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 20:44, 20 December 2006 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Mess created, help needed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:02, 24 December 2024 edit undoBagumba (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators173,896 edits →Request: Implement a form for requests at WP:RM/TR: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no|shortcut=|WT:RM}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{tmbox|text='''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions given on the ]. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the ].}}
|-
{{notice|1=Please use the ''']''' process for contested move request closes.}}
|<big>'''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow ].</big>
{{central|text=most subpages of ] that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.}}
|}
{{old moves
| list =
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''No consensus''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''Not moved''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, '''Not moved''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, '''Not moved''', ]
}}
<!-- {{bots|allow=Cluebot III,MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II}} -->
<inputbox>
type=search
namespaces=Talk
break=no
default=insource:move intitle:
searchbuttonlabel=Search for "move"
</inputbox>
<inputbox>
type=search
namespaces=Talk
break=no
default=insource:"requested move" intitle:
searchbuttonlabel=Search for "requested move"
</inputbox>
{{center|Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"}}
{{center|Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search}}


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


== Review of ] and others == == Move the article of ] to ] ==


I want to move the article based on the Chinese name format where the surname placed first. In motorsport, he always called by Yifei Ye than Ye Yifei, but to make it consistent with other Chinese figures, and people his name has to be Ye Yifei. It's not Zedong Mao, it's Mao Zedong for example. Hope someone can accepts the changes. Thank you. ] (]) 06:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Re the 17 November 2006 requested moves as discussed at ]
:{{u|Thfeeder}}, please see ] for how to start a move request at the article's talk page. ] (]) 13:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]


== Overcomplication ==
I request that the appropriateness of this closing be reviewed.


Making move requests is way too overcomplicated, this page should be handled like the protection request page. ] (]) 18:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
#] was '''already closed''' by ] after more than five days of discussion with edit summaries "(moved ] to ]: Discussion on the talkpage. Consensus that Arpad Elo is frequently referred to by the simplified English spelling in English texts, hence Misplaced Pages should follow same standard.)" and "moved '] to ]: Ditt the Arpad Elo article"
*Protections aren't generally controversial, so the format isn't very useful for something that typically requires debate. There is ] for uncomplicated moves that no one will object to. ] (]) 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
#*Sjakkalle did not dot all his i's and cross all his t's in closing the nomination, not adding the proper templates on the talk page and not dealing with the entire set of nominations.
*:What I mean is that there isn't an "add topic" button or something like this on this page, unlike the protection request page, you would have to edit the page manually, which you can't do as an IP user, because this page is semi-protected. ] (]) 18:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
#] improperly '''failed to consider part of discussion,''' because in discussion area Mibelz added a second level header (==, the highest level conventionally used on Misplaced Pages). It and the third level header below it were part of the discussion, but the "/div" was placed above them, so they are not included in the part identified as the closed discussion.
**:There is no reason to edit it. ] has no protection. Regular RMs are made on article talk pages and transcribed here. ] (]) 18:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
#] '''improperly found a lack of ]'''. See summary below.
**::I mean the move request page, not ]. ] (]) 19:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
#After closing it, and at the urging of ] , tariqubjoto moved ] previously closed by Sjakkalle to ] with the edit summary "(moved Talk:Arpad Elo to Talk:Árpád Élő: per result of requested move on talk page (page started here and so "no consensus" should default to it being here))"
**:::Do you find using a single template on the talk page of an article difficult? See ] -- there is only two parameters: the requested new name and your reason. ]&thinsp;] 21:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
#*Since this nomination was an objection to recent moves made without consensus (and without discussion either, and contrary to already long-existing discussion in the case of ] with ), '''the proper "default" should be the name prior to the moves objected to''' if there is no consensus.
**::::But you still need to edit this page, there is no "add topic" button even though there should be one. ] (]) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''N.B. In order for the procedure to make multiple nominations to be reasonable and to have any purpose at all, it cannot be proper to count objections to considering them together to be objections to the individual moves.'''
**:::::As ] stated, they are very different applications, used in different places. The "add topic" is used on the ] page, and that discussion is not included on the article talk page -- its not necessary since it is specifically "discussed on the article talk page". However, by contrast, regular moves are discussed on the talk page, so a simple button on the ] would be impossible to work currently, as it would require backend changes to the Mediawiki software or requiring people to otherwise run untrusted Javascript. However, an example of a tool talk might help you specifically is to look over at ] and make a request on that talk page. That is a tool that would add an extra navigation tab at the top of your browser that would let you do RMs when viewing the article itself. ]&thinsp;] 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== Move cleanup ==
According to the discussion:
*Support: Gene Nygaard (nominator), Duk, Septentrionalis, Quale, Andrewa, Masterhatch, Endroit, Croctotheface
*Oppose: Husond (but see below), Mibelz (original mover, counting him there though he doesn't explicitly say so, but could be reasonably though not necessarily implied from comments he did made , some of which was part of the discussion though not considered to be so by tariqubjoto)
*Oppose considering all together: Valentinian, Kusma, Duja
*Support Arpad Elo and similar, oppose Luděk Pachman and similar, "So we should deal it on a case-by-case basis, I think": Ioannes Pragensis


