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 19:16, 30 October 2015 view sourceGeorge Ho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users118,136 edits →Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:07, 27 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,613 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 36) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Shortcut|WT:RM}} {{pp-protected}}
{{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 ].}}
{{notice|1=''']''' is now official. Use this process for contested move request closes.}} {{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.}}
{{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{old moves
{{old move | date = 3 June 2007| from = Misplaced Pages:Requested moves | destination = Misplaced Pages:Proposed moves | result = no consensus, not moved | link = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 10#Proposed move}}
| 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}} --> <!-- {{bots|allow=Cluebot III,MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II}} -->
<inputbox>
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|units=days}}
type=search
{{archive box|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=30|index=/Archive index|
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|
*] (2005)
*For why RM was created, see: *For why RM was created, see:
**] **]
{{cot|Archives by date|bg=#e0d2a3|bg2=#f8eabb}}
#]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#] #]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
{{cob}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 225K |maxarchivesize = 225K
|counter = 28 |counter = 36
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#> |mask=/Archive <#>
Line 52: Line 85:
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}


== Withdrawing? == == 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)

: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)

== Participating in a RM after relisting ==

These texts don't seem to align:

*] - "While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote."

*] - "A relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey."

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

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

== Best way to handle a complicated move? ==

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)

== Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs ==

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

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

: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)
: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 ] ==

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)

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


== Move ] to ] in place of redirect page ==
I would like to withdraw an RfM I made this morning because I discovered it isn't following policy. Is there a mechanism to withdraw it? Thanks, ] (]) 22:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
:Where is it? ] ]] 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Here: ]. - ] (]) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Kautilya3}} I've closed it for you. ] ]] 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Kautilya3}}, just out of interest, what aspect of "policy" did your request not follow? Do you still think the move should be made, or have you discovered some facts that mean the current title is the correct one? Thanks &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 09:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
: According to ], a transliteration should be used in at least 75% of the reliable sources to be considered primary. I think ''Paisachi'' and ''Paishachi'' are about equally prevalent and so neither can be considered primary. I intend to file a new RfM for ''Paishachi'' which is the so-called "simplified transliteration." - ] (]) 09:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
::Alright, thanks! &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 11:43, 21 September 2015 (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)
== can any one move/rename this template to new name ==


:@]: 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)
Kindly rename ']
' to a new a correct , suitable name which is this 'سانچو:Barnstar documentation.--] (]) 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
:{{not done}} The page was deleted under speedy deletion criteria.--] (]) 05:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


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


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.
As an AfC reviewer, I would like to accept ] but the AfC tools will not allow until the ] redirect is deleted first. I don't think this a controversial delete. Is this something that can be handled by someone here? ~] (]) 21:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|Kvng}} ] ] 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for the quick work. ~] (]) 21:45, 4 October 2015 (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.
== Template:Inappropriate title-soft ==


An editor created ] on August 26, and requested comments about it. Please feel free to join the discussion at ], to either reaffirm the consensus regarding notices of proposed article title changes in mainspace, or perhaps change it. ] (]) 02:30, 7 October 2015 (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)


