Misplaced Pages

talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:02, 26 October 2024 editZippybonzo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Rollbackers8,016 edits →Re the clerking bot at RMTR: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:02, 24 December 2024 edit undoBagumba (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators173,929 edits →Request: Implement a form for requests at WP:RM/TR: ReplyTag: Reply 
(90 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 33: Line 33:
**] **]
{{cot|Archives by date|bg=#e0d2a3|bg2=#f8eabb}} {{cot|Archives by date|bg=#e0d2a3|bg2=#f8eabb}}
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#]
{{cob}} {{cob}}
}} }}
Line 83: Line 84:
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}


== Move the article of ] to ] ==
== Current Discussions bot needs to do better than copy, wrap, paste ==


I want to move the article based on the Chinese name format where the surname placed first. In motorsport, he always called by Yifei Ye than Ye Yifei, but to make it consistent with other Chinese figures, and people his name has to be Ye Yifei. It's not Zedong Mao, it's Mao Zedong for example. Hope someone can accepts the changes. Thank you. ] (]) 06:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems that ] is maintained by a bot that copies everything inside the user's original subst'd {{tlx|Requested move}} template, and wraps it all into one paragraph that begins with an asterisk (*), which encodes for a bulleted list entry. Moreover, it appears that upon editing the lead paragraphs of a talk page section created with this template, the bot automatically updates ]. More intelligence is needed. ] has a discussion that includes {{tlx|hidden}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes four lint errors: two missing end tags for {{tag|div|o}} and two stripped tags for {{tag|div|c}}. I edited that talk page and inserted a blank line above {{tlx|hidden}}, to see what the bot would do. Well, the bot inserted two spaces before {{tlx|hidden}}, but the template is still in a paragraph beginning with asterisk, so the four lint errors are still there. Similarly, ] has a discussion that includes {{tlx|Not a ballot}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes a multiline table in list lint error. And that's what the bot did. The bot needs more sophistication to avoid creating lint errors in ].
:{{u|Thfeeder}}, please see ] for how to start a move request at the article's talk page. ] (]) 13:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


== Overcomplication ==
Also, near the top of ] is the markup
: <code><nowiki>'''This list is also available''' in a ''']''' and in '''].''' nnn discussions have been relisted.''</nowiki></code>
which has a spurious close italics ('<nowiki/>') at the end, which needs to be removed. —] (]) 00:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


