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 10:55, 9 August 2010 view sourceSchwyz (talk | contribs)4,465 edits →Need a move review of User:Schwyz: reply to Petri Krohn and Dpmuk← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:49, 2 January 2025 view source Therguy10 (talk | contribs)345 edits →I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article.: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected}}
{{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 ].}}
{{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 ].}}
{{notice|1=Please use the ''']''' process for contested move request closes.}}
{{central|text=most subpages of ] that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.}}
{{old moves
| list =
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''No consensus''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''Not moved''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, '''Not moved''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, '''Not moved''', ]
}}
<!-- {{bots|allow=Cluebot III,MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II}} -->
<inputbox>
type=search
namespaces=Talk
break=no
default=insource:move intitle:
searchbuttonlabel=Search for "move"
</inputbox>
<inputbox>
type=search
namespaces=Talk
break=no
default=insource:"requested move" intitle:
searchbuttonlabel=Search for "requested move"
</inputbox>
{{center|Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"}}
{{center|Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search}}


{{archive box|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|index=/Archive index|auto=short|
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
*] (2005)
|-
*For why RM was created, see:
!align="center"|]<br/>]
**]
----
{{cot|Archives by date|bg=#e0d2a3|bg2=#f8eabb}}
|-
#]
|
#]
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
#]
|}
#]
{{bots|allow=Cluebot III}}
#]
<!-- {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
#]
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves Commons/Archives/
#]
|format=Y/F
#]
|age=30
#]
|index=yes
#]
}} -->
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
{{cob}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 225K
|counter = 36
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


== Temple Israel == == Move cleanup ==


{{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'd appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator, in fixing up several articles covered in a Requested Move just closed by administrator ]. Orlady and i have a history of conflict in a number of areas.


: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 situation here is that there was a list-article at "Temple Israel", which was originally created as an article about a Temple Israel in Minneapolis. Since it has been a list-article about multiple places of that name. Some time ago i added to it, merged in a separate disambiguation page that i had created, and edited to be what i believe was a proper set-index-article. It covered a number of places having separate articles, and some places just covered in sections within the list-article (with sources).
: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)


== Participating in a RM after relisting ==
A few days ago an editor, Jayjg, moved the list-article to "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" and edited it down to cover just that one place, plus reopened a disambiguation page covering just the ones having articles. It appears to me that the Tulsa one merits an article, but that should have been created separately. I opened ] to reverse the move. Orlady closed it, inappropriately without understanding the situation i believe. I believe if she had understood the article was long a list-article, she would not have. (Aside: Honestly my hypothesis is she found this topic in my contribution history and saw it as way to find fault / disagree with something i have done, so she didn't look into it properly.) Orlady has also now tried to address the Talk pages being messed up by copying the longstanding article's Talk page to an archive at the disambiguation page. The Requested Move would have met all needs I believe.


These texts don't seem to align:
Anyhow, setting aside history between O and me, could someone please fix the articles? This would be to move the older history of edits of the longstanding article to be in a set-index-article named Temple Israel, to move the full Talk page of the longstanding article to be with it, to move the new recently created dab to Temple Israel (disambiguation), and to split out the recent edits of the Tulsa article to be at Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)? That would restore edit history to where it should be, leaving list-article, Tulsa article, and new dab in place, leaving to the future any discussion of whether the new dab page and/or the long-standing list-article are both needed or should be merged. I would participate in a new discussion if someone feels it necessary, but it seems obvious to me that the edit histories should be put with the correct articles. --] (]) 20:29, 20 June 2010 (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."
:Some relevant history can be found at ], ], and ].
:For what it's worth, I think that Doncram's request would be more appropriately placed at ], since he is not asking for technical assistance with a move so much as for someone to say that his view of the situation is the right one. --] (]) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


*] - "A relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey."
::Those Talk pages are indeed relevant in showing previous discussion, in showing misunderstanding by Jayjg about my intent, and the discussion having been closed without that being resolved. And in showing my having given notice to Orlady and Jayjg that i opened this here. I don't ask for review of past history between O and me; i do ask for a second opinion about this list-article and for it to be fixed. Thanks. --] (]) 21:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


