Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Amhara genocide - time for a close?

Keeping in mind that I'm the proposer, the best arguments from all sides seem to have been presented at Talk:Amhara genocide#Requested move 13 January 2023, with quite a bit of constructive engagement; now discussion has petered out (no more comments since 5 days ago). Seems time for someone uninvolved and familiar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines to consider a close. Whatever the decision is, a close would stop more energy going into the title debate. Not a trivial close: there's quite a bit of discussion to read. Boud (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

hatnote

@Eejit43: The problem with that hatnote is that when we hit the "clear all" button, the hatnote will get wiped away. I don't know how to update the button. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Already updated ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

For future references though @UtherSRG it is found at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Instructions ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah... based on the oldid! Got it. Ok. Now I can make the other corrections I want, such as removing spaces from between the sections headers and the hatnotes.... And correct your typo. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoops- thanks for catching that!! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

YW! And OMG... that finally clears that OCD itch! :D - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Move JVMoneyMan:/sandbox to Cobra Maltase

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

 Proposal out of scope

I have created a sandbox for the rapper Cobra Maltase with the sandbox of JVMoneyMan and saw that people have the "Move" section on their sandbox and I don't have the Move section, I'm not blocked from editing and this account has been around for almost 2 months. I have added all the credible sources required from popular news publications. I want to move Cobra Maltase to an Article because James Antonio Vasquez (born June 7, 2005), known by his stage name Cobra Maltase (pronounced "Cobra Maal·tays) is an American rapper, songwriter and record producer from Brooklyn, New York JVMoneyMan (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't why you don't have a "move" button, but since the current page in your sandbox doesn't demonstrate the notability of the subject, it would be deleted or draftified if moved to the title you requested. (Actually, there are not any sources cited on the current page.) You may be able to get more feedback or information at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Further, your username indicates that you may be associated with the topic of the article, in which case I suggest that you take a look at WP:YOURSELF. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

the notability of the subject is rapping, hip hop music and trap music JVMoneyMan (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It has References and Categories JVMoneyMan (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but Instagram, Spotify & Apple Music aren't considered as encyclopedic references, alongside IMDB, etc. or any user-generated content like blogs. News media (website, magazines, newspapers), reputable journals, or research books count towards encyclopedic references. Further, sources you cite should be reliable & preferably a secondary source. Secondly, any article about any person should meet the minimum criteria set at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I know that IG, Spotify, and Apple Music are not encyclopedic references but how do I fix it correctly? JVMoneyMan (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NMUSIC for the notability requirements for musicians. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is the article keep getting deleted? JVMoneyMan (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The article had notability. JVMoneyMan (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am going to close this section, since it is not really a discussion about moves at this point, but rather about article creation and deletion. If you have basic questions about using Wikipedia and are interested in working on other topics in addition to the one you've been writing about, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Teahouse. You have also been pointed to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but at this point I think it's necessary to state clearly that there is no evidence the topic meets the criteria for inclusion listed at WP:MUSICBIO, so it should not be moved to the main article space again. This is not a question of adding simply references, but instead of waiting for acceptable references to be produced by reliable, independent, published sources. Since there are none of those yet, I hope that you will find other topics you want to work on in Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 06:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to Draft space

Please can somebody add some information about how to request that a newly created article be moved to Draft space — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@GhostInTheMachine, you can move it yourself, suppress redirect if you're a page mover, or tag the mainspace redirect as CSD R2 after moving with redirect. No requests needed. See WP:DRAFTIFY for more info. Silikonz💬 17:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

RM/TR "at the top"

What is the reasoning behind having new requests be listed at the top? I've found this isn't often followed and just serves to be confusing. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Eejit43, I agree that this seems illogical. If it's not too disruptive I might even make a bold change. Silikonz💬 01:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silikonz go ahead! It has always confused me and I see no reason to do so. I'll ensure Twinkle's code gets updated! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Eejit43, sure! Just did that. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert (before posting a comment here, of course). Made changes both to the editnotice and the transcluded header. Silikonz💬 01:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It was really confusing, because almost everywhere else newer entries go to the bottom of respective sections, ANI, RPP, AIV, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Newest at the top is how things tend to be handled with most log pages, like WP:RMC. The rationales that may apply there are probably not all applicable here. Anyone tried to see if the various tools continue to work? – Uanfala (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've already put in a request to Twinkle, if there are any other things that use RM/TR, feel free to let me know. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Does this impact User:TheTVExpert/submitRMTR? (I've never used it myself.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it does, yes. I'll leave that user a message on their talk page! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

​Twinkle? Where? I've used it for so long and never found a feature related to RMTR... ;p Silikonz💬 00:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's hiding (somewhat counterintuitively) in the "XFD" menu, where you can either start a full RM or make an RM/TR request. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, in the RM menu by selecting "Uncontroversial technical request" ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you just like me fr... —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Is it just me or does the order of the sections on RMTR keep changing in recent days? There should be consensus if there is to be a permanent change, otherwise goodfaith editors may keep trying to change things back. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

pinging @Silikonz, for they are the one changing cuz their edit summary was "+hatnote; rearranged based on prioritisation". Which I think should be discussed. I, for one, thinks that the present arrangement is logical. – robertsky (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I prefer this ordering as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This ordering being uncontroversial, undiscussed moves, contested, admin needed? (It's already changed at least once today.) If so, I'm also happy with that, though the admin section should only be a level 4 heading rather than level 5 I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I only wish we could have something more automated where the user inputs the source and destination, then hits a button, and the request is placed in the appropriate location. Script could check to see if the page was previously moved and this is a revert and that there was no RM (so gets placed in the undiscussed bin) or that there is some blockage requiring an admin (admin needed) otherwise in the uncontroversial. But, since that's probably not likely going to happen, this layout seems best. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There was some submitRMTR script which ran from Special:MovePage or something. However, still understandable that we'd need a new request button or something. Regardless, if there is consensus to revert, I respect that. Silikonz💬 13:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of User:TheTVExpert/submitRMTR, but most people won't have that installed and I don't think it does much checking. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 34#Why not just abolish RMT?, a half-a-year old discussion, where we had a rough consensus to create a system similar to current {{edit request}} system, but the proposal never went through a formal RfC. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle does have this functionality. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that. I was also thinking about the new request button at WP:PERM, where a boilerplate request is preloaded. Silikonz💬 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Just WP:BOLDly added a new button to append new requests. It isn't anything special, it just edits the 2nd section (uncontroversial TR's). Did this after another request was placed in the wrong section. If this doesn't help at all, feel free to revert me. Silikonz💬 21:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page."

I am attempting to fix this Move Request for the proposer. The proposer wanted to move three articles to change earthquake to earthquakes. For the third article, they listed it as moving List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake to List of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes. After a discussion, the proposer amended the target to now be List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes. The problem is that the listing here still shows the older proposal. I would edit it here to fix it, but I know that it would be futile. Therefore, is there a method to get User:RMCD bot to take another look at the talk page so that it can update the proposal here? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1140474433 should fix it, during the bot's next run. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Read by bot, see Special:Diff/1140475355. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Template:Requested move/dated was not altered at the request, only the text below it. Sorry for the trouble and thank you for fixing it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Added the following to NOGOODOPTIONS

"(Note: an explicit closing statement, while always nice, is mandatory in complicated cases like these!)" I think it would go a long way to helping things. Not to toot my own horn, but if a statement like the closing statement at Talk:Crow_people#Requested_move_29_August_2019 were made on other NOGOODOPTIONS closes, I think we'd have a lot fewer problems at WP:MRV. I could have saved us some trouble on Chairperson by following my own advice, as well, for those of you who have long memories! Whatcha think, team? Red Slash 00:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have started an RfC about making WP:RMCI an official guideline

See: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions a guideline. I think this would easily clear up a lot of confusion about how seriously to take our extremely well-vetted and heavily discussed moving procedures. Red Slash 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Timely I think. I came here to mull the same idea, since adherence to the guideline seems to have begun to devolve into a matter or pure personal preference. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Help with requested move where new consensus seems to be emerging?

I listed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Requested_move_23_February_2023. Discussions seem to be coming around to British Rail Pacer and British Rail Sprinter as being more favourable options. Is there a simple way to close the discussion and then re-list with the new options, or can the existing discussion be updated to include the two new options? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry nobody responded to you! WP:NOGOODOPTIONS would suggest picking one, moving there, and then having a follow-up discussion (could even be started by the closing mod) about which one of the titles is best. Red Slash 22:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on substituting Template:RMnac and friends

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure § Should Template:nac (and variations) be substituted?. HouseBlaster^talk 03:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrator needed WP:RMTR requests

Could an administrator please perform the move requests listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Administrator needed? There's a couple of requests there, and one has been sitting there for a couple of days. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Steel1943 We do what we can do, when we can do it, and there is slowly becoming fewer of us. Please be patient. Help requests don't speed things up. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Involved

In the closing instructions we now see "An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request (with one exception, detailed below). You are considered involved^[b] if:" followed by several criteria. The note "b" leads to "Note that these criteria are significantly stricter than the criteria listed at WP:INVOLVED; this is intentional, befitting the less urgent nature of requested moves."