Making move requests is way too overcomplicated, this page should be handled like the protection request page. ] (]) 18:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
P.S. ] no longer includes the discussion on ], but you can find it in {{Oldid|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Current discussions|1247362566|the version of 00:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)}}, just before that section was removed. —] (]) 00:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*Protections aren't generally controversial, so the format isn't very useful for something that typically requires debate. There is ] for uncomplicated moves that no one will object to. ] (]) 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:What I mean is that there isn't an "add topic" button or something like this on this page, unlike the protection request page, you would have to edit the page manually, which you can't do as an IP user, because this page is semi-protected. ] (]) 18:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
**:There is no reason to edit it. ] has no protection. Regular RMs are made on article talk pages and transcribed here. ] (]) 18:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
**::I mean the move request page, not ]. ] (]) 19:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
**:::Do you find using a single template on the talk page of an article difficult? See ] -- there is only two parameters: the requested new name and your reason. ]&thinsp;] 21:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
**::::But you still need to edit this page, there is no "add topic" button even though there should be one. ] (]) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
**:::::As ] stated, they are very different applications, used in different places. The "add topic" is used on the ] page, and that discussion is not included on the article talk page -- its not necessary since it is specifically "discussed on the article talk page". However, by contrast, regular moves are discussed on the talk page, so a simple button on the ] would be impossible to work currently, as it would require backend changes to the Mediawiki software or requiring people to otherwise run untrusted Javascript. However, an example of a tool talk might help you specifically is to look over at ] and make a request on that talk page. That is a tool that would add an extra navigation tab at the top of your browser that would let you do RMs when viewing the article itself. ]&thinsp;] 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== Move cleanup ==
:If the hidden note is causing issues, it should be moved from the request itself to the first comment. In general, the request shouldn't be a wall of text. ] (]) 08:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::I concur with this. There are times when it is helpful to add a copy of the signature closer to the top of the request to prevent a wall of text from appearing here. ]<small>]</small> 09:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::Heh, the point of using {{tl|hidden}} was to ''not'' make it a wall of text :)
::Please update the software and/or the instructions if people filing RMs should do something differently in the future, I don't recall ever seeing any warnings against the use of the hidden template there. --] (]) 15:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::My original proposal was to modify the bot to avoid picking up templates that shouldn't be bulleted. That still might be worth doing, but it seems that we should also ask users to avoid using templates that shouldn't be bulleted. ] includes the bulleted item "{{mono|{{var|Why&nbsp;...}}}} = your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate". We could put, right below that, a two-asterisk indented bullet something like, "Please do not include templates that expand to tables, such as nav templates or {{tl|Not a ballot}}, and also avoid collapse templates such as {{tl|collapse}} and {{tl|hidden}}." Comments? —] (]) 22:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Yep, that sounds like an improvement over the current phrasing. And obviously saying something like "Please post any such extra information afterwards, as a comment." after that. --] (]) 08:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{Done}} —] (]) 06:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:I ] in October 2023 to support {{tl|collapse top}} & {{tl|collapse bottom}}. – ] (]) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::]: Could you add support for {{tl|hidden}}? Is there a systematic way to support the whole family of collapse templates? —] (]) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It took me a while to realize that though the {{tl|hidden}} problem was only reported here yesterday, it was created ]. Was it really "hidden" for that long, before anybody noticed any problem? Of course, that means this discussion, which generally is only supposed to run a week, has been open for over a month, too. – ] (]) 22:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, in the grand scheme of things it would actually be more helpful if more people read the Sloboda discussion and said "yeah the medieval settlement type is what we really want everyone to read first" or "yeah the English reader doesn't know this term, it's really ambiguous" and we get over it sooner rather than later :D --] (]) 09:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)


{{section link|Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Cleaning_up_after_the_move}} reads: {{tq2|You should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks described at ]}} Maybe I just more notice and remember the cases where this isn't done, but to what extent does the community consider this a closer requirement versus some ] laundry list that anyone can volunteer to do, not necessarily the closer. I'm trying to have the proper perspective on this. —] (]) 04:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2024 ==


:The line is pretty clear, if an editor wants to close a move, they should be willing to do the postmove cleanup, such as fixing bypass redirects in templates or retargeting links and cleaning up leads.
{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves|answered=yes}}
:The only general exception I'd see to that is if some editors in the discussion have volunteered preemptively that they will do some of the cleanup if it's not just ordinary cleanup. Like say an alternative result of a split or so that requires more than routine cleanup. ] (]) 04:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Please move ] article to previous title '''Cemile Giousouf''' ] (]) 01:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:My perspective has been that editors should avoid closing articles if they cannot complete the task within a reasonable amount of time, say an hour or so. The exception to this that I can think of have been in RMnac situations where sometimes an experienced editor can perform most (but not all) of the necessary close steps (such as a delay such as waiting for a CSD to make room) or they might be closing the discussion, and then asking requesting a technical move, etc. But in these cases, they should be monitoring for those changes to take place and promptly go about finishing up any cleanup work, which I'd AGF and gracefully give many hours (but not multiple days) for this to be accomplished (e.g. an Admin performs their action while the closer is now asleep). However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks. However, if any RM closer is consistently dropping the ball with regards to cleanup tasks, do AGF and use their talk page. ]&thinsp;] 08:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}. In the future, please make these requests on the "Project page". Click on "Edit" next to "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" where you will see instructions on how to request the move. ] (]) 02:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks|q=yes}}: Yeah, I'm sure nobody would mind if a non-closer volunteers to help cleanup. But my original question was about the expectation of closers to cleanup their moves, such as old titles that got usurped or links in navboxes. —] (]) 13:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::but the page is not open for ip ] (]) 17:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Right, I think my initial statement that if you cannot commit to doing the cleanup tasks, then you should avoid closing an RM. ]&thinsp;] 05:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Do not click on Edit at the top of the page or the top of the section. They are semi-protected. Click only on the Edit link next to "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". Let me know if you still have problems if you do that. ] (]) 18:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)