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


: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 opposition by Valentinian, Kusma, and Duja was also expressly stated to be objection to lumping all of them together, and Duja at least was specific in saying "No prejudice against some moves on individual basis."
: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 ==
For Arpad Elo, at least 9 (including Ioannes Pragensis) of the 14 editors (64%) involved supported the ] name, vs. 3 opposed (21%), a 3:1 ratio of those addressing it favoring the Arpad Elo name actually used by this 80-year-long American.


These texts don't seem to align:
], in addition to his oppose vote, specifically identified his opposition as being to certain specific moves.
Omitted from Husond's list were István Fazekas → Stefan Fazekas, Iossif Dorfman → Josif Dorfman, Lucijs Endzelins → Lucius Endzelins. Gedeon Barcza → Gideon Barcza


*] - "While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote."
]: "I support in some cases the English variant (Arpad Elo for example), In other cases I oppose (e.g. Luděk Pachman"


*] - "A relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey."
As pointed out by ] (agreed to by ] and expressed separately by me)
:"my understanding is that one editor undertook all of these moves at roughly the same time and without discussion or establishing consensus. If they are all related in that way, i'm OK with putting them back where they were before and then placing the burden on those who wanted to move them to where they are now (with diacritics) to establish a consensus for a move."


Should either or both be removed/changed to become aligned on whether participating in an RM after relisting is allowed/not allowed/encouraged/discouraged/etc? ] 14:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
] 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:I don't always agree with Gene; but I do here. I'm not sure '''no consensus''' describes the result; but its effect should be to restore them to where they were; anything else encourages move wars. ] 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