Seems to me that closing processes that are of a "less urgent nature" (such as RMs, which something inside me seriously doubts) would call for rules/criteria that are less strict rather than "significantly stricter" rules/criteria. Would think that stricter rules would be saved for processes that are more urgent rather than for less urgent ones. What am I missing? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That note was added last month [1] by Red Slash. The point, I guess, is that if something is not urgent, you don't need to rush in to deal with it: if you're involved, you can wait for the eventual closure by someone who isn't. Now, I don't think other discussion processes are more urgent (the only really WP:URGENT actions don't involve discussions), though maybe thing here is that the stakes of RMs are perceived as lower than for, say, article deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds more like a single editor's opinion instead of community consensus. And it also sounds like they have the "less urgent – stricter criteria" description backwards. Agree that RMs are no less urgent than any other formal discussion. Don't accept that the stakes are different for RMs and AfDs inherently, although there are likely individual RMs and individual AfDs that are more urgent, and there are some less urgent. Urgency depends on the individual discussion, and not the type of discussion. Just compare an AfD that is quickly kept or deleted with the more-than-a-decade-long uphill climb to move "New York" to "New York (state)" P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never looked at that section of the page before (and I am not sure how much that page has been vetted, which is a concern to me in terms of how it may be headed to guideline status; I never needed to use it, so I never objected to much in it specifically), but I am also confused by "You have ever closed such a move request" being under the list of things that makes you involved. Closing a previous move request is an indication that you were not involved at the time of the close, and assessing consensus does not inherently make you involved. I'm not sure what the thought process is here and do not think that point is necessary. I've closed new move discussions on the same pages dozens, if not hundreds of times, and have never heard an objection about it. Often the closes are 10+ years apart and I may not even remember that I ever closed the previous request. I suggest removing that line. Dekimasuよ! 12:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that is actually good advice (and not just for RMs). Yes, most closers don't become invested in a particular result after closing a discussion, but I've seen occasional cases of closers seeing subsequent RMs as challenges to their previous close and taking things a bit personally (making them very much involved). Also, there's the optics of it: imagine you start an RM which doesn't result in the outcome you want and then a year later you start this RM again. If that gets closed the same way by the same person who closed the previous RM, then that could lead to some understandable resentment and the perception of unfairness. That such resentments don't bubble up to the surface (everyone knows they'd carry no weight in a move review) doesn't mean they're never there. – Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to become involved following a close, but in that case the involvement would be clear from the application of the other criteria; general best practices should apply, and the appearance of conflict should be avoided. However, if I closed a move as "consensus to move to X" without further comment in 2008, is there necessarily an apparent conflict of interest when I close a move as "consensus to move to Y" without further comment in 2015, or "consensus not to move the page at this time" in 2023? I don't think so. I believe that actively limiting the number of experienced or active closers who can handle open requests is a mistake in such situations. Basically, violating the spirit of WP:INVOLVED is a problem whatever the explanatory essay says, and having this as an explicit criterion in a non-guideline explanatory essay seems like it could lead to unnecessary cases of Wikilawyering. Dekimasuよ! 04:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dekimasu, this brings to mind a possible 2nd exception to "the rule", where an out-of-process RM has been opened that should be immediately closed. There is no reason why the same closer, that is, the editor who closed the previous discussion, should not be able to close the out-of-process request. There is an MRV presently open that has similar droppings, and I've recently closed an out-of-process move request myself. Done that many times over the years without bias and completely in line with Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Editors who are uninvolved.

Do remember being challenged once; it was a RfC closure. An editor came to my talk page and reminded me that a few months before I had closed a RfC on a similar subject and was therefore not uninvolved. I shouldn't have closed the RfC. And yet I had no bias about the issue at all and told the editor so. No action was taken and the closure was not reverted. That stands as the only time in all these years of closing that one of my closures was challenged for my being involved. And like you, I've closed several discussions that were on the same talk page as my previous closes. Agree that at least that one criteria should be omitted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the addition had to do with how different closers tend to word their closes. Talk:Iraqi conflict (2003–present)#Requested move 29 January 2021 was a close by Red Slash, who I believe rewrote the "involved" section to its current wording. I can see how involvement applies when you've written "I am very sympathetic to the idea that..." in a closing statement. But for a close like Talk:Pilato#Requested move 5 May 2022 (moved) or Talk:Antony (footballer, born 2000)#Requested move 6 September 2022 (not moved), I don't see it. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

More generally speaking, I agree that the "less urgent nature" wording seems out of place here. We know that there are a lot of views on this (WP:DEADLINE), but with only a few exceptions (WP:URGENT, some things that WP:SUPPRESS applies to, etc.) most things share the principle of "no deadline, but let's fix what we can when we want to." I am not sure there is a reason to distinguish between WP:RM and other processes like WP:AFD here, let alone WP:ANI, where I have been requesting a close on the clear consensus in one section for over a week....

Actually there are also a few things in the section linguistically that seem to need cleaning up because they lack clear referents. The meaning of "such a move request" is not 100% clear. Does "such a move request" mean "a move request about the article in question" from the first bullet point, or having "commented on any talk page in such a way as to make clear your position on the move request" in the fourth bullet point? As far as being involved goes, I suppose the latter is closer to the point. Also, "propose a move request" seems strange to my ears and should probably be instead "request a move" or "propose a move" or perhaps "open a move request". Dekimasuよ! 04:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a reminder that there is also a discussion about INVOLVED and making RMCI a guideline at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Make_Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions_a_guideline. Vpab15 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That VPP discussion (itself sparked by the Palestinian exodus move review) is what apparently set off this one. As I commented there, and as affirmed by many posters, the current definition of "involvement" in RMCI does not enjoy the community consensus currently enshrined in WP:INVOLVED, and I'm inclined to eventually remove the contentious part of You have ever closed such a move request (along with the "exploratory note"). I fully endorse Dekimasu's comments in this thread. No such user (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you all are missing the point on involved. For the case that set this off, we had a user close a move request as no consensus, and there being no consensus to either overturn or endorse that closure (both judgments I find fault with tbh), but then closing the exact same request again as no consensus and further imposing, by their own authority as a move closer (?!?!), a one year ban on further discussion. The very plain reading of that sequence is that a person was upset that their previous judgment, though a number of users found fault with it and there wasnt a consensus to uphold it, was questioned and so they enforced it themselves. The whole reason that less urgent means stricter rules on involvement is that because nothing is going to break if a move request is not closed immediately. And the idea that one editor could permanently camp out at one page to repeatedly close one discussion in their own personal position's favor is absurd. Even if that is only a perception, there is nothing so urgent about a move request that somebody who may even appear to hold a personal position through their past actions needs to close it. nableezy - 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like the second closure (and perhaps the first) should have been taken to WP:MRV instead of having the rules jiggered with. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It was, and is still there, and the rules werent jiggered with, the bit on involved closes is ancient. This version from 2012 says An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request. The part that was recently added was the note that INVOLVED in WP:ADMIN is not the basis for the usage of "involved" here. But going back to at least 2020 this format with the same usage of involved has been used. nableezy - 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The actual 2012 wording was: "In closing a discussion, it is important to avoid conflicts of interest, because such circumstances cast doubt on the fairness of the closure, and often make the closure unstable. Even the appearance of conflict of interest is worth avoiding, for the same reason. Remember that there is no harm in erring on the side of caution.... If any question of conflict of interest does arise, the best solution is for the potentially conflicted editor to recuse him or herself from closing the discussion, and leave it to someone who is more clearly neutral." In the middle it said "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may not be seen as unbiased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request." (This is slightly different from what you wrote above, and also note that the page was not even an "explanatory essay" at the time.)

That's basically the same as what I wrote above, showing that it is necessary to apply common sense and best practices when avoiding the appearance of impropriety, but it does not say anyone "may not close a move request" (the current wording) based upon a past close alone. At any rate it is a key point that the page was not vetted for universal application in either 2012 or 2020, and that is a good reason to take care of the issue now if it is going to be codified in some way. I agree with the comment above by UtherSRG that this represents an example of hard cases make bad law. You wrote "there is nothing so urgent about a move request that somebody who may even appear to hold a personal position through their past actions needs to close it", and I can agree with that—but a past close does not always mean there is a personal position, and "appearance of a personal position" is already covered by the other criteria. Dekimasuよ! 17:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In the given case, there are arguments that the close was anyway bad, apart from the perceived (at minimum) conflict of interest. In the event, people chose mainly to zero in on the conflict of interest aspect as being sufficient reason to overturn (by application of RMCI) without necessarily considering the fact of a potentially bad close on its merits. When at least three editors contested the conflict aspect via the involved argument, it led to the guideline RFC and now this discussion as well. The matter needs resolving not kicking the metaphorical can down the road. Because of this the MR is sitting awaiting a close doubtless because potential closers are awaiting developments. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does not always mean there is a personal position, and yes hard cases make bad laws, but I dont even think this is a hard case. We have this highly restrictive understanding of "involved" for admin tasks because we have this very finite number of editors that have the technical ability to perform these tasks and we have as a community vetted that person and determined by consensus that there is a level of trust in their judgment. For things that we allow any editor basically to do, like say close an RFC or a move request, we dont have that issue. Here we have a circumstance in which any editor on their own can make a binding determination that requires an affirmative consensus to overturn. To me that calls for avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, not simply actual impropriety, and having made some close call on the exact same request, whose close call was not affirmed on review, to make the same close call on the same exact request is a pretty obvious "appearance of impropriety" that should be avoided. And given the low stakes in the timeline in closing an RM, I see no reason why it shouldnt be explicitly called out as one. nableezy - 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you are talking about a specific case, while I have been coming at this based upon my own experience of >15 years closing move discussions, without knowing about the WP:MR discussion in question. However, the main point here seems to be "close call". Maybe the wording at WP:RMCI should simply be changed from "you have ever closed a previous request to move the page" to "you have ever closed a previous contentious request to move the page" and from "You are considered involved if" to "A conflict of interest may exist if" (thus avoiding the question of whether involved=WP:INVOLVED entirely). Dekimasuよ! 18:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Similarly at WP:VP I wrote: "When the reading of consensus is clear and accurate, there is no appearance of a conflict of interest. When the reading of consensus is not clear or accurate, there is a problem regardless of whether there has been a previous close on the same page." I also note that WP:OWN is already policy, so if an editor is really camping out at a talk page to control the article, the behavioral issue can be handled on its merits. Dekimasuよ! 18:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Note also that if we are going by WP:RMCI, there was previously a general restriction on non-admin closure of contentious move requests, and that wording was only removed in 2022. As of 2018 that page also said, "Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates; doing so is discouraged for NACs in general, not just at RM. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved." So it is probably not the case that closures here have consistently been something "we allowed any editor basically to do." Although I am fine with NAC, the earlier wording would also have meant that the discussion now at WP:MR would definitely have been closed by an administrator. But there are far fewer admins active at RM than total closers, so you would eventually run out of closers in that case if deprecating overlap. Dekimasuよ! 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Mandatory?

WP:RM gives off some mixed signals on whether RM is mandatory for controversial moves. The intro says "A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus" (my added emphasis). The body of the page says:

"The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

• there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
• someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested"

(emphasis in original). Do other editors see this as a problem? Has this been discussed before? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really, and I suppose probably, since everything gets discussed here eventually.

It's only a problem if it's been a problem; has it? We generally put in these little "outs" in rules because we want to leave room for common sense re rare exceptions. I think most every rule has a header "This rule is generally followed, but exceptions may occasionally occur, and common sense should be the watchword" or something. No one pays any attention to those tho, and probably the same deal here.

I suppose if there's a discussion about an article name, but its not a formal RM, but the headcount is 20-0 in favor of the move, It's probably OK to move it, and if someone tries to ruleslawyer to reverse that on account of it wasn't a formal RM, you could point to the text you mentioned, I suppose.

