given set of pages. Removing the unnecessary disambiguation would still be an acceptable course of action until such exceptions are agreed on. —] (]) 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::You say I'm incorrect, but provided nothing that contradicts anything I said. I do not deny that there is dispute, but I maintain that it is due to a minority group that has not come close to achieving consensus in their favor. Being in dispute does not negate the application of the guideline, otherwise we couldn't ] either. In the case of the Lost moves, we do not ''claim'' that we have consensus, we have evidence of it in the form of a successful ]. We ''could'' do a RM for every one of these hundreds of moves, but there's no reason to think they wouldn't succeed as well. If you disagree, I invite you to post a RM for an example article and prove me wrong. Vague charges of non-consensus and thinly-veiled threats on the other hand are not helpful. As far as admins go, four (or is it five?) of them have been directly involved in this debate and expressed no objections to the process being used to move articles. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::: Since both of you are already a party to this dispute, you're hardly neutral in this matter. I repeat: All page moves of this type should stop, until the dispute is resolved. --] 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::And I repeat: Being in dispute does not negate the application of the guideline. I fail to see why your statement trumps mine, as you are hardly neutral yourself. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 03:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Can one of the "Move Admins/Closers" look at this? ==
An anon user put up a merge tag on ] back on Nov 21st but didn't complete the process with a request here. On the talk page, we have established users opposing the move with a few anons (potentially SPA or even duplicate users) voicing POV-based support. Considering the length of time, it seems like the request should be "closed" but since it was incomplete, did it really even start and thus need to be listed? ] 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Merges are handled less formally than moves and not here in any event. ] is a place to optionally advertise a proposed merge. ] outlines the steps involved with suggesting a merge, but basically all you have to do is come to a consensus on the talk page. It seems the discussion has gone on long enough with enough participation. As an uninvolved party, I've closed the debate with the result of no consensus. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Timeliness of RM notifications ==

Yesterday I put up a RM for seventeen pages. I put up the talk notice first, followed by the post here at RM three minutes later, then the first proposed move notice on an individual page three minutes later (a total of six minutes after the inital RM post). Although I had edit windows of all pages open before starting the move, it still took a few minutes (less than 20 minutes total) to complete all of them, particluarly since I was double checking and verifying wikilinks. One user is now continuing to complain that I failed to post notification, particularly on one article where he got there before I did (three minutes after my first RM post) and insists that he had to post notification himself since in his opinion, I had failed to do so. Is there a reasonable timeframe in which the multiple posts of an RM (particularly one of multiple articles) should be completed? --] 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:(as the editor refered to as "one user") - Notify prior to "opening the polls", especially in such a controversially and hotly disputed situation (see the talk page of ]) - You have all the time in the word to add the needed notification, as a sign of good faith to show that the poll (since when was it a poll anyway?) is indeed legitimate, especially as the opening to this page reads "Do not discuss moves on this page. '''Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved.'''" <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Matthew, thanks for sharing your side of the story. I'd appreciate input from RM regulars on this, thanks. --] 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Moves via copy/paste instead of using the move feature ==

I have come across a situation where a user is using copy/paste to switch an article and redirect instead of actually moving either page. I've warned him/her and reverted, but they did it again. Any recommendations on how to handle this? I assume you're not supposed to do moves that way, although ] doesn't explicitly say you shouldn't. Moves are here: . --] 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:If they continue to do it after they have been clearly told how to properly move a page, they should be blocked for disruption. Cut and paste moves are substantial burden because they need to be fixed by ], and can also be a copyright problem with the GFDL. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

==What happens when a consensus has been reached?==
What happens to my requested move when several days have passed and a consensus has been reached? Do I just wait for a bored admin to come and do the move? I think this should also be documented on this article so that users will always know what to do or what to expect. -- ] 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Personally I find acting as an admin anything but boring! But remember we're all volunteers here. Sometimes there is a bit of a backlog. Please don't blame the admins for this, that's just likely to discourage some of the ''requested moves'' team, and then the rest of us will then be even busier, and the backlog will increase.

:I think you're probably referring to the current ] move. Yes, we do seem to have consensus IMO.

:As to better documentation, suggestions and contributions are welcome. Good to talk here before doing anything too radical. And beware of ].

:In my experience, many problems are caused (and a lot of my time <s>wasted</s> utilised) because people haven't read what we already have. If discussions could be kept to ''discussion'' sections (not the ''requested moves'' page itself or the ''survey'' section) that would be a big help for one thing. And that's already clearly documented.

:And when these directions aren't followed, it doesn't need to be an admin who sorts it out, but it nearly always is. So another thing you could do is to fix things that don't need sysop powers, so those who do have them will have more time to use them. ] 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

==Mess created, help needed==
] has been moved and forked into ] and ]. History is now disrupted, ]s exist (even two possibly) and ] may be going on. The move was controversial in the first place; the issue is disscussed at ] and soon likely in other places. As I am somewhat involved in the discussion, I'd appreciate if a more experienced 'move handler' could step in and clean the mess as much as possible (hopefully reverting all moves, merging forks and starting a proper RM).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:Piotrus, your previous attempts to escalate the anti-Ghirlandajo crusade are being discussed on ]. Please keep the discussion in one place. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:07, 10 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.

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)