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)
UPDATE: This has been resolved by ]'s re-creating a list-article with the edit history, now at ], and Jayjg providing further edits to the list-article. Jayjg actually implemented a split of the edit history, so the same edit history is in the list-article and in the Tulsa, Oklahoma-specific article. And there is constructive-seeming discussion about related issues at ]. I consider this resolved. Thanks! --] (]) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (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 ] 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)
Isn't it more accurate to say "autoconfirmed users" at the top of the page, rather than saying "accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least ten edits"? Because, according to the page detailing autoconfirmed users, some may take 90 days and 100 edits before being autoconfirmed (and thus be able to use this page). ]]] 15:43, 30 June 2010 (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)
:While it may be more accurate, it is less helpful. The direction of days and edits is more understandable to the vast bulk of people, especially those more likely to not understand why they cannot move a page, and at that point being helpful is more important in terms of information provided. ] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">]</span>'' 17:44, 8 July 2010 (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)
::Does anyone else disagree with the change I've made ? ]]] 01:53, 19 July 2010 (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? ==
==Requested moves from namespace==
Is ] or ] or some other venue the correct place for a request to move an article from the namespace to another space, e.g. project space?<br/>
Context: I just removed a requested move at ] that wanted ] moved to ] as I thought this fell out of the scope of requested moves (as it is a requested ''re''moval), but then I read the closing admin's comments at the ] in 2008, which said that "A proposal to move this in to the Misplaced Pages namespace should be carried through the normal move decision making process, as I don't see a clear consensus for such a move at the moment." So... what's the process? ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:Well, these two ( and ) are asking to be moved from userspace to mainspace, that is across "-space", so to speak. ]]] 00:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
::They should be adding <nowiki>{{subst:AFC submission/submit}}</nowiki> to the top of the article instead. A move of a draft article into being a live article isn't really the same thing as I've raised. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
:::By the way, I modified the page at the top to say "autoconfirmed users" per above, if you don't mind. ]]] 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
: I think that removing pages from article space should generally go through the deletion process, with reasonable latitude for IAR expedited userfication. My take on that AfD outcome is "''no consensus'' for a move to WP:, but try discussing via RM instead of nominating again immediately." ] (]) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
::So I post ] at AfD first, and then nominate it for RM? I don't follow. ]]] 04:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
::: To clarify, I suggest that you nominate the article at AfD following the directions at ]. Be sure to mention that moving to WP: space is ''removing from article space'' and link to the declined RM request and this discussion. You may also want to point out that the last AfD was two years ago. ] (]) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Thanks. I see consensus moving towards AfDing the article ''first'' before all else; that is necessary (e.g. RM). ]]] 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


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)
== Bug in listing code ==
: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 ==
See the entry for IBM AIX in proposed moves. I think this is caused by the {{tl|Moved conversation}} tag earlier on the affected talk page. ] (]) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (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.
== Consensus to move? ==
Their ] appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at .
There are two contentious and long-running move disputes which have arisen recently which raise some issues about what is or is not a consensus or other grounds to make the move. They are the proposed moves of "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "]", and the proposed move of "]" to "Ivory Coast". I realise that in both cases the issue may have generated more heat than it deserves, particularly since everybody accepted that whichever title was chosen the other should be a redirect. However in both cases opinion was running at around 2 to 1 in favour of the move, in the first case the admin made the move, but in the second the admin decided there was "no consensus". This raises some big questions about what is or is not a consensus to move. In both cases the admin also made some comments which suggested that they had not properly read the discussion. Also, the move of Elizabeth was made only a short time after a similar move request had failed, can we re-open the move request for the African country fairly soon, or should there be a cooling-off period before this happens? ] (]) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:What comments specifically did the admin at Côte d'Ivoire make that suggested to you that he did not read the discussion? Because two other independent admins came in and agreed with his assessment. ] (]) 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::There was an request for a review, and it was referred ] for fellow administrators, by me without hesitation. As I considered more than one article would be affected, I suggested that a more holistic approach as per the discussion at ] and how to address such through an RFC. I also very much read the argument and considered it. As a favour, if you are going to present an argument, please present a fair argument, not a biased argument. ] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">]</span>'' 17:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::(EC) Well..
::: ''"I read through all the supporting argument, and there was no clear argument made, no benefits explained, nor evidence of any confusion with existing name, nor a need to disambiguate. Lots of personal preference, no discussion on the broader impact. Lots of looking around Google, not much looking around Misplaced Pages"''
::Was the comment that concerned me, however the closing admin did seek input from other admins afterwards and they supported the conclusion he made so i accept the verdict the admin made although i will never accept the article is at its rightful place.
:: Sadly it is a flaw in the present rules that dictate if there if no huge consensus then the previous consensus wins the day. That is annoying and unfair as it overrules the majority which is wrong even if its a small majority. ] (]) 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
*Silly editors. When will you learn that the ] process is often productive but, in the end, ] supercedes it. I have tried numerous times (see archives of this talk page) to establish that the ultimate decision is anything but an unappealable arbitrary admin decision with no avail. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 07:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm sure the editor means well to help, but it might require someone reviewing all of them and potentially vacating the RM closes. ] (]) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
==Malformated request: "War in Afghanistan" → War in Afghanistan" ==


: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)
Can someone correct to what it should be, ] → ]''' ? Thanks, <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 11:59, 18 July 2010 (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)


== Move ] to ] ==
== Slow progress ==


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)
Just to make a comment, the progress of the page moves seems to be quite slow; there is a long list of backlogs waiting response. Is it possible for more admins to help with this? Thanks. <b><font color="#0060C0">]</font><font color="#6000C0">]</font><font color="008000">]</font></b> 13:15, 19 July 2010 (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)
== What to do with 'no consensus'? ==
::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 ==
I've been involved in a proposed move that was recently closed as 'no consensus to move'. The responses were three to one in favor of moving the page, and 100% of all reliable sources support this, but there was no consensus about what title the page should have.