Conversely, if someone has a non-RM discussion to move to some odd name, the headcount is 2-1, and she moves it, justifying it with the text you cite, she'll be reverted and trouted or worse. So I wouldn't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Hero. Has it been a problem? Kind of: it was at issue in Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023, followed by Talk:Mpox#Comment on closure, with some spillover into Wikipedia talk:Move review#Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023 and User talk: Red Slash#Mpox. I love a little wiggle room in the rules, though I'd prefer that the rules pick one lane and suggest you keep most of the wiggles near the boundaries. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Request to move, rename

I want to move a page Darra, Khyber pakhtunkhwa to new title

Darra, Swabi, which is a redirected to the current title,

Can somone help me by doing that, because this name is suitable enough for some reasons.

thank you. Ahmadkhanpk1 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. If you need help with similar moves in the future, you can ask for help at WP:RMT. – Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Technical requests edit summary

One can create a move request by clicking the Add a new request button, or by editing the appropriate section directly with {{subst:RMassist}}. I've checked the source code of Template:RMassist, and found that it doesn't generate an edit summary. Clicking the previously mentioned button generates "Adding new request" as an edit summary. However, editing a section directly, such as Uncontroversial technical requests, will leave it blank. I therefor propose adding to the visible and hidden text, the recommendation to use Added (page name) as a generic edit summary when one is not automatically generated, with "page name" being the page to be moved and not the target page. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Raye RM

About Talk:Raye#Requested move 16 March 2023, I'm sorry to say that when a RM closer presents what amounts to a rant in the closing decision, I think this process isn't really functional. The idea of saying "opposers presented mostly only JDLI arguments in response" alone strikes me as improper. Even if it's an accurate reading of the discussion, it still means something was so fundamentally wrong with the discussion. It's especially jarring to see when the bulk of the five support opinions were pretty terse, while the four opposing opinions were comparably less so. Also, the proposer pretty much badgered the discussion at the end, and nobody seemed to care to respond, and in this context I'd say that's because not all of us are here for the flamewar. When I saw this I thought of appealing this to B2C specifically, but I think this is a wider issue of how we handle WP:Disambiguation-based discussions. If the RM closer can just make a 'supervote' based on their personal interpretation of the guideline, this is not WP:Consensus, and the guideline isn't clear enough to support consensus-building. --Joy (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In general, PRIMARYTOPIC guidance was muddled when explicit subjective consideration for long-term significance was added to it. I’ve always held that long-term significance is already accounted for by search likelihood, implicitly, because to the extent that a topic is significant for any reason is reflected in how frequently it is sought. Regardless, while likelihood of being sought can be at least partially measured relatively objectively (like with page view counts), “long-term significance” is almost entirely subjective. That said, I respect the community’s desire to consider long-term significance explicitly in primary topic determination and give it all due consideration in my RM closes.

In this particular case, the page views for the singer dominate so much (whether it’s 98% or 86% it’s clearly much more than all others combined), and no other use of Raye was even mentioned by the opposers as being a challenge in terms of long-term significance, that long-term significance didn’t play much of a role in the discussion.

I resent my effort to clearly explain my reading of consensus in that discussion as a “rant” and supervote. Many closers don’t leave any explanation at all. Is that better?

In fact, I’m trying to exemplify what I believe all closers should be doing: encourage all participants to provide solid arguments. When there is a strong policy-based proposal, as there was in this case, a simple “per nom” carries all the weight of the proposal. That’s fine. In such discussions the onus is on the opposers to counter the proposal with policy-based arguments. For example, when I say “noting the proposed title is a name” is not an argument opposing the move (because names can be titles), I’m explaining why that particular oppose wasn’t given any weight in determining consensus. That’s neither a rant nor a supervote. Hopefully it’s encouragement to participate with good arguments. —В²C ☎ 10:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this is that this an encyclopedia, and if you allow any set of current statistics showing "more than all others combined" to sway you so easily, you're going to make the encyclopedia into a search engine. Which I guess could also be fine, but then you need to make sure that that's what the guideline says, as opposed to doing an ad hoc interpretation.

I don't see the point of going into details about how some terse responses are eliminated and some are not, because it strikes me as incoherent and missing the point of the process - if we have a dozen participants, we drop half a dozen because they're terse, and then choose the best argument among the very few leftovers, that just isn't conceptually what WP consensus is about - dismissing a bunch of arguments as illegitimate concerns and stopping the discussion short is simply not a consensus-building activity. --Joy (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

From WP:DPT, it says "tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic", with a key word to me being "may". -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No concerns were dismissed for being "illegitimate". Certainly yours weren't. Adding onto what Kj cheetham just said, and I assumed you understood, there is no requirement for meeting both PT criteria to be the PT. An overwhelming PT by usage without any other particularly significant usage by long-term significance, as was the case here, is traditionally more than sufficient for PT treatment. Does that make us more of a search engine than an encyclopedia? That's one perspective, but not one supported by consensus as reflected in policy, guidance or conventions. Long-term significance (LTS) usually plays a role only when one article is primary by usage, and another by LTS. But even there, in order to keep the primary-by-usage article from the basename, much less for the by-LTS article to be treated as PT itself, the by-LTS article usually needs to have significant usage itself. At least that's how I've always seen it interpreted by most editors. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you never indicated whether you supported or opposed the proposal. You made an objection about how the nom represented the numbers, but even if you were correct (and nobody agreed with you but at least two disagreed) about 86% vs 98%, that still left a very strong PT argument, as was pointed out, even by you (“could still be considered moot”). Then you raised a question about whether the singer’s long term significance “overwhelms that of all others”, but that didn’t gain any traction either. What do you expect a closer to do with this? —В²C ☎ 10:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the request itself, but procedurally, should Born2cycle have closed it at all? Given they !voted to support a similar move in 2017, and so are involved as per WP:RMCI. Plus unless I'm missing something, it also doesn't seem to have been marked as a NAC as per WP:RMNAC. For the record though, the closing comment didn't sound like a rant to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I have no recollection of being involved six years ago and didn’t look at the previous RM when I closed this one. —В²C ☎ 13:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to revert my close but the article has already been moved and it can be confusing unless the moves are reversed too. So I'll wait and see whether others think my support of a move six years ago constitutes enough involvement to warrant reversing all that. I should add that not only had I forgotten about my earlier involvement, when I participated this time I thought we were discussing a new singer. So, this time, as before, I'm not even familiar with the singer; both times I was just going by the strength of the nom. Furthermore, whatever RECENTISM argument applied six years ago, they certainly don't apply now. To me RECENTISM is about issues that spike in interest over a very short term, like a few days, weeks or maybe months. This isn't RECENTISM. --В²C ☎ 14:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm expecting the closer to gauge whether the proposer or the supporters did a good job addressing these legitimate concerns. Most of the retorts amounted to a rehashing of a very narrow reading of current statistics, and this was confirmed by another person as well. This is not a coherent counter-argument because it badly addresses the usage part of the primary topic guideline, and it ignores the long-term significance part of the same guideline.

Also, who cares if I indicated if I agree or disagree in bold letters or not? If you're taking the route of interpreting consensus as liberally as you did, do you really think it's appropriate to fail to interpret my lack of support as an argument for an overall lack of consensus? I'm trying hard to not make this into a flamewar, but these kind of arguments strike me as silly to say the least. --Joy (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your one lack of stating support or oppose counts as just that: neither. As to your legitimate concerns and the quality of the retorts, I already address that. As noted in the discussion whether it's 98% or 86% is insignificant in terms of usage (it meets the criteria either way). Regarding your question about long-term insignificance, again, it gained no traction. Neither you, nor anyone else, even cited a single use of "Raye" that you believe is more significant than the singer. So, yes, I did gauge whether your concerns were sufficiently addressed. I thought they were. I still do. --В²C ☎ 14:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Punishing the lack of stating a formal !vote by making it not count is against the spirit and letter of WP:CONS. This discussion is pointless. --Joy (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You posted some concerns. They were addressed. There was a little back and forth. And from that you expect the closer to infer that you were satisfied and support, or remain concerned and oppose? How is the closer supposed to know that you're not neutral? I mean, if you can't be decisive and clear about your position, how can you expect others to determine it? That's not punishment. That's reasonable consequences. --В²C ☎ 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the RM itself in detail, but I was immediately reminded of what happened at /Archive 30#Closers: Determining CONSENSUS rather than "consensus"; this type of close is probably not characteristic of the way the process usually works. Dekimasuよ! 11:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do review it when you get a chance. In particular, had someone else closed it as "Move" without further explanation, would you have an issue with that? --В²C ☎ 17:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

moving a problematic article

Hi guys, question for the group please. What's the best way to handle a technical request, when the article in question is potentially problematic? Yesterday somebody asked to move Superstar Pride, which could be a potentially-problematic BLP. I was in 2 minds about whether to do it or not, and I commented that the notability had been questioned (without doing it or contesting it). Two of my fellow page movers that I have the pleasure of working with all the time, @Steel1943 and @Doomsdayer520, very politely pointed out that a BLP's notability and whether the move is uncontroversial enough to be processed without an RM are 2 completely separate matters. And they're absolutely right. I don't disagree with them at all. But it left me wondering if perhaps there should be a specific way of handling these cases, because as page movers, we're in a position where we may encounter problematic articles that for whatever reason don't get picked up anywhere else. It feels a bit like a missed opportunity. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts that they want to share about this. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

My two cents in the matter would be do what we would do otherwise in most other cases, which is choose to respond to the issues we find per existing procedures and our best judgement ourselves. Take for example the issue found with the referenced article: Since you found notability issues with the article, you yourself would be in the position to consider tagging it for notability issues, or nominating it for WP:AFD or WP:PROD, etc., just as any other editor would do in such as case when running across such an article. But, as you sort of alluded, those issues are exclusive from the article-titling issue, which is a separate problem. There's nothing against doing both nominating for deletion and renaming (but preferably done in the reverse order ... renaming then nominating), but I'd say the burden to take action on the pages falls on the editor who identified the issue that needs to be resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for the Requested Moves page. Perhaps there could be a summary of recent moves at the bottom, such as "doomsdayer520 moved Superstar Pride (rapper) to Superstar Pride, 09:45, 30 March 2023", as opposed to me simply removing the request after I was done, as is standard procedure now. And then someone who had any other concern about the article, such as Dr. Vogel in this case, is more easily alerted to go to the article under its new title and take further action. (Such listings could then expire after 7 days or whatever.) As for Superstar Pride, after I did the page move I considered nominating for deletion per Dr. Vogel's concerns, but it turns out that the rapper has a bonafide charting single at Billboard. So he may actually qualify for notability under WP:NMUSICIAN, but it's a close call. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Request to move Page

Hello everyone I wanted to ask if someone could move the Operation Valuable page to 1949 Anglo-American invasion of Communist Albania One reason was that this Operation VALUABLE is from the English MI6 but the American one was called OBOPUS/BG FIEND and it just didn't have that Names VALUABLE and the page is also mixed with that of Operation OBOPUS/BGFIEND Both of the operations were just American and British but in many articles I've read it's called 1949 Anglo-American invasion of Communist Albania NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That would also explain it more easily and show what it is about, so you could just add both of the operations in the page NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@NormalguyfromUK: This page is not the place to request page moves. See WP:RMCM for instructions on how to request page moves. That page provides instructions on how to properly request moving a page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Request to move

I want to move the page Draft:Emanuel Krüger to new title Emanuel Krüger.