:I think the current guidelines are good enough as they are.
:I do agree with Gene; he's correct that most of the ''oppose''s, now that I look at them more closely, are in opposition to having a mass move instead of in opposition to the move, period. I'm not sure how I missed that the first time, as I thought I had noticed a couple of those ''oppose'' votes. As for not dotting ''i''s and crossing ''t''s from the previous admin... um... yes, that would have been nice: the move was still listed on ], the {{t1|move}} template was still at the top, and the {{t1|polltop}} and {{t1|pollbottom}} templates were not used. Regardless, it appears the best course of action might be to do individual move requests. About the ] article, I have no problem skipping an individual move request for that article and moving it back to the version without the accent marks (although I'm not going to do it now, because someone may object). Regarding doing what ] asked, I don't want anyone to think that I was doing that just because he requested it; if the move should have been closed as ''no consensus'' rightfully, the article did belong at the version with the accents as that was the original state of the article, as the start of the move request. -- ''']''' 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
: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)
::Not to pile on but I've also seen some sloppy goings-on with move requests lately. Someone even forgot to move a talk page with the page itself recently, in addition to forgetting to remove the {{tl|move}} tag. And of course I've been reminded (ever-so-nicely I might add) to fix category re-indexing, esp. when accent marks are involved. —] (]) 01:14, 25 November 2006 (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)
::Disagree with Tariqabjotu on the close because as Gene points out, no consensus should return pages to their names before Mibelz' mass renames and Mibelz should make his arguments for each move individually. Even more importantly I am very disappointed that he chose to ignore ] when rerenaming ]. As repeatedly pointed out, there are no ] sources supporting the Árpád Élő name so the page belongs at Arpad Elo, where I believe it was before he moved it at Husond's request. Add ] ("If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.") to the ] problems, and this is beyond ridiculous. Admins refusing to follow established policy and guidelines make trying to improve Misplaced Pages an endurance contest against POV-pushers rather than an enjoyable activity. ] 04:23, 26 November 2006 (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? ==
:::All I'll say is that when I close a move request, I evaluate consensus (or lack thereof) and act accordingly, even if that consensus is contrary to my opinion or a policy or guideline (see ] for a classic example). Now, in regards to this move, I feel this whole discussion has been blown out of proportion; as I said upfront, I admit I made a mistake &ndash; no one is perfect. Gene could have just pointed out the mistake on my talk page, much in the same way Husond did, instead of making it look like I had sinister motives. Quale, there is no need to pile on accusations of transgressions because it's not going to do anything. -- ''']''' 13:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't accuse you of having a sinister motive, just of doing a lousy job. Often following consensus ''against'' policy is a mistake, and following supposed ''lack of consensus'' against policy is, in my opinion, a really bad idea. ] 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I need help with something, if you don't mind. I came across a weird situation with ] and ]. The original list has been pretty static for a long time, and the sorted list is fuller, better cited, and better maintained. I proposed merging them and have ], but it's not really a merge, because other than a couple of citations that needed to be copied over (which I've already done), all of the content will come from the sorted list. So it seems counter-productive to copy and paste it over the original list--the history should be with the content. How is this sort of thing handled? Move the original list to a subpage to preserve ''it's'' history, maybe, and then move the sorted list to ]? Thanks! ] 02:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think it was a ''lousy job'', although I know what you mean. There are some underlying logical problems with Misplaced Pages policy here - most of which I don't think we'll fix in a hurry. They may not even be fixable. ''What can't be cured must be endured'', as one wild boar said to another in '']''.
: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 ==
:::::My immediate question is, the result needs more attention so how do we fix it? Having done that, we can then look at how we could do better next time... without recriminations or blame. I'm doing this for ]. ] 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


It looks like a potentially inexperienced user (@]) has tried to help with closing RMs today and and then brought , which shone light on it.
I also noted this closure with some concern, but had not decided just how to proceed. As noted above I voted to move all the articles back to their previous names, without the diacritics, and I believe that we probably had consensus to do this. Be that as it may, we certainly had consensus to move ] back. ] 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Their ] appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at .


I'm sure the editor means well to help, but it might require someone reviewing all of them and potentially vacating the RM closes. ] (]) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I should also note, I think the presence of the diacritics in the titles, while still a hot topic in general, is fairly clearly contrary to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in '''all''' these instances. ] 20:08, 26 November 2006 (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)
Thanks to Tariq for reversing his decision on the Arpad Elo article and moving it back. Like I said in the close when I made the move, I felt there was sufficient consensus and arguments for keeping ''that'' article to the title with the simplified spelling based on the arguments that Elo had spent all his adult life in the United States and not Hungary. I think I also mentioned that this was not to be used as a precedent for the other articles listed in the same request, so I deliberately abstained from taking any action on ''those''. I saw there were several "opposes" on the straw poll, but many of them were opposes to mass moves rather than a move of Arpad Elo. ] ] 07:14, 27 November 2006 (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 ] ==
Thanks Tariq. I made the request here, then spent the weekend without my internet connection working, have it back again now. ] 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