== Participating in a RM after relisting ==
== ] ==


These texts don't seem to align:
There have been three RMs on the article about a move to Severance Music Center (currently a redirect). I initiated the first two, but had no idea about the third until recently. All three were closed with a maximum of two oppose votes, both of them by either {{u|EurekaLott}} or {{u|Necrothesp}}, and two only have one oppose, by the latter. I was going to relist this, but that would make three of four that I started, so I decided to put my comments here before doing so. I didn't use ] because all three closers have been different editors. As to RSs, I believe that the last RM, again the one that I didn't start, has an adequate amount of them as examples. I encourage the two opposing voters to comment here. ] (]) 00:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


*] - "While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote."
: Apparently, this is the wrong place for this. Please let me know where a more appropriate place is. ] (]) 00:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


*] - "A relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey."
== Why aren't my requests working? ==


Should either or both be removed/changed to become aligned on whether participating in an RM after relisting is allowed/not allowed/encouraged/discouraged/etc? ] 14:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been trying to do a ], but whenever I do, it doesn't work properly. Do you know why? ] (]) 18:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:For starters, you have placed it in a comment section. I will move it for you. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 18:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks ] (]) 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::For some reason, it's still not in the correct format. ] (]) 18:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::There was also an unclosed link in the request (<code><nowiki>]&nbsp;] 18:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


:I think the current guidelines are good enough as they are.
== Move the "Santería" page to the official name of the religion "Regla de Ocha" ==
:While it's rare, sometimes someone clerking at RM may be relisting something neutrally and thereafter some arguments are made by editors and the person who relisted it will often be following threads as well a week later to potentially close it, but sometimes new arguments are made since relisting (since that's the point) and as experienced editors, sometimes then instead of closing a discussion as say no consensus based on the presented arguments, that editor may instead decide to become a party of the discussion and present new evidence as a participant, which, while rare, is not entirely unheard of, since the people that relist/close sometimes have more experience with regards to ] policies and if such evidence wasn't presented in an RM, it can be useful to present it instead of just letting an RM play out resulting in potentially a wrong move. ] (]) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:They seem to say the same thing. Many editors consider many acceptable things inadvisable, but PAG is based on consensus. But the way the first sentence is structured implies that the opinions of many editors outweighs the lack of editor consensus. Perhaps it could be changed to read, "While many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote, there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it." ] (]) 17:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::The first sentence discourages against participating after relisting, the second one says it's allowed. I think some clarity, on both pages, is needed if it's allowed, discouraged or both. ] 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:The lines from ] about supervote are wrong and should be '''removed'''. A supervote is when a closure reflects the closer's own preference, which should have been a vote, but instead is a super-powered vote that gets the last word and shuts down rebuttal. A relist does none of that. It doesn't stop other people from discussing. It doesn't stop other people from closing ("there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion"). All it is is one person's non-binding opinion that a discussion wasn't ready for closure at a particular time. Participating after relisting is no big deal. ] (]) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:The underlying idea is that there are always enough participants for a discussion without relying upon the input of involved editors. The lines effectively discourage adding a !vote at the same time as relisting, which would usually be disruptive in practice if not in theory (most closers wait for resisted discussions to expire even though that is not required). With that in mind I think it is best for both lines to be retained. The general practice should be discouraged, and it is noted that it is not explicitly forbidden in special cirumstances. ]<small>]</small> 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:While I can see what you bring up, they're not exactly conflicting, but they could introduce confusion, especially for those who never look at the closing instructions so regular participators in the RM might feel that it is inappropriate. However, at the end of the day I believe that most closers properly understand how much weight to place on the relisting editor -- which is basically almost zero. However, we still want to discourage the general practice of people relisting and !voting, as it might give the appearance of trying to game the system, especially when their !vote is running in contrary to what otherwise might appear to be consensus forming. ]&thinsp;] 05:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Best way to handle a complicated move? ==
] can be considered a derogatory term and the religion, as it exists in the Cuba and throughout the diaspora, is known as "Regla de Ocha". I believe the page should be moved to "Regla de Ocha" with a redirect in place from Santería > Regla de Ocha. I'm happy to volunteer editing the page to reflect the proper name of the religion once that is done.