<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 actually part of an odd 'split': The subject of the page and the title don't currently match. The title is about a musical style that became popular in the 1990s, and the actual contents of the page (after the first couple of sentences) are entirely about a musical style that became popular in the 1930s. We need to move the 1930s stuff to some other title so that Misplaced Pages can actually have an article about the 1990s musical genre.


:@]: 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)
So we have 'no consensus to move', but we also have 'no consensus to stay'. I don't want us to end up with a cut-and-paste move or just deleting the (verifiable) information about the older musical style. It's silly to keep this mismatched title/contents situation around, because none of our readers will find what they're looking for. What do you suggest? Should I re-list it? Ask the admin why s/he ignored a dozen sources and focused on a single, unsupported, consensus-can't-change statement? Move it anyway? ] (]) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
:Hiya! I assume I'm the one who closed this, aren't I. <tt>:)</tt> One thing though, I recounted the !votes of the discussion and I noticed that two users opposed (by three to one do you mean one person opposed?). However, I don't see why this content split can't be ] done - I'd be happy to help if you want. What do you think? ]&nbsp;<sup><b>(])</b></sup> 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
::PS: we're talking about ], right? ]&nbsp;<sup><b>(])</b></sup> 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
:::I had a look at that discussion. There's clearly not even a weak ] either way. I'd suggest that whatever is done should abide by that decision. I try to take the line that if we have not even a weak consensus, then so far as the goal of building Misplaced Pages goes it '''does not matter''' which way we go. This principle isn't always easy to accept but when I do this helps me to keep perspective, and the more difficult the issue is, the more important this perspective is. ] (]) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (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.
:Hi Arbitrarily, yes, that's the article. And you were right: There's no consensus about what the page name should be, and as a practical matter, you can hardly move a page when you can't figure out what the new name ought to be. I don't actually feel strongly about what the article title should be, beyond my conviction that the article title ought to match the article contents.
:I didn't consider the fifth editor's comment to be responsive or relevant to the discussion ("To an outsider, the way you Americans get hung up on segmenting music, particularly on racial lines, seems utterly unbelievable! As does the way you change the terms every ten years!"). Consequently, my count is 3:1 (or 3:1:1, if you prefer).
:So I fully agree that there's no consensus for that page to move to any specific title, but the current situation is also not tenable, not supported by consensus, not supportable by sources, and not helpful to readers: urban/contemporary gospel music does not involve artists who were living (and in some cases, dying) during the 1930s. Urban/contemporary music is ] and ] and ], not the people and music that are actually described on the page.
:Personally, my guess is that someone wrote an article about the history of black gospel music, and someone later panicked over the "racial" name and moved it to the musical style that they personally associate with African-American Christian musicians -- without noticing that the music described in the article is actually a completely different type of music, or checking to see what the sources say, etc.
:But what do we do from here? Is there a re-listing procedure? (I'm not going to be prepared to write the article that should be at ] for at least another week, so there's no rush.) ] (]) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
::Okay, so basically, if I understand it right, there are two notable subjects co-existing in one article titled ]. Correct? If this is true as you say, I don't think there is a need for a discussion on splitting the article, do you? Maybe the best place to start is writing a draft for ], so that we can flip-flop the page locations. Do I make any sense right now? ]&nbsp;<sup><b>(])</b></sup> 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Which leads me to my suggestion: There should be a form, similar to those at ] (]), to make requesting the moves simpler and more straightforward. Let's face it, some people are offput by trying to use the template, and why not make life easier? I believe this would reduce the issues we have with cut and paste moves and make it easier to direct newer users to make such requests. Suggested fields would be current page title, target page title, reason for move.
:::Not really: If you look past the first couple of sentences, there is actually only one topic, and it's not the topic that is indicated by the title. Only 1237 out of 33K bytes are about urban/contemporary gospel. The rest (about 97% of the text) is about traditional black gospel music. There are two notable subjects, but there's not really any need to split the article, because there isn't really anything about urban/contemporary gospel in the existing article (except the generic boilerplate that someone spammed to the leads of every gospel-related articles some time ago, and an uncited direct quotation attributed to Shirley Caesar). The existing content needs to be moved wholesale to some relevant name, so that an article about urban/contemporary gospel can be written from scratch.
:::Flipping the page locations is basically what I've been trying to do.
:::Like I said, there's no rush on this, because the endless discussions over whether it's appallingly racist to call black gospel "black gospel" (just like all the scholarly sources do) mean that I no longer have the time to write an article about urban/contemporary gospel. I just need to know what to do when I am finally able to get it written. ] (]) 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
::::When you get it written, move ] to ] and then move your draft to ]. I can do this for you when the time comes if you like. Regards, ]&nbsp;<sup><b>(])</b></sup> 19:45, 23 July 2010 (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)
== Starting discussions on "Uncontroversial requests" ==


