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 09:07, 10 December 2024 view sourceToadspike (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers9,991 edits →Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:07, 10 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,377 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 36) (bot 
(62 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected}}
{{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no|shortcut=|WT:RM}} {{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no|shortcut=|WT:RM}}
{{tmbox|text='''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions given on the ]. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the ].}} {{tmbox|text='''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions given on the ]. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the ].}}
Line 84: Line 85:
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}


== Move “Belarusian Peopleʻs Republic” to “Belarusian People's Republic” == == Move ] to ] ==


The them "]" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at ]. However, it currently redirects to ] as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about ] seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". ] (]) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I tried to move it a while ago to correct it, and I messed up and used the wrong apostrophe. And I can't fix it. ] (]) 12:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:Should be sorted. ] (]) 12:15, 1 November 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)
== Move "]" back to "Mathematical object" ==
⚫ ::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 ==
A user renamed the long-standing "Mathematical object" article to ] without any discussion, I can't move it back or rename it as the original title was made a redirect to ]. ] (]) 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


<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)
:Resolved ] (]) 18:39, 12 November 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)
== Move the article of ] to ] ==


== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
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)
:{{u|Thfeeder}}, please see ] for how to start a move request at the article's talk page. ] (]) 13:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


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


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.
Making move requests is way too overcomplicated, this page should be handled like the protection request page. ] (]) 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 ] 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)


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)
== Move cleanup ==


: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)
{{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)
::I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on ] would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. ] (]) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. ] (]) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:On ] under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at ], but the functionality is referenced at ]. —] (]) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. ''I'' don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @], I appreciate it. ] (]) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article. ==
: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. ] (]) 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. ]&thinsp;] 08:55, 27 November 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)
⚫ :::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)


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


:I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. ]&nbsp;] 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
These texts don't seem to align:
::Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! ] (]) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. ]&thinsp;] 06:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name '''at all''' as of now. ] (]) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
⚫ :::::Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. ]&thinsp;] 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Several editors have been moving/discussing whether ] or ] is the proper page name ==
*] - "While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote."


I created this page and moved it to article space on December 2 at Influencer. It has moved to Social media influencer and back and forth since. Discussion on the talk page suggests that a consensus has not been properly achieved and that the article should be nominated properly at RM. However, I believe an admin is needed to properly restore the page to its original location before commencing a formal RM discussion. Can we get some help in relocating the page in order to commence an RM.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*] - "A relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey."
:To be clear, I just need someone to move Social media influencer back to Influencer, so that we can properly consider the page name as a RM nomination.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{resolved}}-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== When to do the actual move? ==
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)


There are two details I noticed that ] doesn't cover:
:I think the current guidelines are good enough as they are.
# "Write a clear, concise closing statement" explains how to write the closing statement, but not what to do with it. It should be put after the RESULT in subst:RM, not added as a comment below the discussion before the discussion is closed, right?
: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)
# "Moving procedures" says nothing about performing the actual move itself! Presumably it be done after closing the discussion with result "Moved," not before, but noting the specific step in these instructions would be helpful.
: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)
I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the process to update the instructions (if desired), or I'll update them later myself if no one objects. - ] (]) 02:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::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)


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


== Relisting ==
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)
: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)


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


:I think there is a combination of factors, including a higher number of both contentious moves, as well as a number of undiscussed requests that is triggering this. Coupled with the number of recent BADNAC as made even experienced NAC movers cautious. It's been a few years since I was an active page mover and so much has changed that I'm still only comfortable with !voting until I get all of the changes and perspectives updated in my thought process... But I might just have to jump in sooner than latter. ]&thinsp;] 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It looks like a potentially inexperienced user (@]) has tried to help with closing RMs today and and then brought , which shone light on it.
:I have noticed that plenty of recently backlogged RMs have no comments at all, or very few comments. While it is within policy to close such discussions, I have noticed a tendency to wait and give it another round of relisting to attempt to improve participation. Frequent relisting might also be a reason for a vicious cycle that causes too many open requests at once, reducing overall RM participation. The last systematic study about duration of open RMs was probably ] by Colin M almost 3 years ago. And situation may have declined since that time. RMCD bot's table list shows 154 RMs to be less or equal to 7 days old and 141 RMs to be open for more than 7 days. It seems that number of RMs opened has also seen a slight increase recently, and the overall number of open discussions older than 1 week has decreased, but the number of discussions open for even longer has increased quite significantly. I see that somewhat contentious discussions as old as 10-20 or more days lay idle in backlog section without a close. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Their ] appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at .