I need help with something, if you don't mind. I came across a weird situation with ] and ]. The original list has been pretty static for a long time, and the sorted list is fuller, better cited, and better maintained. I proposed merging them and have ], but it's not really a merge, because other than a couple of citations that needed to be copied over (which I've already done), all of the content will come from the sorted list. So it seems counter-productive to copy and paste it over the original list--the history should be with the content. How is this sort of thing handled? Move the original list to a subpage to preserve ''it's'' history, maybe, and then move the sorted list to ]? Thanks! ] 02:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, there are several misnomers, incorrect statements and "beware of the boogeyman" tactics currently in use on the Santería page. All of this stems, first, from the name being incorrect for the page, so why not show some respect to the members of the religion, worldwide, by migrating the page correctly? ] (]) 19:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:Redirect the former page to the latter, tag it with {{t|r from merge}} and {{t|r with history}}, make sure to add all of the appropriate talk page attribution templates (e.g. {{t|merged from}}) and call it a day. Just because there isn't actually any text being merged doesn't mean that the pages can't be merged. ] (]) 11:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::And if you want ] to go to ] after the merge, a ] will be required, which can be performed by a page mover or administrator. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 17:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Is that better than using the templates to point to the history? I have now completed the merge, so right the history of what is now ] is at ], which is a redirect. ] 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::''sigh'' you did exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting, though in fairness my statements were based on the (sorted) version being the final target. I have sorted everything out though. ] (]) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry! I misunderstood. But thank you for fixing it! I think having one list instead of two will be a lot clearer to readers. ] 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No worries, I should have been clearer and it was a fairly simple fix. ] (]) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs ==
:{{not done}} This is a talk page for discussing the process described at ]. To propose a specific title change, please follow the instructions found at ] and initiate discussion on the talk page of the article you would like to move. ]<small>]</small> 03:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


It looks like a potentially inexperienced user (@]) has tried to help with closing RMs today and and then brought , which shone light on it.
== Re the clerking bot at RMTR ==
Their ] appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at .


I'm sure the editor means well to help, but it might require someone reviewing all of them and potentially vacating the RM closes. ] (]) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned a long(ish) time ago about creating a clerking bot, and I am working on it, but I was wondering your thoughts on what the responses from the bot should be for the different occasions. ] &#124; ] &#124; ] (they/them) 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

:What would this bot be clerking? ] (]) 11:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:It looks like there are also a lot of closes that ''weren't'' contested and none have ended up at ]. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the standard procedures if discussion participants have issues. Feeglgeef definitely needs more practice writing close rationales, but I don't think a public flogging here will be productive. ] </span>]] 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] completely forgot to mention what the bot would do, but it was discussed a few months ago to clerk ], remove requests after they are moved, and move requests to the admin needed section if the pages are protected. ] &#124; ] &#124; ] (they/them) 12:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:I was surprised by the close as well, as there was only overwhelming consensus for only one of the two moves. My guess is that perhaps in their inexperience conflated partial consensus for full consensus, but it wasn't anything that was really going to concern me until I saw his talk page with multiple other people talking about other closing actions. Admittedly I remember when I first began doing NAC closures back in the beginning and not quite getting it right, perhaps some simple coaching if they're open to it is all that's needed. ]&thinsp;] 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Link: ] – ] <small>(])</small> 14:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Ah, right. I have adjusted the header to be more clear. ] (]) 11:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
== Move ] to ] ==
:{{re|Zippybonzo}} what do you mean by {{tq|responses from the bot...for the different occasions}}? You mean what message the bot should leave on the requester's user talk? ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::Basically the message it should leave on the talk page when it's been contested and there's been no action for 72 hours, plus how should it note down that it has moved an request needing an admin to the admin page. ] &#124; ] &#124; ] (they/them) 08:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The them "]" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at ]. However, it currently redirects to ] as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about ] seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". ] (]) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Zippybonzo}} As a very rough draft for the first, what about this? {{tq|Your request at ] has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at ].}} The third sentence can be something similar to the last sentence of ]. ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Cool, I’ll note that down when finishing off the bot. ] &#124; ] &#124; ] (they/them) 13:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. ]&thinsp;] 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it ''was'' the right move. ] (]) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It looks like @] performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @] if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a ] discussion in the appropriate way. ]&thinsp;] 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