Can somone help me by doing that?

Thank you. S.kranich (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving the page itself is not difficult, but it appears there may be other issues that need to be solved before this article is ready. I am not sure that the notability of the subject has been established, and the photo is listed as your own, so it appears you may have a connection the subject of the draft. I suggest going through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Dekimasuよ! 01:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Article on the creation I've already read through. I have had the rights to the picture transferred to me by Mr. Krüger. The article can therefore be moved. S.kranich (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The draft should be submitted through WP:AFC. Please also review WP:COIEDIT. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Do GAN pages have to be moved separately?

Hi! I'm looking to move 1919 Copa del Rey Final to 1919 Copa del Rey final, but since it is a GA I was wondering how the GAN subpage is dealt with. Does a bot make the move? Should I move the subpage after moving the main page? Or is a technical RM necessary? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If I am understanding your question correctly, there is no problem with moving the subpage at the same time as the article page, and by default that box is checked when you attempt to perform the move. However, all of the articles in the category treat "Final" as an explicit part of the name of the event, meaning they are all shown in caps. It seems likely that it would be better to determine whether all of them should be moved using a more formal move discussion. Dekimasuよ! 08:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe to move the subpages you need to be an admin or a page mover, although I may be wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it, because that would create chaos when moving articles with standard talk page archives, and I don't often hear about archives getting lost (although that does happen sometimes too). Dekimasuよ! 08:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about standard talk pages specifically, but you do need to be a pager mover to move all subpages in one go, as per Wikipedia:Page_mover#move-subpages. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and it does create a mess when new editors with no idea of what talk archives could be just proceed with their move, leaving behind old archives at the base location. In most cases they go undetected for a long time, until such archives are looked for systematically. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A mess of redirects (Rahul. K. P)

Yesterday, I requested a move of the page from 'Rahul. K. P' to 'Rahul K. P.' citing the incorrect naming format and it was said 'done', but look at the article's current state. It is a mess of redirects. A disaster to say at least. Now, I cannot even access the article as all I see is redirects. I hope someone experienced will fix this ASAP. I could not add the request in the project page as it is showing there is no page of his in existence. Hope this issue will be addressed quickly. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The page is located here: Rahul K. P. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Robertsky. Yes. Now it is showing properly. Before, I went through all the redirects and could not find the article's contents. Anyways, thank you for the reply. Besh wishes! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Llammakey's Ships

A proposal! Lately we have had dozens of technical requests from User:Llammakey, who is doing an amazing job with finding articles on USS ships that are improperly titled, with screwy redirects leftover from long ago. Perhaps we could consider giving Llammakey authorization as a Page Mover, plus a basic tutorial on all the steps involved in the round-robin/page swap process. It could speed up the great work they're doing on cleaning up someone's old mess. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the I was told to bring those here. There was a problem among editors who seemed to believe that hull numbers for USN ships should be included in the title of the article. However, since those hull numbers are subject to change and have no meaning to the general public it was decided to do away with them in article titles. This was starting to leech into nations whose ships do not have a system like the US. However, no one got around to doing that and then it was brought up again during the discussion here and it seems to be a festering wound among editors. So I thought I would fix the ship articles. Then I found that a series of articles, mainly written by one former editor, seemed to have all their basic moves blocked. So I asked an admin and they told me to bring them here. Llammakey (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what consensus is around Ship article naming, and whether you need to perform enough pageswaps to justify pagemover rights. But, if you do, you may ask for the rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Zoom. I didn't know where I was supposed to ask for that. I just have. I hope it goes through, otherwise I will have to come back here and bother you people some more. Sorry. Llammakey (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It's no bother really, just trying to do what's most efficient. :) Keep up the good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NAC and requests at WP:RMTR

We really should have a rule that if a close is performed and the request made at WP:RMTR, people cannot come and argue against the closure. Their only recourse should be what is set out at WP:MRV, and then that should only begin after the move has been performed and the proposer has been notified of the challenge. You really shouldn't waste nearly a month on something just to see it go up in flames because people oppose out of process ON the WP:RMTR discussion and convince them there to revert. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be curious how commonly this becomes an issue, or if Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_April#Grey_Goose_(vodka) is an isolated incident, before adding more rules. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

When to start a formal move request if a discussion is already going?

At Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, I and several others proposed moving the page to Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and a lively discussion began. It's clear that a formal requested move discussion is needed to resolve this, but adding an RM discussion with an informal debate already going seems like it'd disrupt the conversation by making everyone add their opinion again. What's the best solution?

Also, feel free to comment on the discussion in question; every debate benefits from fresh eyes. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If starting a formal RM and there's an existing informal discussion, can just reference that. People shouldn't need to repeat themselves. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename "PNC Plaza" to "500W"

PNC TOWER : AFTER THE BUILDING IS BROUGHT BY SOMERAROAD, THE NAME OF THE BUILDING CHANGED. THANKS IN ADVANCE! Rliu5875 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Rliu5875: Please see WP:COMMONNAME. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

When tenants are trying to find 500w using google, pnc tower shows up on Wikipedia in a huge box to the right in the google search. We want to make sure tenants are not confused when they search up the name, thus asking for a name change or move. Rliu5875 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rliu5875: Do you have a reliable source noting the name change. While I do not think that article name change is feasible at this point due to WP:COMMONNAME, if there has been a name change it should be visible in bold in the starting sentence of article, but to do that, there needs to be some proof. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is a article link [2]https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/new-owner-plans-to-change-the-trajectory-of-aging-louisville-office-tower/article_6f5d1f7a-b4ed-11eb-a1f1-93d90b5cacc0.html

Let me know if this works. Here is another link where the building itself is just being referred to as 500W. [3]https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2021/12/22/construction-begins-on-downtown-tower-renovation.html Rliu5875 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is the wikipedia link i need to rename PNC Tower, but i provided all the information let me know if you need anything else. Rliu5875 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

PNC Plaza Rliu5875 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename "PNC Plaza" to "500W"

Hello, just wanted to make a thread asking to move/change the name of the title PNC Plaza to 500W. After the building was brought by Someraroad, the name of the building changed to 500W. It gets confusing for tenants searching up 500W and seeing it is still PNC Plaza. I attached some article showcasing the change in name. Let me know if you need anything else, thanks.

Here is a article link [1]https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/new-owner-plans-to-change-the-trajectory-of-aging-louisville-office-tower/article_6f5d1f7a-b4ed-11eb-a1f1-93d90b5cacc0.html Let me know if this works. Here is another link where the building itself is just being referred to as 500W. [2]https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2021/12/22/construction-begins-on-downtown-tower-renovation.html Rliu5875 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to make sure that it is PNC Plaza that's being requested to be moved to 500W not PNC Tower. There are 2 building with similar names and it gets quite confusing sometimes. Rliu5875 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Moved from Special:Diff/1151035709. My bad.Primefac (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Rliu5875, what do you actually want doing? You keep linking to different pages. You should start a move discussion on the article's talk page that you want to see moved. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I need to move PNC Plaza to 500W , it's already been requested on the article's talk page with no reply for multiple weeks, I would greatly appreciate it if you could request/ move the page for me here. The article is PNC Plaza just to confirm again Rliu5875 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

{{Page moves}}

FYI Template:Page moves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

My close of Willem Bonger

I stumbled across this requested move, which seems to have been started because a redirect was incorrectly targeted. Once that was fixed, there was one !oppose vote, a relist, and no other participation. I closed it as "not moved" – should this be "not moved" or "no consensus", and does my close look good? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a fine close, in my opinion. There was no further comment after the relisting, and your analysis of the situation seems to be correct. There may well be consensus now that the redirect has been corrected, so "not moved" is fine, especially since you left the door open for further discussion if anyone disagrees. Station1 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Move Czech Republic to Czechia

Throughout the year Czechia has replaced Czech Republic as the name by many organizations. These include

IOC - https://olympics.com/ioc/czechia

European Union - https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/country-

European Broadcasting Union - https://eurovision.tv/countries

UEFA - https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/country/seasons/#/yr/2023</nowiki>

UN - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states#gotoC

NATO - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm</nowiki>

Discussions have also taken place at Talk:Czech Republic. In the top discussion I can see that

Against the move is:

Largoplazo (talk) - Argues that it that "the Czech government has not recommended using Czechia, but just declared "Czechia" to be a legitimate "short form" name for the country".

Cimmerian praetor (talk) - Argues that "Czechia is no more common name than the Czech Republic". However I think this lacks evidence as the links above show that it is a more common name. This comment is also from February, possibly before those organizations updated their name of the country.

In favor of the move is

Chrz (talk) - Has argued for the move for a longer time, and most recentely linked to this https://www.czechia.eu/

filelakeshoe (t) - Has said that whilist having opposed the change before, he now supports it.

Doric Loon (talk) - Argues that Czechia has become a more common name

Isametry (talk) - Argues that there is no reason to stick with status quo, when it's clear in his opinion that "by reading the room" Czechia has become more common.

Asheiou (talk) - Argues that the government has recommended Czechia

2001:8003:908F:BB01:184C:2D88:E7D6:5CCB (talk) - Says that "All notable international agencies are now using Czechia instead of the Czech Republic"

Patrik L. (talk) Uses the name change by IHHF and FIFA as an argument.

FusionSub (talk) - Supports, and argues that it's just as we say France and Italy instead of French Republic and Republic of Italy

Thomediter (talk) - I think the 6 above organizations is what should finally make this move a reality.

