Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

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

helpful links section in the RM template

Since there's a huge disparity between the amount of watchers between here and the template talk page, allow me to link Template talk:Requested move#helpful links section from here.

Indeed, the top of this page seems to have some helpful search links that sound like they could also be included in such a list of helpful links in the template (to help people find previous RMs for the same topics). --Joy (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Before I request

I first brought this to the Teahouse and then once again here: Article Page; but I am not really sure how to go about requesting 2 page moves in one request. I would like to move the article Saddle tramp as the main article under that title at WP and move the (disambiguation) page to its own disambiguation title - which will be linked from the header link on the Saddle tramp article. But it is not very clear how to do that on the Requested moves page. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Check out Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting multiple page moves, in particular the template example shown there. – Hilst [talk] 13:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding how to request

I'm not sure where to find the templates for requesting a page move I.e opening the discussion. It will be more logical to have this information prominently at the top of the page. As it stand, the first /lead is filled with the closing instructions and a page mover guide, etc, but doesn't seem to have an immediate clear guidance on how to request a move or a link to do so. Has anyone considered this? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What could potentially be split and moved out is the list of technical requests to just below the instructions for the controversial moves. Nothing else should be changed since this is an information page on all moves. The lead accurately summarises what moves are there and what to do. Technical move instructions should still be at the top as we do get plenty of the technical requests, more than the number of controversial discussions. – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The WP:PCM section has all of that information, and that section is listed in the Table of Contents. I can't think of any other process on Wikipedia where we just plonk a bunch of templates at the top and say "read below for how to use these"; we have those templates in line with the prose and examples. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Some cases should be moved via Rfc instead

Over the years I have come across many cases that would be much better moved via an Rfc rather than RM. This is because in the cases, there also needs to be a scope change. Consider the move requests at 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. At the move request many users express concerns about scope and potential merger. At the merger discussion, users express concern about the name. Its a circular discussion. An Rfc would clearly lay out the options at the table: "Move to X, with merger", "Move to X, without merger" etc. In such cases, can a user start a RfC instead of a RM? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule that says contentious moves can only occur following an RM, so if you think there are other important things to discuss along with a page move (or as a result of a mage move, or vice versa) then by all means use that route. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that an RfC like the one you suggest should only be created when there is no open move request. An RfC should not be used to supersede an existing move discussion, and is likely to be closed in such a case. Dekimasuよ! 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are we recommending that edit histories should use nonsense names?

See talk:Magique (disambiguation), where it is said that a redirect containing edit history should be moved to a nonsensical title "Magique (disambiguation)" when the content is not a disambiguation page, but a former character article. This kind of movement would make edit histories of many topics end up at nonsense names, whenever a primary topic changes a primary redirect with history swapped with an article. That unrelated disambiguated title would now contain the former article come redirect's edit history, for a merged article. The edit summary will never keep up with multiple moves, so the attribution templates on the talk pages should be used to track the location of edit histories, with sensible names; and through the move logs.

-- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals?

I have initiated a discussion at the Village Pump on the question, Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals? BD2412 T 00:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 nice. I have something similar in mind with regards to potential high-viz moves. – robertsky (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky: If you have a proposal, I'd like to see it in the Village Pump discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Snowing. (closed by non-admin page mover) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Wikipedia:Requested title changes – title changes seems like a better name because we are requesting to change the name or title of the page. for example in this requested move the request is to change the TITLE to Wikipedia:Requested title changes so that is why title changes is a more appropriate name for this page. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Wikipedia's terminology has been "move" for 23 years, and there's no reason to change it. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The reasoning for this RM is entirely based on a personal opinion. There are no issues with the current, unless there's a conflicting page because of the title, then I would consider supporting such a move. Jerium (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Solution in search of a problem, and one that would take a lot of work to clean up after. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

move closure reconsideration request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

reconsider the move request above to change page title to Wikipedia:Requested title changes as it was closed too fast in less than a day as most move requests take more than a week for consensus. the instructions on top of the closed move say Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page but the talk page of the closer is extended confirmed protected so i am starting that discussion here on this talk page. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A move review is unlikely to be successful here, as this close is a textbook definition of one that would fall under the Wikipedia:Snowball clause. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahecht, for what it's worth, this IP has been repeatedly disruptive over the past month or so. They've reverted my snow close on Talk:Project 2025 twice over the same general concerns (closed too early), and they've been edit warring on Wikipedia:Sandbox of all places, leading Daniel Quinlan to block them. All that to say they've been on my nerves for a while now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In short, the IP is just a troll. A anyone would be justified in blocking them for a lot longer than 72 hours. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE and deserve zero consideration. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Ip title changes is a better title than move 2600:381:C285:663C:10C3:8FE:8B17:2245 (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I find everyone above too dismissive. While it's extremely unlikely for us to change what we call it now (and it'd take far more than one RM), "move" is indeed confusing terminology, and nobody unfamiliar with MediaWiki would understand what you mean if you used it without qualifying it. It requires you to conceptualize page names as spaces to occupy, even though there are effectively infinite combinations of eligible Unicode characters, while nobody would have trouble understanding if it was called "rename". But WP:Rename already redirects to Wikipedia:Changing username, which points in a hatnote to Wikipedia:Moving a page, and that seems adequate to address the confusion newcomers will inevitably have. Nardog (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah i agree move is confusing terminology title change makes much more sense. so that is why i request to reconsider the closure of this request to change article title to Wikipedia:Requested title changes. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the room and accept that nobody else agrees with you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Support 2600:381:C285:663C:10C3:8FE:8B17:2245 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The ch 2600:381:C285:663C:10C3:8FE:8B17:2245 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. Please knock it off. 162 etc. (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Requested name changes]] is also fine 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

remove the Russia-Ukraine War and 2020 Oregon State Senate election move requests from malformed requests as they are also in the july 30 section 173.72.3.91 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

never mind looks like RMCD bot already corrected it 173.72.3.91 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that in any case the bots overwrite any independent changes made to the list, so this kind of request can't be dealt with here. Dekimasuよ! 00:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Moves during discussion?

