Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:23, 30 October 2015 view sourceTiggerjay (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,230 edits →Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:16, 3 January 2025 view source Tiggerjay (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,230 edits →I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article.: ReplyTag: Reply
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}}

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

			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">—''']'''</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. ] ] 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			<nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''subst''':'''requested move'''\|VP-40\|reason=The current page for the modern squadron VP-40 occupies the page VP-40 (1951-Present). It should be moved to the page VP-40 to match the uniformity of other squadron pages however ]<nowiki> is currently a redirect page}}</nowiki> ] (]) 04:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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  — ] (]) 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!  — ] (]) 11:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

			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.
	== Technical delete ] ==

			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.
	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)

			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)
	== Template:Inappropriate title-soft ==

			: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. ] ] 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on ] would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. ] (]) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. ] (]) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:On ] under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at ], but the functionality is referenced at ]. —] (]) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. ''I'' don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @], I appreciate it. ] (]) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article. ==
	==Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting==
	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)
	* 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)
	**{{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)
	***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)
	*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)
	:: 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. ] ]\|] 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. ] ]\|] 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. ] ]\|] 18:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Closing is clearly an administrative function but ''what about relisting''? Therein lies the disagreement between the two sides, as far as I can tell... That is, some believe that relisting is administrative, and others do not. I think some have deduced that because it is listed on the RMCI page (that they have an ''option'' to perform a relist). However it's presence there does not imply that it is strictly a role for closers. This separation appears to be supported on actual text and placement on the RM page (which is what our regular users see), ''relisting'' is separate and distinct from the closing section (not a subset) and a direct read of that text (in context) demonstrates that ''anyone uninvolved'' can do it - with no implication of be a function of adminiship/clerk/etc. Furthermore, even the concept of ''uninvolved'' appears to have been injected without discussion. The said 'anyone' could perform a relist. Remember, just because a closer can relist does not mean ONLY a closer can relist. The concern about relisting being a SUPERVOTE is ''only'' valid if it is an administrative function. If SUPERVOTE is not implied, then a relister can vote, they just cannot subsequently close the RM. Moving forward, I would agree to {{U\|EdJohnson}}'s proposals about (1) clearly disclosure of intent by relister/voter and (2) affirming that a closer can ignore a relisting if there is already consensus. ] (]) 22:23, 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)		(]) 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)

			: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. ] ] 21:46, 2 January 2025 (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)
			::Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! ] (]) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	**Just to clarify, I meant banning them from !voting in the same discussion that they've relisted. ] ]] 18:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
			:::May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. ] ] 06:38, 3 January 2025 (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)
			::::@] Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name '''at all''' as of now. ] (]) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	****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. ] ]\|] 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
			:::::Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. ] ] 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	***** Actually, "best left to uninvolved experienced editors" implies high recommendation. ] (]) 19:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
	In the abstract it may seem that the same person both relisting and voting may be undesirable. It might be helpful to see some examples of actual misuse. seems harmless, though it would technically violate the rule that is being proposed here. ] was struggling to get enough input and is still not closed. If one person did it a lot (relisting and voting) perhaps I would think differently. One of the charms of the RM process is that it's usually so un-bureaucratic. We are usually free of the sizzling resentments of AfD discussions, and you often see people collaborating. As a middle way, how about advising* relisters who also vote to comment in their vote about what they are doing. Finally, the closer is free to ignore the relisting if they think a consensus already exists and there has been enough discussion. ] (]) 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:16, 3 January 2025

Editing 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:RM

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

Administrators' noticeboard/Move requests (2005)
For why RM was created, see:
- requested moves -- policy change?

Archives by date

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

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)

May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. TiggerJay (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name at all as of now. Therguy10 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)