The them "]" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at ]. However, it currently redirects to ] as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about ] seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". ] (]) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== Incomplete requests (2) ==


: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)
I see this has been covered above under ], but I'd like to bring it up again. When we receive incomplete requests, either because they used the {{tl|WP:RM}} template instead of the {{tl|WP:RM2}} template, or because they failed to set up the discussion on a page, do you all think it would be reasonable to reject the request? It's extremely hard to sift through opinions, and it certainly seems people are less willing to give our opinion (I know I am one). I am even ready to take the extraordinary step of stating at the top (''if your request is not finished, it may be removed as incomplete'') or something like that. I know it's not a vote, but the request headers are set up the way they are for a reason. Thoughts? -]<sup>]]</sup> 10:50, 30 November 2006 (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 agree; my opinion is that the admins managing the RM have more than enough job to be able to monitor whether the RMs were properly filled in. The procedure for setting up the RM debate is simple enough that it takes only a bit of basic RTFM and minimal effort for the interested editor. If the user doesn't care about the subject enough to spend 5 minutes to do the job properly, ] For my part, I routinely remove the malformed requests from the backlog. ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 10:25, 5 December 2006 (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)
== How to report non-consensus controversial moves ==


:@]: 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)
I've got a situation where a group of editors are carrying out hundreds of controversial page moves, even though a ] is clearly in dispute, and there's an upcoming mediation. What is the proper venue to report these moves, so that articles can be restored to original names, or a "freeze" can be put on things until consensus is established? Should I take this to ], or is there a better venue? --] 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:Your characterization of the situation is misleading. Support of the guideline as it stands has been broad with only a handful of people dissenting. The default position is that the guideline should not be changed until the consensus changes. While a case could be made that a "true" consensus to keep the guideline has not yet emerged (though I and others believe it has), there is certainly no consensus to change it to support Elonka's position. Further, the upcoming mediation is only tangentially related to the specific naming issues and may not result in a decision on that matter directly.


== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
:The moves pertaining to Lost specifically were ratified by consensus at a ] which received a full debate. Other WikiProjects which had an previously established consensus to use the dab tags (] and ]) have been allowed to keep them in the short term. Minor series without a WikiProject or many active editors were moved unilaterally under the assumption that if move requests were held, the previous consensus evidenced by the Lost vote and discussion at ] would prevail. Since dozens of moves were involved, it would be a waste of everyone's time to hold a vote for each one. There has been no disruption as far as I am aware and no one, other the original dissenters at the guideline level, has protested. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 23:33, 1 December 2006 (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.
:: Anþony is incorrect. There is considerable dispute about the moves, involving objections from multiple editors. The guideline page at ] has been the subject of edit wars, and is currently clearly labeled as disputed. A few editors continue to insist that they have consensus, and are moving forward with hundreds of moves. I have been choosing not to engage in move wars with them, since I know that anything that's moved, can be moved back once the situation is resolved, but the longer this goes on, the more pages that are being moved (if allowed to continue unchecked, this will affect thousands of pages), which will take considerable damage control to reverse, so it's better to just stop the moves before they happen in the first place. An admin's assistance is requested. --] 01:28, 3 December 2006 (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.
:::::As an aside, at least five administrators have already examined and/or participated in the discussion at ], and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline (which Elonka opposes). For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq, Steve Block, Radiant! and wknight94<small>(along with many other comments on the subject)</small>. This debate is not exactly unobserved by administrators. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