If I don't want to wait for a discussion to reach any conclusion, can I just go ahead and do the page moves and renames anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No. That would defeat the purpose of having such a discussion in the first place. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But what if I'm really sure that they need to be moved, and the people arguing are just wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley, is this about Talk:M40 gun motor carriage? Typically, if a user has recently done an undiscussed move from A to B, and another user would like to call it into question, there are two ways for him to do so. 1. He can unilaterally revert the move, and then anyone can start a RM for A → B. 2. He can leave it at B for the moment and start a RM for B → A. Either way, the eventual result will be whatever the consensus is, or A if there is no consensus. By leaving it at B but framing the RM as A →B, you didn't quite follow either pattern, so it's creating some confusion. You can fix it in either way. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The first route above is usually better: if a user has recently done an undiscussed move from A to B, and another user would like to call it into question, this should be done by reverting the move instead of starting an RM, since this is sufficient evidence that the undiscussed move was not uncontroversial (WP:RMUM, and also in accord with WP:BRD). The only significant variation in perspective that exists on this is what should be considered "recent". Dekimasuよ! 00:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the above; moving a page while there is an explicit discussion over moving the page is poor form, unless something is egregiously wrong (but then there wouldn't be an RM, would there). Primefac (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking of this in particular, done today. I raised these initially a week ago, but was ignored because there was no RM open on them, therefore [sic] there was no opposition to them. Raising them at Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment where there's an ongoing discussion on the same basis, this was rejected as 'disruptive' and taken to ANI. Now they're refusing to engage at RM because they don't like the format of the proposition. Clearly the original mover just does not want to discuss any justification for their moves.

But the problem is that a RM to move them back to the correct version is facing a fait accompli, a pejorative situation to have to work from. Conversely moving them all back first, then raising the proper RM that should have been done initially, is a lot of work to do (probably hundreds of links involved, and some of them can't be moved without admin action anyway), all to then just get blocked for edit-warring before the RM is even filed! In the meantime, the firehose of related moves continues apace, even ridiculous ones like M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. If a page is moved and it isn't exactly the same page as one of the backlog that are already being complained of, then there's no opposition to that page move, is there? QED. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth – in previous similar situations (page BOLDly moved, ongoing RM to return to the original title), what I've seen done is that a participant will leave a comment in the discussion to note the relevant history. The closer can then take this history into account when evaluating the discussion, which should reduce the fait accompli concerns; for instance, I've definitely seen cases where similar RMs had a result of "no consensus, therefore the page is being returned to its original stable title". ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. But here there's no "ongoing RM to return to the original title". An RM to return to the original title(s) is one of the options I suggested to Andy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Andy, a notification of this would have been nice. A couple of comments: Yes, you could have just moved the pages back yourself, or asked at WP:RMTR, as I advised you several times, before and after you started the malformed RM; and again. I have done my best to engage in discussion with you, but you ignore me there and at the previous discussion you opened at Talk:M40 gun motor carriage#Undiscussed page move. It would not be edit warring for you to move a few articles back to capitalized titles, and say you oppose more similar ones, after which I'd start a proper RM discussion. It's WP:BRD. But if all you do is throw incivil insults (see bottom of WP:ANI#User:Andy Dingley), you're not really making a case. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And if "the original mover just does not want to discuss any justification for their moves", why did I make all these edits?

• Replies to you on my talk page before you ignored me there: [1], [2], [3].
• Also my replies to Swatjester in that same section. He took my advice, reverted a few moves, and we started an RM discussion. That's how it works. He also pointed out to me that the titles we're discussing there are unlike the letter/number–class designator titles that you're inquiring about, which is why your long tangent about those at that RM was disruptive, as editors kept telling you.
• This subsection in your nastigram section on my talk page, that I even pinged you to: User talk:Dicklyon#On my moves
• This whole section, which I could reference from, or copy into, a proper RM discussion if one gets started: Talk:M40 gun motor carriage#Origins and early adoption of "gun motor carriage".
• This comment in the talk page section you started. And this one to follow up another user's comments there.
• These comments in your malformed RM: [4], [5], [6], [7].

And there's no response from you to any of those, and no response other than this at my User talk page, your last comment there, last July 25. And you've made no response in the discussion you started on the article talk page on July 24, though a couple of us were trying to discuss. Who is it that's refusing to discuss? Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close request

Andy's malformed RM at Talk:M40_gun_motor_carriage#Requested_move_2_August_2024 needs to be closed and re-done correctly, either as capitalizing moves from the current titles, or revert those that I lowercased and I'll do an RM from the old titles to lowercase. Would some move-savvy admin please step in and put us out of our misery there please? Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: can you help fix this, one way or another? Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)