== Move ] to ] in place of redirect page ==

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

:@]: This is because there are/were two squadrons by the name ]. So, the squadron meeting ] criteria will stay at ], the other will be disambiguated using the parentheses. You will need to present a case of why the current VP-40 is the primary topic over the older one. Then, the other editors will deliberate over it, and a conclusion will be reached. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==

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

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

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

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

== 100+ thoughtless RMS by ] ==

] filed more than 100 RMs yesterday on US colleges and universities , apparently wanting them all renamed according to the way they're referred to in sports coverage, with all the idiosyncratic inconsistencies inherent in that e.g. ''San Francisco State University → SFSU'' and ''California State University Channel Islands → CSU Channel Islands'' and ''California State University, Northridge → Cal State Northridge''. All of these have been universally opposed on the various article talk pages e.g. -- and see also . Is there a way to snow close them all right now on a mass basis, before more editor time is wasted? From other comments at the last link this editor has been doing this in at least one other topic area, so it may be necessary to ban this editor from RMs completely before this is over. ]] 14:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:My first reaction was that it's sometimes blurry how to balance being bold with ]. On the cautious side though, this user was also banned before with their sock {{u|23prootie}}, and the last of that user's blocks was re: move warring. —] (]) 09:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I closed these a little while ago. ] (]) 10:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:02, 24 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.
Please use the Misplaced Pages:Move review process for contested move request closes.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, most subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.
This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, No consensus, 7 June 2007
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, Not moved, 11 February 2018
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, Not moved, 19 September 2018
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, Not moved, 22 July 2024
Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search" Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

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

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

Move the article of Yifei Ye to Ye Yifei

I want to move the article based on the Chinese name format where the surname placed first. In motorsport, he always called by Yifei Ye than Ye Yifei, but to make it consistent with other Chinese figures, and people his name has to be Ye Yifei. It's not Zedong Mao, it's Mao Zedong for example. Hope someone can accepts the changes. Thank you. Thfeeder (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thfeeder, please see WP:RM#CM for how to start a move request at the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Overcomplication

Making move requests is way too overcomplicated, this page should be handled like the protection request page. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Protections aren't generally controversial, so the format isn't very useful for something that typically requires debate. There is WP:RMTR for uncomplicated moves that no one will object to. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    What I mean is that there isn't an "add topic" button or something like this on this page, unlike the protection request page, you would have to edit the page manually, which you can't do as an IP user, because this page is semi-protected. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Move cleanup

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Cleaning up after the move reads:

You should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks described at WP:POSTMOVE

Maybe I just more notice and remember the cases where this isn't done, but to what extent does the community consider this a closer requirement versus some WP:NODEADLINE laundry list that anyone can volunteer to do, not necessarily the closer. I'm trying to have the proper perspective on this. —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The line is pretty clear, if an editor wants to close a move, they should be willing to do the postmove cleanup, such as fixing bypass redirects in templates or retargeting links and cleaning up leads.
The only general exception I'd see to that is if some editors in the discussion have volunteered preemptively that they will do some of the cleanup if it's not just ordinary cleanup. Like say an alternative result of a split or so that requires more than routine cleanup. Raladic (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
My perspective has been that editors should avoid closing articles if they cannot complete the task within a reasonable amount of time, say an hour or so. The exception to this that I can think of have been in RMnac situations where sometimes an experienced editor can perform most (but not all) of the necessary close steps (such as a delay such as waiting for a CSD to make room) or they might be closing the discussion, and then asking requesting a technical move, etc. But in these cases, they should be monitoring for those changes to take place and promptly go about finishing up any cleanup work, which I'd AGF and gracefully give many hours (but not multiple days) for this to be accomplished (e.g. an Admin performs their action while the closer is now asleep). However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks. However, if any RM closer is consistently dropping the ball with regards to cleanup tasks, do AGF and use their talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks: Yeah, I'm sure nobody would mind if a non-closer volunteers to help cleanup. But my original question was about the expectation of closers to cleanup their moves, such as old titles that got usurped or links in navboxes. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Right, I think my initial statement that if you cannot commit to doing the cleanup tasks, then you should avoid closing an RM. TiggerJay (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Participating in a RM after relisting