:::Even if the guideline were changed the way you propose, reasonable exceptions would need to be agreed on for any given set of pages. Removing the unnecessary disambiguation would still be an acceptable course of action until such exceptions are agreed on. —] (]) 01:54, 3 December 2006 (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)
:::You say I'm incorrect, but provided nothing that contradicts anything I said. I do not deny that there is dispute, but I maintain that it is due to a minority group that has not come close to achieving consensus in their favor. Being in dispute does not negate the application of the guideline, otherwise we couldn't ] either. In the case of the Lost moves, we do not ''claim'' that we have consensus, we have evidence of it in the form of a successful ]. We ''could'' do a RM for every one of these hundreds of moves, but there's no reason to think they wouldn't succeed as well. If you disagree, I invite you to post a RM for an example article and prove me wrong. Vague charges of non-consensus and thinly-veiled threats on the other hand are not helpful. As far as admins go, four (or is it five?) of them have been directly involved in this debate and expressed no objections to the process being used to move articles. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 03:06, 3 December 2006 (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)
:::: Since both of you are already a party to this dispute, you're hardly neutral in this matter. I repeat: All page moves of this type should stop, until the dispute is resolved. --] 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::@]: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. ] (]) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:On ] under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at ], but the functionality is referenced at ]. —] (]) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. ''I'' don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @], I appreciate it. ] (]) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== 100+ thoughtless RMS by ] ==
:::::And I repeat: Being in dispute does not negate the application of the guideline. I fail to see why your statement trumps mine, as you are hardly neutral yourself. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 03:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


] filed more than 100 RMs yesterday on US colleges and universities , apparently wanting them all renamed according to the way they're referred to in sports coverage, with all the idiosyncratic inconsistencies inherent in that e.g. ''San Francisco State University → SFSU'' and ''California State University Channel Islands → CSU Channel Islands'' and ''California State University, Northridge → Cal State Northridge''. All of these have been universally opposed on the various article talk pages e.g. -- and see also . Is there a way to snow close them all right now on a mass basis, before more editor time is wasted? From other comments at the last link this editor has been doing this in at least one other topic area, so it may be necessary to ban this editor from RMs completely before this is over. ]] 14:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Can one of the "Move Admins/Closers" look at this? ==
An anon user put up a merge tag on ] back on Nov 21st but didn't complete the process with a request here. On the talk page, we have established users opposing the move with a few anons (potentially SPA or even duplicate users) voicing POV-based support. Considering the length of time, it seems like the request should be "closed" but since it was incomplete, did it really even start and thus need to be listed? ] 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Merges are handled less formally than moves and not here in any event. ] is a place to optionally advertise a proposed merge. ] outlines the steps involved with suggesting a merge, but basically all you have to do is come to a consensus on the talk page. It seems the discussion has gone on long enough with enough participation. As an uninvolved party, I've closed the debate with the result of no consensus. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


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

Yesterday I put up a RM for seventeen pages. I put up the talk notice first, followed by the post here at RM three minutes later, then the first proposed move notice on an individual page three minutes later (a total of six minutes after the inital RM post). Although I had edit windows of all pages open before starting the move, it still took a few minutes (less than 20 minutes total) to complete all of them, particluarly since I was double checking and verifying wikilinks. One user is now continuing to complain that I failed to post notification, particularly on one article where he got there before I did (three minutes after my first RM post) and insists that he had to post notification himself since in his opinion, I had failed to do so. Is there a reasonable timeframe in which the multiple posts of an RM (particularly one of multiple articles) should be completed? --] 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:(as the editor refered to as "one user") - Notify prior to "opening the polls", especially in such a controversially and hotly disputed situation (see the talk page of ]) - You have all the time in the word to add the needed notification, as a sign of good faith to show that the poll (since when was it a poll anyway?) is indeed legitimate, especially as the opening to this page reads "Do not discuss moves on this page. '''Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved.'''" <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Matthew, thanks for sharing your side of the story. I'd appreciate input from RM regulars on this, thanks. --] 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Moves via copy/paste instead of using the move feature ==

I have come across a situation where a user is using copy/paste to switch an article and redirect instead of actually moving either page. I've warned him/her and reverted, but they did it again. Any recommendations on how to handle this? I assume you're not supposed to do moves that way, although ] doesn't explicitly say you shouldn't. Moves are here: . --] 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:If they continue to do it after they have been clearly told how to properly move a page, they should be blocked for disruption. Cut and paste moves are substantial burden because they need to be fixed by ], and can also be a copyright problem with the GFDL. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

==What happens when a consensus has been reached?==
What happens to my requested move when several days have passed and a consensus has been reached? Do I just wait for a bored admin to come and do the move? I think this should also be documented on this article so that users will always know what to do or what to expect. -- ] 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Personally I find acting as an admin anything but boring! But remember we're all volunteers here. Sometimes there is a bit of a backlog. Please don't blame the admins for this, that's just likely to discourage some of the ''requested moves'' team, and then the rest of us will then be even busier, and the backlog will increase.