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

Latest revision as of 15:07, 10 January 2025

Page semi-protectedEditing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until March 26, 2025 at 04:13 UTC.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.
Please use the Misplaced Pages:Move review process for contested move request closes.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, most subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.
This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, No consensus, 7 June 2007
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, Not moved, 11 February 2018
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, Not moved, 19 September 2018
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, Not moved, 22 July 2024
Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search" Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
Archives by date
  1. Oct 2004 – Jan 2005
  2. Jan 2005 – Feb 2005
  3. Feb 2005 – Mar 2005
  4. Mar 2005 – Aug 2005
  5. Aug 2005 – Dec 2005
  6. Dec 2005 – Jun 2006
  7. Jun 2006 – Sep 2006
  8. Sep 2006 – Feb 2007
  9. Feb 2007 – May 2007
  10. May 2007 – Nov 2007
  11. Nov 2007 – May 2008
  12. Jun 2008 – Oct 2008
  13. Nov 2008 – Jan 2009
  14. Jan 2009
  15. Jan 2009 – Jun 2009
  16. Jun 2009 – Oct 2009
  17. Oct 2009 – Jun 2010
  18. Jun 2010 – Oct 2010
  19. Oct 2010 – Jan 2011
  20. Jan 2011 – Sep 2011
  21. Sep 2011 – Jan 2012
  22. Jan 2012 – Apr 2012
  23. Apr 2012 – Aug 2012
  24. Aug 2012 – Dec 2012
  25. Dec 2012 – Dec 2013
  26. Dec 2013 – Nov 2014
  27. Nov 2014 – Apr 2015
  28. Apr 2015 – Jun 2016
  29. Jun 2016 – May 2017
  30. May 2017 – Mar 2018
  31. Mar 2018 – May 2019
  32. May 2019 – Jun 2020
  33. May 2020 – Mar 2022
  34. Mar 2022 – Jan 2023
  35. Jan 2023 – Jun 2024
  36. Jul 2024 –

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

Move Virginia High School (Virginia) to Virginia High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. SilverLocust 💬 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! Therguy10 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. TiggerJay (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tiggerjay Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name at all as of now. Therguy10 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

When to do the actual move?

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

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

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

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

Relisting

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

I think there is a combination of factors, including a higher number of both contentious moves, as well as a number of undiscussed requests that is triggering this. Coupled with the number of recent BADNAC as made even experienced NAC movers cautious. It's been a few years since I was an active page mover and so much has changed that I'm still only comfortable with !voting until I get all of the changes and perspectives updated in my thought process... But I might just have to jump in sooner than latter. TiggerJay (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have noticed that plenty of recently backlogged RMs have no comments at all, or very few comments. While it is within policy to close such discussions, I have noticed a tendency to wait and give it another round of relisting to attempt to improve participation. Frequent relisting might also be a reason for a vicious cycle that causes too many open requests at once, reducing overall RM participation. The last systematic study about duration of open RMs was probably Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 34#Size of RM backlog over time by Colin M almost 3 years ago. And situation may have declined since that time. RMCD bot's table list shows 154 RMs to be less or equal to 7 days old and 141 RMs to be open for more than 7 days. It seems that number of RMs opened has also seen a slight increase recently, and the overall number of open discussions older than 1 week has decreased, but the number of discussions open for even longer has increased quite significantly. I see that somewhat contentious discussions as old as 10-20 or more days lay idle in backlog section without a close. —CX Zoom 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

How long do Uncontroversial technical requests take?

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

Noting first that this was enacted about two hours after this post was made, but second that requests are usually handled with 24-48 hours. Patience is a good thing sometimes. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I understand. Just wanted to ask in case I ever need to make another one. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)