: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)
It has become standard for people to start discussions on "uncontroversial requests" that they think are actually controversial. This is normally done by copying the requested move from here to the article's talk page and adding the appropriate template. However this makes it look like the person who made the original request started the discussion which isn't strictly true. Most of the time this is fine but I've just come across a case where this has caused an issue (]). I admit this was due to a badly formatted original requested but I was wondering whether, in the name of transparency, the person starting the request should make it clear that they started the request based on the "uncontroversial request". Maybe something along the lines of
::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)
:<small>This was an uncontroversial request that was contested. The original request is above. This move discussion was started, as a procedural step, by ''User signature''.</small>
This would also make the start time and date clear if this is some time after the original request. I'd be happy to make a template (which should include the RM template) if people think this is appropriate. ] (]) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (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. ==
== Please check what I've done ==


(]) 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)
Hi. Could someone familiar with requested moves please check what I've done? I think I stuffed it up and I don't want to make it worse. See ], ], ]. - ] (]) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)<br>
{{done}} - Thanks. Move along now. - ] (]) 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


:I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. ]&nbsp;] 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Need a move review of ] ==
::Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! ] (]) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've become concerned about some of the rapid-fire island moves done by Schwyz - ]. I've counted 20+ island moves that have been done without consensus, and, IMO, are a bit controversial. (] -> ]? Really?) How is the best way to organize a discussion? The islands are from all over the world, so I can't bring it up at a single project. Suggestions? Thanks, --]] 09:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

: Already an ANI thread on this ]. I'm going to leave a comment there. ] (]) 11:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
:: at JaGa, it's best addressed at ]. And I told you already my POV on that one . : '' Sorry if that is a problem, simply move it back if you like. My idea was ] and the way most other Latin America countries write the island names, specifically the "Isla X" named ones. If Panama needs an exception, so be it.'' ] (]) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Actually, it would be best to centralize the discussion here. ] is only if someone refuses to discuss an issue or otherwise acts disruptively; this dispute is about what to name articles. -- ] (]) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
:::FWIW, based on editing patterns I believe {{user|TrueColour}} and {{user|TheCalbuco}} may be related accounts and possibly the same editor. If these accounts are related, previous attempts have been made to address move and naming issues via TrueColour's talk page and AN discussions (], ]), apparently with mixed results as the issues are ongoing. --] (]) 18:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I added to the ANI thread to try to get more eyes on this - personally I think the most appropriate place for this discussion is the user's talk page. I'd also disagree that this issue is about what to name articles, in my opinion it's more about how this user is making moves and the process they're following (or not as the case maybe). ] (]) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Personally I think there's enough there to start a ] but I'm taking a step back from all this so as not to aggravate the user further so I'll leave it for someone else to start if they agree with me. ] (]) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, . Several hundred moves over the last week. Where does one begin? I focused on the cap-I Island moves, because I was bothered by these rapid fire proper name changes, but there's a lot going on here. Like adding cap-M Municipality to a whole ton of Mexican towns, based on ]. How can we verify this as the correct thing to do? --]] 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted ] and ]. Now I see that none of the rationales make any sense. -- ] (]) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

:Is anyone else, who has discussed this with the user, thinking it may be time for a ]? ] (]) 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent|::}}
* @Dpmuk - you are only here to hunt me. You are not engaging in any single discussion about specific moves and why you object to them. I fixed lots of bad incoming links, where people intended to link to topic A but the link ends up at topic B because they both share the same base name. Inconsistent naming schemes are one reason for that to happen.
* @Petri Krohn. Simple try and revert cycle. Interesting that you ''first'' revert and afterwards, realize, ''that none of the rationales make any sense''. Well, maybe not to you, but to hundreds of others who use the form "X Governorate" for all the other except these two it indeed does make sense. It's up at ], ]. ] (]) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

== Turkish Invasion of Cyprus ==

Hi

Is it possible someone with a bit more knwoledge.experience of resolving matters on page moves can cooment on either or both of these pages please.

] and/or ]

I am getting a bit confused between Neutrality policy and Page move policy.

Thanks ] (]) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:49, 2 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 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)

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)