:I think you're probably referring to the current ] move. Yes, we do seem to have consensus IMO.

:As to better documentation, suggestions and contributions are welcome. Good to talk here before doing anything too radical. And beware of ].

:In my experience, many problems are caused (and a lot of my time <s>wasted</s> utilised) because people haven't read what we already have. If discussions could be kept to ''discussion'' sections (not the ''requested moves'' page itself or the ''survey'' section) that would be a big help for one thing. And that's already clearly documented.

:And when these directions aren't followed, it doesn't need to be an admin who sorts it out, but it nearly always is. So another thing you could do is to fix things that don't need sysop powers, so those who do have them will have more time to use them. ] 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

==Mess created, help needed==
] has been moved and forked into ] and ]. History is now disrupted, ]s exist (even two possibly) and ] may be going on. The move was controversial in the first place; the issue is disscussed at ] and soon likely in other places. As I am somewhat involved in the discussion, I'd appreciate if a more experienced 'move handler' could step in and clean the mess as much as possible (hopefully reverting all moves, merging forks and starting a proper RM).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:Piotrus, your current attempts to escalate the anti-Ghirlandajo crusade by moving it to public noticeboards are being discussed on ]. Half a dozen commentators advised you to withdraw from Russia-related topics. Please keep the discussion in one place. I will post an addendum concerning your latest outburst later today. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, perhaps half a dozen commentators did. More than a dozen agreed with me and criticized you, and another twenty don't support your view, neither. And I have already posted comments about your worsening behaviour, so please, go right ahead and add your side of story there, too.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::: I would like also to ask someone to intevene. All this started with Ghirlandajo stating that he was in charge of that article and he was the only one to decide what's to happen. Here is the original post:

:::::''It is me who is in charge of the article about Muscovy. If I consider it prudent, I will move it to Muscovite Russia. The term "Muscovy" is (ab)used throughout Misplaced Pages primarily in Poland-Ukraine related articles, since it has derogatory connotations in the languages of those two countries. Its use in post-1552 context is certainly misleading. Since you don't deny that alternative names include "Russian Tsardom" and "the Russian state", I see your efforts at purging these from the text as tendentiously motivated. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)''

:::There have been virtually no discussion, things are done rashly, without consideration of other users. An outside intervenition is urgently needed.--] 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Indeed, this is a case of ] - Ghirla also wrote at my talk page: ... I am afraid I have to disagree. It is the entire community who should decide on that, and WP:RM was created just for this purpose. PS. Dear Hilllock65, could you provide a diff for the comment you cite above?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::::: So that's the reason ? No death threats, please. I've had enough of that today. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::It was not a death treat, I meant to use the words ']e' and critically failed on my English language knowledge roll in a hurry mergin them into one :/ I apologize for the confusion - but that doesn't make your actions any better. Now I see you , creating double redirects, breking talk templates to archives... this has to stop.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

: Piotrus said earlier that he won't object to such move. But now, this seems like an attempt to add to the ongoing hysteria. --] 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:02, 24 December 2024

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

Discussions:

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

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

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

Move the article of Yifei Ye to Ye Yifei

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

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

Overcomplication

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

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

Move cleanup

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

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

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

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

Participating in a RM after relisting

These texts don't seem to align:

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

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

Best way to handle a complicated move?

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

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

Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs

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

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

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

Move Virginia High School (Virginia) to Virginia High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100+ thoughtless RMS by User:TheParties

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

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