Hope you will consider the move. Thomediter (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RM#CM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you want to do? Thomediter (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't process requests for controversial moves here. Open a 'Requested move' discussion on the article's talk page as described in the linked page instead. – robertsky (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding me right now???? There have been a discussion for 3 months now, and I just wrote the conclusion of that on here, because nothing happended. Thomediter (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the discussion in question is Talk:Czech Republic § Rename to Czechia, which was started in February but was not a formal RM so never had any "formal" close. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There's also Talk:Czech_Republic#Rename_to_Czechia_as_Germany,_France,_Slovakia_or_Poland slightly below. And probably some others since the last RM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the relatively large attendance at the original discussion that I linked, I am considering adding the RM template to the top in order to do two things: reach uninvolved individuals and also to get a mechanism for a formal close. I'll leave this for a bit but if there's no opposition I'll do that in the next day or two. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, although it's not strictly necessary to use the formal RM process, reaching uninvolved individuals helps us avoid local consensus situations and the discussion has already been brought as far as this page, so that sounds like a good route. Dekimasuよ! 12:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The existing discussions are quite messy. It is not immediately obvious why the article should be moved. It might be better to start a new discussion that includes the arguments and evidence for the move as part of the nomination. That might help ensure the subsequent discussion is more orderly. There is a high risk the new discussion will end up as messy as the old ones, but I still think having a proper nomination is worth it. Vpab15 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not strictly necessary, but considering the 6 preceding RM:s, I think it's reasonable to do it the formal way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree this needs a formal RM to close. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done, see Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_11_May_2023. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Never mind; apparently I need to have my own opinion to file a procedural nomination... wtf. Thomediter, if you want this resolved, file an RM yourself. I tried. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an extremely contentious area, and one that has chewed a lot of editor time over the years. From the history of the talk page, we see there have been six full RMs over the years, none of which really came close to a consensus to move, and several moratoria. When there isn't an RM ongoing, we get a constant trickle of comments on the talk page questioning why the name isn't Czechia, such as the one alluded to above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång urged participants in that discussion repeatedly to open an RM discussion, but they declined to do so. Obviously consensus can change, as we've seen at other longterm questions such as Kiev/Kyiv, Burma/Myanmar etc, and perhaps the time is right for another discussion. But if it is to happen now, it needs to be initiated by someone who supports the change, and give full reasoning and evidence as to why the WP:COMMONNAME has changed, compared with the last discussion two years ago. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Apologies for the tantrum. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, and apologies from me too, if my tone was Over-hostile to your good-faith actions... Not sure what it is about online interactions that turns us into demons!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. The editor who opens the RM can obviously pick the arguments they like from the talkpage or the archives, but because history, just starting a new WP:RM#CM is the way to go (for those who thinks it's a good idea). I recently saw an IP start one, it's quite doable, the instructions at WP:RSPM are not that complicated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I will gladly do that :) Thomediter (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Depends what you compare with. 16 people is many for a regular talkpage discussion, but the last RM had 51 people. And 200 more comments. Also, the OP in the discussion you liknked gives no reason why the article should be moved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Procedural question: How should the closer take into account arguments from the past few months on the talk page? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That's up the closer. Afaict, relevant arguments are supposed to be made in the actual RM. If there's anything in particular you think they should look at, you can link or quote it here, like the OP did. WP:APPNOTEing users is a possibility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Move "Universal's Islands of Adventure" to "Universal Islands of Adventure"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The name of the park has been officially been changed on the Universal Orlando website and in the park's logo.

Sources:

• https://www.universalorlando.com/web/en/us/theme-parks/islands-of-adventure
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Islands_of_Adventure_2023_logo.png
• https://wdwnt.com/2023/03/universal-orlando-resort-unveils-redesigned-logos/
• https://orlandoparkstop.com/news/theme-park-news/epic-universe-update-possible-name-changes-new-construction-and-harry-potter-ride-permits/

SaltieChips (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move suggestion: The Center for Art in Wood to Museum for Art in Wood

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page The Center for Art in Wood should be retitled Museum for Art in Wood because that is its name as of January 30, 2023.

However, I cannot see a way to do this within my account.

Also, many pages currently link to The Center for Art in Wood that would need to be redirected to Museum for Art in Wood when the title changes.

Please advise. MuseumMan141 (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move requested for Japanese Wikipedia page 「キングス・イレブン・パンジャーブ」 to 「パンジャーブ・キングス」」

The name of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team Kings XI Punjab (KXIP) was changed to Punjab Kings (PBKS) on 17 February 2023. [4] [5] The Japanese Wikipedia page of the team still has the title 「キングス・イレブン・パンジャーブ」 and should be changed to 「パンジャーブ・キングス」. SomanshuAikat5142 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@SomanshuAikat5142 For pages on Japanese Wikipedia, proceed to ja:Wikipedia:移動依頼. – robertsky (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

On relists

Currently the guidance on these pages say that discussions are usually only relisted at most once. This is not the case—a significant fraction, perhaps even a majority, of elapsed listings have 2 or 3 relists at any given time. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

See this discussion which also deals with multiple relists. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Side tangent, but I think we really need to further discourage relisting without a comment. I've seen RMs where it's not clear what the relister wants to see. A relist should nudge the discussion towards getting a consensus, not just start a new timer, and most of the time if you don't leave a comment, you're just starting a new timer.

If I don't have a strong idea for anything relating to the move, I'll usually let it sit in the backlog. Sometimes I'll support or oppose discussions from the elipsed listings/backlog, sometimes I'll relist if I need to see one or two things to see consensus and leave a comment along with the relist, but I don't remember the last time I relisted without leaving a comment. (I don't feel too comfortable with no consensus closes yet, so I usually let those go and leave them in the backlog.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Move Operation Valuable to 1949 Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania

I wanted to ask if someone could help me to move the page from Operation Valuable to 1949 Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania. I even made a discussion about it on the talk page 2 times and so far it was only one user who argued with but this one was a sockpuppet. I have given sources and also explained why the page should be moved.Talk:Operation Valuable Best regards NormalguyfromUK (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

NormalguyfromUK, this page is for discussing the requested moves process in general. See the instructions on this page for opening a requested move. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)}

Potentially Controversial Moves Etiquette

I'm seeking clarification on the etiquette regarding potentially controversial moves - there is an ongoing move discussion on the talk page of an article that has failed twice previously, but there have been substantial developments that have since strengthened the argument in favour of a move. This seems to meet the definition of a potentially controversial move, so I was wondering if previous failed move attempts are sufficient to require such a classification (even if the circumstances have changed) and if so, if there is a process to escalate a move discussion to a potentially controversial move discussion. StuartH (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Typically one should wait for 6 months in between requests. But if there are substantiative changes to the article or the subject, one can always open a RM discussion anytime. – robertsky (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you have updated the talk page itself. This one seems to be a bit of a special case so I think more eyes on it might help. StuartH (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Praise You in This Storm

The "i" in "in" should always be lowercase in titles, so we should change "Praise You In This Storm" to "Praise You in This Storm". Jamgorham (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jamgorham: This page is for discussing the RM process and related tasks, and not for requesting moves. Please follow these instructions to open a move request. – MaterialWorks 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Top or bottom?

The instructions for listing a technical request at the top of the "Requesting technical moves" section say:

To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason...

but when you edit the section, it says:

Insert the following code below, filling in page names and reason: {{subst:RMassist| current page title | new title | reason = reason for move}} and enter on a new line, directly below...

which would place it at the top of the list. Which is correct? DH85868993 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I always thought it should be at the bottom, perhaps the code when editing needs correcting? -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe this was changed recently, and I guess one of them was forgotten in the update? I have no idea which is actually correct, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If we look at it logically/consistency wise, the older entries/requests should be on upper levels, while the recent ones should be at the bottom - consistent with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, deletion sorting, talk page threads, and other stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Relevant discussion earlier in the year: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 35#RM/TR "at the top". —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies everyone. I've updated the instructions that appear when you edit the section to say that new entries should be added at the bottom of the list. Feel free to improve my wording. DH85868993 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Mistake on creator's part. Relevant section now opened at Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 20 June 2023. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Bengaluru – Bengaluru is more commonly called name and I'd also add that most of the Indian tier one cities have their current official names in Wikipedia articles, i.e. Chennai (formerly know as Madras, Kolkata (formerly known as Calcutta. So I strongly propose that Bangalore should also be renamed/moved to Bengaluru, per WP:COMMONNAME. — Akshadev™ 🔱 06:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I posted it here by mistake. Apologies. — Akshadev™ 🔱 06:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog notice, revisited

I brought this up a bit over a year ago at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 34#Backlog notice, and the status quo was kept, but things are changing with the template and it feels like a good time to bring it up again.

Right now, the backlog notice at the top of the page requests help from administrators. In reality, the majority of editors who perform these moves are page movers, or sometimes even just normal editors. Outside of very few cases (which can be brought up at RM/TR if a page mover closes the request, or left for an admin to officially close), most moves are performable by any page mover. Therefore, I suggest changing the backlog notice to something along the lines of "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more page movers.", or just the generic message from {{backlog}}.

The reason I bring this up now is that the currently-used template, {{Admin backlog}}, is being merged into {{backlog}}. If the bot will have to be updated (which it probably will, given I imagine a parameter needs to be added), this would be a convenient time to request wbm1058 update the bot. (We also have a giant backlog at the moment (please help!), and all of the requests I've checked have been closable by me; if anyone wants to check and confirm that a significant portion of the requests do not require admin help, this would be a good time.)