: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)
==Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting==
::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)
I have recently again seen an editor relist a debate and then !vote in an apparent attempt to sway its outcome. I mentioned this in a ] of ] earlier this year and a couple of editors signalled their support for it. Does anyone have any objections to adding this (a ban on !voting for relisters) to the instructions? ] ]] 08:45, 23 October 2015 (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)
* Sounds odd. I'd prefer to see non admins stop relisting. Admins are held to a higher standard, surely it is not admins playing these games? !Voting to sway and outcome doesn't sound like a shooting offence. --] (]) 12:55, 23 October 2015 (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)
**{{ping|SmokeyJoe}} The most recent one was a non-admin, but the first time I recall seeing it, it was a very experienced admin who subsequently weighed in with a "strong support" and then continued arguing for some time. It's not a shooting offence, but it's clearly inappropriate behaviour – in a way it's sort of a ]. ] ]] 13:47, 23 October 2015 (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)
***Re: shooting: I think Number 57 means "ban the practice of !vote after you relist something", not "] those who !vote after they relist something". Ah, the perils of jargon. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:27, 25 October 2015 (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)
*I'm not sure. Relisting and then voting straight after is obviously poor form, as is relisting a discussion where you're already a participant. But something I occasionally do is relist a discussion and then when it reaches the backlog again, rather than just relist indefinitely, I'll add a vote so that we try and reach a consensus. I'm interested in whether people think that is wrong, or has the perception of impropriety. Obviously if there's a consensus here to institute a blanket rule against relisters voting then I will abide by it. ] (]) 13:22, 23 October 2015 (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)
:: sort of relisting comment is very helpful, thank you for doing that. --] (]) 23:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
*I don't see a problem with relisters voting right afterwards, provided that there is obviously no consensus prior to their vote (meaning that the vote that the relister makes is not some sort of ] that goes against the current consensus; doing so is almost akin to some sort of ] issue) and the discussion hasn't already been relisted a ridiculous amount of times. ] (]) 13:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Steel1943}} I do see it as being a form of a supervote. Typically it is a discussion that would have had a no consensus outcome (so no move) and the relister then votes in favour – tipping the scales in their favoured direction. ] ]] 15:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
***{{Ping|Number 57}} I'd say that the situations would be better judged on a case-by-case basis. I could see someone relisting a discussion, then later on, realizing that they have an opinion that they feel they need to voice. Also, such a discussion probably needs to be listed elsewhere since this concern would probably have to apply to all discussion forums, and not just exclusive to RM. ] (]) 15:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
* As an admin who reviews a lot of in progress RMs and closes a few in backlog on a regular basis, I think the idea here is a good one. Editors who have already voted in a RM really shouldn’t be relisting it as their motivation is always suspect. As well, editors who relist a discussion really shouldn’t now go and vote in the discussion for the same reason. Since editors can vote anytime, even when the RM is in backlog, if they want to weigh-in on the discussion, they can do so without relisting. Even though relisting is a good practice for keeping discussions without consensus or without participation going, any RM can be closed and decided once it’s been listed for 7 days. So I conclude that editors shouldn’t really be doing both—relisting and voting—in the same RM. Too much opportunity for misunderstanding motivations even if well intentioned. --] (]) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
* I have no problem with any editor relisting, admin or non-admin, !voter or non-!voter. All a relisting does is extend the time for discussion, and increase the chance that new perspectives will be provided. Although there has to be finality at some point, I think the first relisting of a discussion should be completely open and available to anyone. ] ] 16:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''strongly oppose''' I don't really see how this is inappropriate at all: ANY editor, involved or not, admin or not, can re-list the discussion, if they feel that the discussion is not yet concluded and more input is needed. If the input that was needed was their own input, then that is also their right to be heard. Relisting isn't a super-vote, because it's not a vote at all; it's not even a not-vote! It's merely an extension of the discussion, and I'm fairly certain we are not working to a ].--] (]) 20:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:* Are you an admin 57 might have alluded to above? --] (]) 11:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
::*It could be. Like I said, I see no problem with it, and didn't even think of it as anything significant before it was brought up here. Since it wasn't special, it wouldn't have stuck in my head.--] (]) 18:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
:* What if someone makes a habit of relisting every discussion in which their opinion is disagreed with by a slight majority? --] (]) 11:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
::*{{ping|SmokeyJoe}}I don't see what difference that makes to the eventual outcome of the discussion. If it's a "slight majority", then that's not consensus, so there's no point in terminating the discussion if someone has another two cents to add. If I feel that I'm bringing a novel argument to the discussion, then there should be time for other editors to chime and and tell me what's wrong with my argument. This whole discussion is mystifying to me, because no one has yet shown me a case where relisting and then !voting somehow changed the consensus. (We do still work off ], right? I've been inactive for a while, but I hope we haven't abandoned that ideal completely.)--] (]) 18:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
::: I see it as something that can easily irritate some people. A little game to give their own !vote more time of exposure. A difference to the eventual outcome, probably not. A poor appearance, if someone looks like they are playing games, yes. Yes, we certainly do still work to consensus, and the the problem alluded to here is, I think, easily handled by the generally excellent uninvolved consensus-reading closes that are the norm. --] (]) 22:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support labeling it inappropriate''' to !vote on something after relisting it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
* Probably if another five days after relisting, if no one else comments, it would be OK for the relister to come up with a !vote. But a relist is an administrative action, and administration and partisan contention in a discussion must not be mixed. At the time of relisting, the relister must have no opinion either way. A neutrally worded attempt to focus a RM discussion is obviously OK, even very helpful. --] (]) 11:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
::* Someone who has already !voted should not relist. Only someone qualified to close a discussion should be allowed to relist it.
::* Relisting, then !voting shortly after, doesn't look ideal, but if you honestly only discovered an opinion post-relist, then let's AGF.