These texts don't seem to align:

Should either or both be removed/changed to become aligned on whether participating in an RM after relisting is allowed/not allowed/encouraged/discouraged/etc? Frost 14:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the current guidelines are good enough as they are.
While it's rare, sometimes someone clerking at RM may be relisting something neutrally and thereafter some arguments are made by editors and the person who relisted it will often be following threads as well a week later to potentially close it, but sometimes new arguments are made since relisting (since that's the point) and as experienced editors, sometimes then instead of closing a discussion as say no consensus based on the presented arguments, that editor may instead decide to become a party of the discussion and present new evidence as a participant, which, while rare, is not entirely unheard of, since the people that relist/close sometimes have more experience with regards to WP:AT policies and if such evidence wasn't presented in an RM, it can be useful to present it instead of just letting an RM play out resulting in potentially a wrong move. Raladic (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
They seem to say the same thing. Many editors consider many acceptable things inadvisable, but PAG is based on consensus. But the way the first sentence is structured implies that the opinions of many editors outweighs the lack of editor consensus. Perhaps it could be changed to read, "While many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote, there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it." Safrolic (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence discourages against participating after relisting, the second one says it's allowed. I think some clarity, on both pages, is needed if it's allowed, discouraged or both. Frost 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The lines from Misplaced Pages:Requested moves about supervote are wrong and should be removed. A supervote is when a closure reflects the closer's own preference, which should have been a vote, but instead is a super-powered vote that gets the last word and shuts down rebuttal. A relist does none of that. It doesn't stop other people from discussing. It doesn't stop other people from closing ("there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion"). All it is is one person's non-binding opinion that a discussion wasn't ready for closure at a particular time. Participating after relisting is no big deal. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The underlying idea is that there are always enough participants for a discussion without relying upon the input of involved editors. The lines effectively discourage adding a !vote at the same time as relisting, which would usually be disruptive in practice if not in theory (most closers wait for resisted discussions to expire even though that is not required). With that in mind I think it is best for both lines to be retained. The general practice should be discouraged, and it is noted that it is not explicitly forbidden in special cirumstances. Dekimasuよ! 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
While I can see what you bring up, they're not exactly conflicting, but they could introduce confusion, especially for those who never look at the closing instructions so regular participators in the RM might feel that it is inappropriate. However, at the end of the day I believe that most closers properly understand how much weight to place on the relisting editor -- which is basically almost zero. However, we still want to discourage the general practice of people relisting and !voting, as it might give the appearance of trying to game the system, especially when their !vote is running in contrary to what otherwise might appear to be consensus forming. TiggerJay (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Best way to handle a complicated move?

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

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

Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs

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

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

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

Move Virginia High School (Virginia) to Virginia High School

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

First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. TiggerJay (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it was the right move. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It looks like @Nardog performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @Bernardgeorgeh if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a WP:RM discussion in the appropriate way. TiggerJay (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last month @RaschenTechner mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. TiggerJay (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on WP:RM/TR would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nohomersryan: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
On Twinkle under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Twinkle/doc, but the functionality is referenced at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_42#RM_requests. —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. – robertsky (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. I don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @Robertsky, I appreciate it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

100+ thoughtless RMS by User:TheParties

User:TheParties filed more than 100 RMs yesterday on US colleges and universities , apparently wanting them all renamed according to the way they're referred to in sports coverage, with all the idiosyncratic inconsistencies inherent in that e.g. San Francisco State University → SFSU and California State University Channel Islands → CSU Channel Islands and California State University, Northridge → Cal State Northridge. All of these have been universally opposed on the various article talk pages e.g. -- and see also . Is there a way to snow close them all right now on a mass basis, before more editor time is wasted? From other comments at the last link this editor has been doing this in at least one other topic area, so it may be necessary to ban this editor from RMs completely before this is over. EEng 14:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

My first reaction was that it's sometimes blurry how to balance being bold with WP:CAREFUL. On the cautious side though, this user was also banned before with their sock 23prootie, and the last of that user's blocks was re: move warring. —Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I closed these a little while ago. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)