I guess the one question I have is whether this is possible in {{backlog}}, but I imagine someone can update the template if it's not. (Once again, the template has to be updated to account for the merge from Admin backlog, so I don't think this is a big deal.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

RMCI edits

@2pou: Regarding Special:Diff/1163031477, thanks for the discussion link. It was to make RMCI a guideline, and from what I observe from skimming it, it is likely a no consensus case, so it remained an essay. The "mandatory" part was added by @Red Slash during the course of RfC, but since the RfC itself remains unresolved, I think it would be better as the status quo. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom, I honestly have no qualms with what you are working towards, and you can feel free to restore. More than anything, I thought that the lack of linkage to the previous discussion was an issue considering the {{efn}} word choice and that having it at least linked in the history would help with posterity (since it took me some time to find out what it was even referring to). I figured using the Undo feature would also alert you in case you weren’t aware previously. Concur that mandatory comes off a bit strong. -2pou (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Move request from "Draft:Fifty Vinc (record producer) to "Draft:Fifty Vinc"

Hey everyone, I would like to request a move from Draft:Fifty Vinc (record producer) to Draft:Fifty Vinc. I think, in regards to the topic and content in the draft article, the title "Fifty Vinc" is more fitting. Thanks in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That was quick. Thank you very much. Matthew Tailor (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested moves/Technical enhancements

I've drafted up a template (Template:RMTR) to help make responses to requested moves a little better by adding done and not done with reasons, which could be expanded to standard RMs if wanted, but the point of this discussion is to determine if there is consensus to implement this template to RM/TR. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Is all of this complexity (for either process) really necessary? RMTR seems to be working fine as is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes but currently done requests are removed immediately after fulfilment, which makes it hard for users to easily check on their requests. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

People familiar enough with Wikipedia processes to request moves should know how to check the page history. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, though it makes requesting input easier. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't be opposed to having some standard templates for not done (This article has been moved in the past, a name change does not mean the article title should change until COMMONNAME is met, etc.), but I think our removal of requests works fine for now for requests that are done.. The one thing that might be useful is an archive for past requests, which there was an RFCBEFORE for, but I can't figure out if that was ever followed up on. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite tempted to use my very limited python knowledge to write a bot that does clerking tasks, though that will be a few months until I figure it out. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 04:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

RMTR invisible comment

The "remove all requests" button currently uses the old version of the invisible comment, which states to place new requests at the top instead of the bottom. That should be updated, and I would do it myself, but it requires the queue to be cleared using the current method (reverting to an old revision of the page). If the next person who clears the queue and sees this can make this change, that would be appreciated. I've left the code below (it was created above at #Top or bottom?, which seems to be past the 30 day archive limit so that may get archived soon?) – it should be added under the uncontroversial requests. revert requests and admin needed headings.

<!-- Insert the following code below, filling in page names and reason: {{subst:RMassist| current page title | new title | reason = reason for move}} and enter on a new line, at the bottom of the existing list; do not add spare lines between entries; do not add a bullet point; if you do not wish the request to be converted into an RM if contested, then add |discuss=no --> Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I figured this was likely to get forgotten, so I just did it now instead of waiting. Here's the diff between the old and new blank revisions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also asked at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#WP:RMTR new entries order to implement the change. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 05:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Question re John Hunt Publishing

I occasionally get ads from this company by email. About a month ago, got one that they were changing their name to Collective Ink. Sure enough, their website now redirects you to the new site wholly branded with the new identity. But, no source covers this change. What to do? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rather than hold discussion here, it should take place on the talk page of the article. However, we follow independent reliable sources per WP:NAMECHANGES, so if there are none available that use the new name, it may be too early to proceed with a move. Dekimasuよ! 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I hear you. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:CHEMPREFIX moves

Moved from Special:Permalink/1164471780 § Uncontroversial technical requests

 – from WP:RMTR —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In a request for WP:CHEMPREFIX move, the following discussion took place:

While I'd gladly perform any such moves per WP:CHEMPREFIX, I think we could be more systematic and create the huge list of pages that would need to be moved under this criteria and let a bot handle this (TolBot). I expect the number of such pages to range in several hundreds if not thousands. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think a potential approach could be to write a query to search "alpha", "beta", etc. in page title, and checking if it falls within WP:WPCHEM domain. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Any such list should also be checked against the WP:COMMONNAME, as some compounds appear frequently in advertising, and lay discussions, nutrition and diet material, so may indeed exist most commonly as the spelled-out latin-lettered form -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Asked for a query: Wikipedia:Request a query#Spelled out Latin characters in Chemistry articles. If anyone has ideas to make the query better, feel free to chime in. I also agree that in some cases, the spelled out form might be common name (e.g., Omega-3 fatty acid), so a manual reviewer might have to go through such a list, to weed out these cases. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There, Cryptic wrote: "quarry:query/75087 now has pages transcluding either chembox or infobox drug, and quarry:query/75088 pages whose talk transcludes either of the wikiproject templates. Both, and quarry:query/75085 for the cat tree results, correctly match non-space word boundaries now, too, so should've had a lot more results even before adding the alternate templates." Would anybody like to jump into it, filter it and initiate a mass move? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Twitter page discussion

A move discussion was started on the talk page of Twitter, but it doesn't look like the template was set up correctly. I don't feel that I know enough to fix this, but I'm hoping this is the right place to mention it and that someone else can. - Odin (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The move discussion was closed based on WP:SNOW, so this resolved itself. - Odin (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hold requests

Is there a way of putting some move requests on hold while another move request is dealt with? See some discussions at Talk:Charles III, Talk:Elizabeth II, and Talk:George I of Great Britain. PatGallacher (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment I'm a bit dubious that the Elizabeth one should have opened while the Charles one was pending, but given that it was, and that it dealt with every other British monarch of the past three centuries but George I and II, I'd say it's fair enough to also discuss the appropriate name of the two monarchs of that period who are not the subject of the previous RMs. That way, the same principles will be applied and we'll have consistent naming practices, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not the perfect template, but you could remove the RM template and add {{Closing}} inside of an {{atop}}/{{abot}} pair, using |estimate= to indicate that you are waiting on the close of the other discussion. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

...on the other hand, the first move in question is so straight-forward that it does not need to be closed pending the outcome of the other. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you close a request?

—theMainLogan (t•c) 21:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RMCLOSE. Vpab15 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Assemblywoman Taylor Darling (NY Politician) – Taylor Darling formally "Taylor Raynor" is a NYS Assemblywoman. Her name has been changed legally and is now Taylor Darling. Officially referred to as New York State Assemblywoman Taylor Darling. Official NYS Assembly Website [6], reference article [7]https://liherald.com/seacliff/stories/come-to-joy-fest-a-juneteenth-celebration,180914} {{edit COI {paid}}}} Reellifeethnos (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reellifeethnos: It's at Taylor Darling (politician) now. Article titles should be concise; adding that she's an assemblywoman and/or the state she serves in would be unnecessary unless there's another politician named Taylor Darling. (Also, for the future, post these on the talk page of the article you want moved, not here; that would be Talk:Taylor Darling (politician) in this case.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Are there pages/subpages for moves from specific dates?

—theMainLogan (t•c) 02:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No. Requested moves aren't archived anywhere other than the history of WP:RMCD or the talk page of the page they pertain to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Special:Log/move shows all moves from a specific date (most of which are not requested moves). SilverLocust 💬 07:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The subpages of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts are an archive of sorts. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Stale technical requests

I've been thinking about what is the best action to take when a request has been contested for a few days but the requester has not opened an RM. Should we unilaterally start a discussion for them or do we simply remove it as stale? – MaterialWorks 12:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's marked as "discuss = no", I'd definitely just remove it eventually. Else I try to explicitly say to the requestor to click on the "discuss" link if they want to pursue it, though sometimes if I agree with the request I'll open a discussion myself. As far as I know there's no defined timeframe when requests should be removed as "stale", but a few days seems reasonable. The guidelines only say Consider pinging the requester (emphasis mine) when contesting, but also if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move. It's when there is a little bit of discussion where it's more of a grey/gray area... I wouldn't assume requestors are watching the page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I also think that the requester should usually be pinged (though it is not required) and that it is usually better to leave it to the requester to open an RM (or someone else who, after seeing whatever reason there is to contest the request, supports the move and wants to discuss it). SilverLocust 💬 12:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree; perhaps the guidance should be changed from "consider pinging" to "should ping" (not must)? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the instructions are fine now. Someone will ping before the request is removed. And some replies are not very approachable for newcomers (terse, jargony, not entirely clear that it's been contested or what to do next). The main point is just don't remove it until the requester has been pinged with an appropriate explanation. SilverLocust 💬 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Minimize RM moves when article is featured on Main page

See the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Proposal to restrict RM discussions while plastered on Main per incident of Talk:SAG–AFTRA ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RM closer script

Does a script already exist for formally closing RMs? Like Wikipedia:XFDcloser for deletion discussions. There are a number of steps that could be easily automated when closing or relisting RMs. The step that I find particularly annoying is {{old move}}, which currently requires manually finding the information which is contained in the original request. @Eejit43: is this something you would be interested in developing? Given you wrote the excellent rmtr-helper script. Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, see: User:TheTVExpert/rmCloser. — MaterialWorks 10:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks MaterialWorks. Polyamorph (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a great script! If it doesn't fit your needs, let me know and I might be able to make a new one. :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed move at RM

What do we do if a user submits a formal RM for an undiscussed move, requesting it be moved back to the stable title? See here. Im tempted to close the discussion and move the page back with the recommendation to open a new RM if desired. Thoughts? Polyamorph (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

These aren't rare and always run the full length, ime. I've seen them close both ways. (I followed RM closer a couple years ago, though.) Vaticidalprophet 21:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably better off just letting it run at this point with a note to the closer that a no consensus result should result in defaulting back to the status quo ante title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what Jenks24 said. If the RM results in a no consensus outcome, it should be moved back to the original title, as it shows a lack of consensus to move it away from that title. Number 57 12:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Move "Uraniborg" to "Uranienborg"

Uranienborg is by far the most used name and the name that makes the most sense to use on English Wikipedia as it was a Danish, not Swedish, observatory. This Uranienborg is far more famous than the one in Norway which should continue to be named "Uranienborg, Norway". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marginataen, this is the talk page about the requested move process. To request a move you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests or Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Template-protect Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