::* Neutral administrative comments and impartial statements encouraging focus do not count as !votes. --] (]) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support labeling it inappropriate'''. What we are discussing is the somewhat archaic concept known as "a ''seeming'' impropriety". I think ''most'' editors who relist and then add an !vote are doing so with good intent. They don't ''intend'' any impropriety. However, because the ''possibility'' exists that they ''might'' be gaming the system, relisting and !voting ''seems'' improper. We do need to hold those who perform administrative actions (whether they are officially admins or not) to a high standard. They should not only avoid ''actual'' impropriety... they should avoid even the ''appearance'' of impropriety. ] (]) 15:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' some sort of prohibition. Someone should not be relisting a discussion and then immediately voting; nor should anyone who voted in a discussion previously be relisting. I would allow some latitude for a relister to comment after several days in the scenario Jenks describe above. (I also wouldn't mind seeing less relisting done in general, but that's a discussion for another time. ] ]&#124;] 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
* ] (edit summary "support and relisting") is probably a typical example. There is no wp:Game play, by relisting Tiggerjay presumably is decreasing the chance of an immediate hasty close that would probably take more notice of his !vote. But the relisting is a nearly meaningless act, except that it could be confusing to newcomers to see the one person playing both advocate and administrator. For this reason, even if no other, relisting while !voting, or after !voting, should be discouraged or prohibited, and !voting after a weeks preceding relist should require an explanation for the change of role. --] (]) 03:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::Interetingly enough, TJ also voted on and relisted a move request at ] in a similar fashion (though with two consecutive edits instead of doing them together). In this case, there was probably enough of a discussion that the move could have been closed as "no consensus" or "not moved" and the relisting wasn't needed, though the result will likely end up being the same. ] ]&#124;] 03:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:::This is a really interesting discussion, and thank you {{U|SmokeyJoe}} for tagging me in this as well as specific diffs. After reviewing all of the comments above, along with about an hour of reviewing policies, I believe the core of this discussion comes down to the question of ''is relisting an administrative action of similar weight to closing?'' -- since that is what a ] is really about. According to the ], "if a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, you may elect to re-list the discussion." I agree with those who believe that a relisting action is non-administrative and is appropriate for ''any editor'' to engage in -- as it is simply calling for renewed and additional attention to the request. So long as there is no obvious ] through relisting, I think we can all ]. Furthermore, I believe that newer users wouldn't see a relist and a !vote as a supervote. And I that frequent volunteers for RM would ] each relist to see if there is bias or not on the topic, and if editor is trying to swing the consensus. Finally a quick look over at ] as it related to AFD (although I'm less active in that realm) is equally vauge on this topic as to relistings and !voting.
:::Directing attention to the diff's brought up:
:::* I am confident that an experienced volunteer would see that it would make no sense that my vote was trying to do anything other than continue to the discussion while weighing in on this topic. If anything the relist was to see if there was any opposition for the move. Which as we can see, .
:::* As to the other, - at best it was no-consensus and a relist again was looking for more input.
:::In both cases, if we were to close the discussion 'as is' the !vote wouldn't have changed the direction of the consensus or lack there of. Which then begs the question, "why vote and relist at all, and instead simply close the discussion" -- the reason generally comes down to my belief that there is still more to be said about the particular move. While I may be !voting in a specific direction, I believe there is value in additional discussion, either based on existing things brought up, or that there might be more people wanting to weigh in on the topic. I believe closing a discussion before it has been completely discussed just because we've reached the 7 day threshold would be counter productive (see ]).
:::*Also here is yet but in this case the relist was because the proposed name change was changed. Perhaps this is an example of what {{U|Number 57}} was referring to in his initial proposal, since I was !voting contrary to him. However, what complicates this matter is the proposed name changed from what 57 voted against, to a more appropriate title, retaining the "Convention" element.
:::However with that said, I firmly believe that once !voted, they cannot close a RM (admin or not) -- which I know is not the topic of discussion here, but simply for clarity sake. (Although it back in 2012).
:::Additionally, we see that this process of relisting and voting does occur currently and historically with both non-admins and admins alike, including {{U|BDD}} and {{U|Aervanath}} - although I agree it should be rare.
:::With all of that said, I '''oppose''' this proposed change, but of course if we find consensus here, I'd abide by it.] (]) 17:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Not to sound rude, but I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to get across. Relisting (both an RM and AFD since you brought it up) is an administrative action. That doesn't mean only administrators can do it, but that the editor doing the relisting should be uninvolved (the guidance at ] already says relisting should be done by "uninvolved experienced editors"). And for the record, there is no problem with something being closed as "no consensus" provided there has been sufficient participation. In the case of Dissonants, there was. ] ]&#124;] 18:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
*Unrelated to my comments above, I would be in support to have the instructions cleaned up as follows: (1) have relisting information either on RM or RMCI, not on both (or at the very least have RM a stub of RMCI); (2) to clarify that a discussion can be closed simply after the initial 7 day period, without prejudice to a relisting request. ] (]) 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
* If we ban relisters from voting, they will never be able to vote. Why not tell or encourage them to vote rather than relist instead? <U>Off-topic, but,</u> as for nominators willing to relist, let them if there is no vote yet or just one vote or one support and one oppose. ] (]) 18:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
**Just to clarify, I meant banning them from !voting in the same discussion that they've relisted. ] ]] 18:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
*** I know that. Still, relisters should have a right to vote. Of course, they should not ] to their advantage. ] (]) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
****Why shouldn't that right be forfeited if they relist? ] already says relisting should be done by an uninvolved editor. This is a logical extension of that. ] ]&#124;] 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
***** Actually, "best left to uninvolved experienced editors" implies high recommendation. ] (]) 19:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:07, 27 December 2024

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

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)