The page is getting repeated manual edits from people who don't read the edit notice, and the bot already has TPER access. Anyone else think this would be a good idea? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see the benefit of some sort of protection, and I don't think EC would help, but on the other hand I don't think template protection is appropriate, as per WP:TPROT it's not a Template or Module page, and it's not highly transcluded. Maybe a bot undoing manual edits may help...? I've not looked how frequent the manual edits are. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Full protection would be overkill. I wouldn't object to saying WP:IAR and template protect it though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with full protection, I can't think of any cases where a regular user would need to edit that page. — MaterialWorks 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It was more the bot being able to edit I was thinking of, but could be made an WP:ADMINBOT? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Argh, I forgot that bots can't edit full'd pages. — MaterialWorks 17:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can this be made even bigger? I know there is no excuse not to see the big red Do NOT edit instructions but if the notice was took up more of the screen it might stop people editing it? Does the bot already monitor the page or just overwrite when changes are made? If the latter, then I agree with Kj cheetham that an undo bot would be helpful. Polyamorph (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of making that notice take up more screen space, even if going for an undo bot. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Here I've just made the text larger and added a couple of spaces: User:Polyamorph/sandbox. Polyamorph (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've deployed that code to the editnotice, but I still have no idea why there is so much resistance to making the undesired path impossible and instead people favor screaming even louder. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a question about the request - is there a reason this is an issue? As far as I am aware the bot will replace/update anything that needs it, so a user editing here is more wasting their time than anything. In other words, unless we're seeing edit wars with the bot, why is this an issue? Primefac (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because we're creating a trap for no good reason, and many people are falling in. How could that not be an issue? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no trap; there are two edit notices (one on the page, one in the edit box) that say not to edit the page. I'm also not necessarily saying that I'm opposed, just trying to figure out why it's enough of an issue to raise protection to something it's technically not. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the sheer number of manual edits (four in the last week and another eight in the two weeks prior) indicates the current system clearly isn't working. Yes, people should know better, but since they evidently don't despite the warnings why not force them to? I'm genuinely not understanding the reason not to do this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This would prevent manual updates in case the bot goes down for an extended period of time, which it did last August. (If anyone wondered, I took the bot script, available somewhere on wiki, and modified it to output to a text file before I updated the page manually.) – robertsky (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are enough admins watching this page to notice when this happens and unprotect. We shouldn't make the common case worse for the sake of rare oddities. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well... Recent edits to the RMC page leads me to reevaluate my stance. I don't mind support TPER. – robertsky (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, most of the recent editors who have left !votes on RMC are not extended-confirmed editors. Can we start with that protection first? – robertsky (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

edit counts of those who left !votes in the last 1,000 edits(roughly 14 Nov - 7 Dec):

• 17
• 64
• 70

There were EC editors who edited the page as well, but these were not !votes but were:

• minor update of an ongoing discussion ahead of the bot update
• an immediately reverted cut and paste
• manual update after bot getting stuck (this was me actually, manually updating the page after causing the bot to malfunction for hours due to an incorrect conversion of discussion to a multiple-page discussion. I had fixed the conversion but had no idea when the bot would run again).

Most of these, I would say, are helpful in their own way. – robertsky (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support that, but if there is opposition the alternative is to use a filter that requires an editor to confirm the edit before making it? BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That would also work, but seems wasteful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, this seems a similar situation to Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Protecting_the_GAN_page, which did seem to end with the bot becoming a template editor (Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor#User:ChristieBot) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Question about splitting and history

I opened a move request at Talk:France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Requested_move_6_December_2023 to move the pages from "X Country and weapons of mass destruction" to "X Country and nuclear weapons". Some editors correctly mentioned that the move would re-scope the articles. I thought that in any case it would make sense to move the articles and create a new article for WMDs since most of the content is regarding nuclear weapons, and that would better preserve the history. Is there any guideline of what to do in those cases? I couldn't find any. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I'm answering the question you're asking, so please feel free to call me out on that. If you're splitting an article, the best way to preserve attribution and history is by giving attribution (most often by {{split article}} or {{copied}} depending on how the page is split). Primefac (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The question was about what to do in cases where most of the content (let's say 80%) are to be in the new article to be split from the main one. Do we proceed as normal, or do we need to do something special to preserve the history, such as moving the whole article? In this particular case, we can either just create a new article for France and nuclear weapons and then copy 80% of the article content from France and weapons of mass destruction. However, that means that the new article with 80% of the original content has no history. Alternatively, we can move the article to the title "France and nuclear weapons" to preserve the history, and then create a new article for "France and weapons of mass destruction", which will have no history. Vpab15 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Whichever article is the new one will have no history; however, the first edit should have a hyperlink and say something like "Contents WP:SPLIT from France and weapons of mass destruction; please see its history for attribution." (See WP:PROPERSPLIT step 4 and WP:PATT). That's technically enough, but it's good practice to put one of the templates mentioned above on the new Talk page as well to cover all bases. So if France and nuclear weapons is the new article, for example, {{split article}} will be one of the top banners on Talk:France and nuclear weapons, with the information filled in to show where the history came from and can be found. There's already a lot of history under that particular redirect, but that doesn't really change any steps, just note which edit utilized the copied content. You'd probably want consensus that the split is appropriate and leaves enough content on each page, though, as it could just get reverted. Sometimes, creating a draft of each article post split can illustrate this for discussion. -2pou (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I think the split should be uncontroversial, since other countries already have stand-alone articles covering nuclear weapons. I will follow the advice from you and Primefac to create the new articles after the move request is closed. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to seek advice

Years ago, I created an article at Boot (medical). Then I saw Splint (medicine)  5, Sling (medicine)  5, Sterilization (medicine)  4, Screening (medicine)  5 and Percussion (medicine)  5. So I moved the page to Boot (medicine). Then, I saw Dressing (medical). So I am wondering if I should have moved that page, if dressing needs to be moved or if all of the others are wrong.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NCMED says that "medicine" is the appropriate way to disambiguate for medical topics. So it would seem that the dressing article should be moved. BegbertBiggs (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Making that move would result in a lot of double redirects. How do I approach that move?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot that fixes double-redirects? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

So just move it?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If in doubt open a RM on the talk page. That will not only draw more eyes to the discussion, but also signal to page move gnomes that there's a possibility of messiness ahead. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I moved it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

As a gnome, I just updated Template:First aid and Template:Major drug groups to reflect that move, which should make it a bit less messy at least. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Kj cheetham, how long til the bot gets to the rest of the double redirects?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A few days usually, according to WP:DOUBLE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A watched pot never boils.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like all the double redirects have indeed been fixed. There are still plenty of pages that link to the old title, but that's fine (and in fact changing them is discouraged—see WP:NOTBROKEN). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I was confused. I thought once the double redirects were fixed, when you selected What redirects here, nothing would say redirect page. I thought if redirect pages are redirecting there it was a double redirect. Now I am looking at what links here and everything seems clean.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• User:BegbertBiggs, stumbled across all of the following as well. Aspirator (medical device), Speculum (medical), and Retractor (medical). Move all of these as well?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Can probably add Hypoxia (medical), Immunity (medical), Abrasion (medical), Catlin (surgery), and Gag (medical device) to that list too, maybe even Arriscope (surgical microscope) and/or Enucleation (surgery)? -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I was able to move all of them except Abrasion (medical) because (medicine) already exists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

      I also did the two maybes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

      It seems that despite the error I received Abrasion is moved.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

no longer following.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Studio Trigger

Hi, I'm trying to move Studio Trigger article to Trigger (studio) or Trigger (animation studio). Why I cannot do it? What name should I choose? It has to be Trigger, anyway. Fleyzk (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSPM and follow its instructions to list it as a requested move. Link20XX (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So I'm gonna wait for never. I'll add the sources too, let's see when you'll look at them. Fleyzk (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Request move

Furness Railway K1 to be moved to Furness Railway K1 Class. 203.221.17.174 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• This talk page doesn't generally handle requests. For something like this, I'd imagine WP:RM#T would be fine. Nohomersryan (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I need help

Anybody know how to open up an RM on categories? GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Use WP:CFD instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Informal closure

I'd like for there to be more information in WP:RMCI as to when a formal close is required. Twice now, I've done an informal closure and had this questioned by other editors. If an informal closure is no longer something that is supported by consensus, should the following be removed from WP:RMCI?

"You should also add and sign a comment to indicate whether the move was accepted or rejected in the discussion area for the requested move. This can take the form of an informal note or a more formal close (see below)."

Bensci54 (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever done an informal closure for an actual RM discussion and would happily agree to removing that option if it makes things simpler. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by an informal closure, @Bensci54? It looks like you use the RMCloser script, which sets up the closure with the formal header and footers already. Are you referring to having a closing comment? -2pou (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do use the RMcloser usually, but not always. When I say "informal closure" I am referring to the option of just removing the {{requested move/dated}} tag and adding a comment (i.e. an informal note) indicating the disposition without using the {{RM top}} and {{RM bottom}} tags. The way this procedure is worded right now, this is an option, as the "we exclusively use" line referencing to these tags indicates that it only applies to formal closes, and per the line above, formal closes are also just an option. I used the informal note method on a few closes that had no discussion other than the nominators original request and (to me) didn't feel quite right to have the full large green closing box around them. If this method is no longer per consensus, the corresponding text should be removed to remove this option of closing. Bensci54 (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. I have no strong opinion on striking the informal close, but I still use the {{subst:requested move/end}} substitution. When I use it, though, I use follow the "Suggested usage:" copy/paste on the template documentation, which still wraps the substituted template inside the formal closure opening/closing. (I think there's a slight verbiage difference between that copy/paste text and the actual {{subst:RM top}} verbiage, but I never bothered to synch them.) -2pou (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Evolution of the closing instructions

This concept of an "informal closure", which is foreign to me, prompted me to research the development of the closing instructions, something I'd not looked at before.

The initial closing instructions were written by Ryan Norton between 15 October 2005‎ and 1 January 2006‎. RN had just been given adminship on October 12, 2005 (back in the day, editors actually waited until they had their administrator bit before they started acting like an administrator by doing tasks like writing instructions for admins). Norton's last admin action was in July 2010, and he was desysoped due to inactivity in December 2021. RN currently still ranks #3 on the pie chart of contributors to the instructions, having added 12% of the current text.

Actually, until 1 January 2006 there was a section on the main RM page Wikipedia:Requested moves#Procedure for admins, when RN moved that section to his new Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators page (changing a "procedure" to "guidelines"). The "guidelines" were reduced to "instructions", and the page moved to its current title on 1 September 2009‎ after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 16#Non-admin closures.

The focus of RN's initial version was on technical procedures for performing moves, with a much smaller section on "determining consensus". That smaller section was cut in half by the 13 June 2006 first edit by another editor, stating that the suggested system for determining consensus was "not discussed and a personal POV". It was further reduced on 23 August 2006 by removing the "arbitrary percentage" of 60% used as a bar for obtaining consensus. The concept of relisting discussions was added that same day.

Well, I'm surprised to find that the term "informal note" was added at 01:39, 31 December 2008 as part of a series of December 2008‎ edits by Fuhghettaboutit (and Aervanath) which rewrote and added more detail to the instructions. Fuhghettaboutit's last admin action was in November 2021, and they were desysoped due to inactivity on 1 February 2023. Fuhghettaboutit still ranks #2 on the pie chart of contributors to the instructions, having added 24.6% of the current text.

This was all before process-specific templates {{RM top}} and {{RM bottom}} were added on 8 January 2009 and a bot started managing the RM discussions on May 30, 2009. By the time I became active at requested moves, over three years later, in 2012, use of the project-specific templates had become so ubiquitous that I never took serious note of the "informal note" option in the instructions. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So yes, in a process which is now managed by a bot which is not artificially intelligent, and thus requires some formal structure for the discussions it manages, this close is too informal, and does not meet current editor expectations, as discussed here. I'm going to remove these legacy instructions. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Page move repeated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk · contribs) does not have any reason or request move discuss on the High-speed rail in Indonesia[8][9] which could be possibility WP:PMW. It was on previously discussion that it should be an overview article currently - Jjpachano (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Robertsky Polyamorph (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What discretion do admins have at RM/TR?

See also: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 January § TNA Wrestling

There's a bit of an issue at the MRV I created above, based on the following sequence of events:

• @ZI Jony: closes the RM as "Move to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling". As the page is indef-move-protected, he asks at RM/TR for administrator assistance.
• @Amakuru: asks why he closed it that way and argues that the close should be different.
• ZI Jony then changes the close to "Move to TNA Wrestling".

I don't think this is really the correct process. It appears that Amakuru leant on his mop to override an RM closure instead of following the formal process we've set up to question it. Certainly, at Jony's talk and at MRV, the twenty minute discussion at RMTR has proven to be a bit controversial, but there's nothing in the letter of our RM policies, just in the spirit. I don't think anything more than a WP:TROUT for Amakuru is appropriate, but this does raise a question that we didn't have answered before.

The question at hand is this: do administrators have the discretion to refuse to effect an RM closure made in good faith? I personally think the answer is "no"; it's a technical request, after all, not a closure request (if an administrator was needed to close, then AN is where you ask, not RMTR). Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Any editor, admin or not, can ask any closer to reconsider their close. If the closer of the discussion is convinced by argument that their initial close was incorrect, they can change it. BD2412 T 18:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that we have a process for asking closers to reconsider, which RM/TR isn't a part of. I don't think administrators should be asking for reconsideration that with the admin hat on, or places where you would expect said hat on. Sceptre (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1195865077 how is Amakuru using their admin hat and not their regular editor hat in their response? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I don't see how Amakuru "leaned on their admin hat". But in general, no one is obliged to do anything. An admin is free to refuse and comment that they don't think the close is appropriate - per NOTBURO we don't need to force such a conversation to happen at the closer's talk page. If not a single admin is willing to effect a close then that's a sign the close is probably not good (and the fact that a page is move protected is also a sign that a close should be done carefully). Galobtter (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru demonstrated due diligence in questioning this request, first because the RM was still open, and second because the target was not aligned with established policy-based consensus. Amakuru was under no obligation to move the page, and it's fully consistent with our usual practice to keep any discussion that may arise (which is not uncommon) in one place at RM/TR. Polyamorph (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll break down my answer since there are several steps and people are talking about different steps:

1. Anyone can comment at RM/TR while the request is there, as a way of asking the RM closer to reconsider.
2. The RM closer can modify or self-revert their own closure if they choose, or not.
3. If a closer has declined to modify or self-revert their closure, then the move must be granted at RM/TR, without back-and-forth debate or impromptu junior varsity move review. Page protections are by and large placed to prevent vandalism, move-warring, and similar behavioral disruption. They are not to prevent good-faith discussion and closure from being executed. Admins may not leverage the existence of such protection into an effective veto.
4. If it's eventually brought to MRV, reviewers will review the ultimate RM closure for whether it correctly assessed the consensus of the original RM discussion.

In the specific case: Amakuru commented; that's fine. The closer modified the closure; it was voluntary. Number 3 didn't happen. Lastly, number 4 is being examined at move review and we should say no more about that here. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I fear that a few editors above are missing the main problem. Amakuru should have brought up their opinions about the article's proper title on the article's talk page. What they did instead was to pressure the closer to change their close, and then used their admin tools to move the fully-protected page. That's too far into WP:INVOLVED for me. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Technically, WP:IMR says to discuss with the closer on their talk page. I'd grant leeway on where that discussion actually takes place (WP:NOTBURO). —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: That wasn't the point I was trying to make, so I'm sorry if I worded my message poorly! I have no issue with Amakuru or anyone reaching out to someone about their RM closure. For example, asking ZI Jony to reopen the RM here, there, or elsewhere to bring up their new content concern would have been fine. That's bullet point #2 at WP:IMR.

What I am concerned with is that didn't happen. Instead, Amakuru took a position in the content debate/dispute, got the closer to change their close, and used their administrator tools to action a request that they were now involved in. ZI Jony deserves a minnow as well for changing the close in the first place, but regardless the article's new title did not agree with the consensus decision of the RM. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Exceptions for involved editors

The instructions say An involved editor, whether an administrator or otherwise, may not close a move request (with certain exceptions, detailed below). However, those exceptions are not detailed below as far as I can see. Would a WP:SNOW move of Finbar's Class (RTÉ) (see its RM) be acceptable? I'm thinking yes, but wanted to double check. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I saw controversial is that your signature isn't there. ;) Honestly, I would have closed it as procedural close and move it as nominated, taking it as a technical request. – robertsky (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha! :) Fixed that now, and closed/moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Round-robin-ish moves for AfC acceptances

My understanding of the typical process is this:

1. redirect in article space (Article A) is moved to a new title in draft space temporarily, redirect suppressed
2. move AfC draft (Article B) to the now-vacant title in mainspace via AFCH script as normal
3. request histmerge of the original redirect (A) into B

First question: am I correct? Second question: what if Article A and Article B share the same title (eg, a personal name), but don't have the same subject? I was just looking at Draft:Oh Eun-young, which has a redirect with history in mainspace, but the draft is about a doctor and the redirect is about a beauty pagent contestant. I don't know that it makes any sense to do a histmerge here. What's supposed to happen? -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That's... not typical, so the short answer is "yes, but only in very specific circumstances".

• If there is no (or a trivial) history at the redirect, just hit it with {{db-afc-move}} and then have the reviewer accept as normal.
• If there is a history and the subjects are the same, then a page swap is likely appropriate, but a histmerge is only necessary if there was a copy/paste from the redirect into the draft.
• If there is a history and the subjects are not the same, then I would probably disambiguate the redirect further (e.g. Oh Eun-young (television host) or similar) to keep the history (tag with {{r with history}} if it isn't already).

I think those are the three main situations I see when AFC is involved in existing redirects. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac thanks for the response. And yes sorry, I meant "typical process for when a round-robin move is required", not like, typical all the time. For bullet #2, isn't this a problem for if someone is trying to cite a diff from the previous article? How would they be able to find the redirect that had been moved? -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. As far as your query, diffs don't care about location; Special:Diff/508229169 is from 2012 and points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Eclipses task force/Work Page, even though at the time the diff was made the page was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eclipses/Work Page. Also, URLs don't care either (it preferentially chooses the diff over the page title). Primefac (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I knew diffs worked like that but had no idea URLs did too! Thanks again. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

RM & RFC

A discussion related to the RM process is taking place, at the RFC page. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-autoconfimed users

What is the process for non-autoconfirmed users to perform page moves? They cannot do so themselves nor can they request a move here (since it is semiprotected). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's uncontroversial, they can make a request at WP:RM/TR; if it's controversial, they can follow the instructions at WP:PCM to start a discussion on the individual article's talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Floating link

I have been trying to edit Wikipedia:Requested moves to replace the Closing instructions link in the top right corner with an actual {{floating link}} rather than the makeshift version using id=coordinates that has been there since 2008. For reasons that are unclear to me, my edit keeps timing out on multiple devices.

Would anyone else care to try making the edit (or to speculate on why the edit won't go through)?

Replace

<span id="coordinates">[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions|Closing instructions]]</span>

With

{{Floating link|Closing instructions}}

SilverLocust 💬 04:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh. All manual edits time out for me too, although Twinkle and rollback seem to work. I'll leave a message at WP:VPT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved in the latest version of MediaWiki. SilverLocust 💬 09:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Bot to clerk RM/TR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm going to suggest a bot to clerk WP:RM/TR which would automatically remove pages that are detected as removed after 3 hours from the page and remove inactive opposed moves after 48 hours of inactivity. I'm happy to develop the bot in PyWikiBot if consensus were to be reached here to implement a bot. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 17:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the concept, am flexible with the precise timings, though for the latter I'd be thinking 48 hours being a minimum. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Support, but I think 72h is better than 48h. – Hilst [talk] 18:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Support but 3 hours is quite long. The only reason why a page will remain listed after it's been moved is if a page mover has forgotten to remove it. 1 hour is probably sufficient? I would also suggest that the bot notify the requester that their move was removed as contested move, with details of how to list a formal RM.Polyamorph (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with your last sentence, but the bot would need to check that a RM hadn't already been started first. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support something more like 1 hour and 72 hours, and good idea from Polyamorph about notifying. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, based on this I will work on implementing the bot and will keep you posted when it's ready for WP:BRFA here. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (she/they) 12:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support And maybe to move entries from the Uncontroversial, and revert sections to admin section automatically if either the current or targeted title is admin-protected as well, noting the original location. We can leave such entries in the contested section alone. – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

detect full create-protected as well. – robertsky (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support - No Concerns. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support with a 72-hour minimum. And piggybacking on Polyamorph's excellent suggestion, perhaps the bot could also notify requesters as soon as their request is moved to the Contested section. Pinging is currently encouraged but more often than not doesn't happen. Station1 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

@Zippybonzo: I was cleaning up some technical requests, and it rang a bell on me seeing the above discussion at one point. It seems there was support for your proposal, so just giving a courtesy ping if you still intend to work the bot development/request. -2pou (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I will work on this in a few days when I get back from my trip, with life happening I have forgotten about this so I’ll do it again. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PCM guidance?

I feel like a lot of the requests that get contested fall into some extremely common PCM scenarios that are not detailed anywhere and are overall not intuitive to people unfamiliar with page move processes (a lot of RMTR requestors fall into this). The most common reasons for contests that I've seen after about a year of watching and processing requests are COMMONNAME over official name, company name changes and primary topic grabs. I feel like it would be worth throwing in PCM at least just those two because of how common they are. Wider input would be appreciated. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me! I wonder if it would also be useful to have an essay that catalogues common types of requests, and the policy questions that are likely to come into play for them, in more detail than would be feasible in WP:PCM itself. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Request to close all outstanding RM discussions carte blanche

Enough is enough. The backlog is never-ending, especially with the NCROY-related discussions. Requesting for permission to close all outstanding discussions at the whims and fancy of the closers with no recourse at WP:MRV. – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Only if you get a coin-flip AI to determine the outcome and write the close. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

And the result is...

no consensus?

– Hilst [talk] 12:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)