![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I think that WP:RM/TR requests should be recorded on the article talk page. Proposed moves, recorded at WP:RM/TR, sometimes are not well informed, or even in good faith, and some notification of the proposal and action really should be posted on the article talk page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
REVISIONID
still works on every page except the page it's on:[[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID:Wikipedia talk:Requested moves}}]]
Special:Permalink/1237684746 doesn't work here but[[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID:Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests}}]]
Special:Permalink/1238415083 does!I've installed a hack which allows them to work again. Since {{REVISIONID}}
doesn't work anymore on
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but {{subst:REVISIONID:Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests}}
does work on
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink I've created that new subpage and have installed a bot to keep it updated. This is a bold implementation under
WP:IAR to fix a previously accepted process that was broken by the MediaWiki developers. I will be filing a bot request for approval soon. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
19:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
BRFA filed –
wbm1058 (
talk)
20:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
mw:Help:Magic words#Technical metadata documents nine magic words for Latest revision to current page:
{{REVISIONID}}
1082780650{{REVISIONDAY}}
15{{REVISIONDAY2}}
15{{REVISIONMONTH}}
04{{REVISIONMONTH1}}
4{{REVISIONYEAR}}
2022{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
20220415022820{{REVISIONUSER}}
Lowercase sigmabot III{{REVISIONSIZE}}
230544Eight of nine still work. I don't understand why this "miser" fix didn't break all of them. Why isn't there a {{PREVIEW}}
magic word for indicating whether in preview mode? Or give me a {{PREVIOUSREVISIONID}}
magic word because that's all I need. The permalinks the process is getting from the page my bot writes are just the permalink from the last time
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests was saved. I have no need to know whether I'm in preview mode, so no need to determine the revision ID before the page is saved. Just make the software pull it up after the fact.
The process was broken for three months. I did fix it. Again, if you have a better way to fix it, show me. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:REVISIONID:Wikipedia talk:Requested moves}}
{{subst:REVISIONID}}
This is a big tease. With test #1 I see the revision ID 959405315
in preview mode, while in test #2 I don't. But after the page is saved I don't see either. If I perform test #1 on any page other than this one, then the revision ID is saved to the page. You don't think this is rather hacky behavior?
wbm1058 (
talk)
16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't there a {{PREVIEW}}
magic word for indicating whether in preview mode
. There is, and it's called {{REVISIONID}}, which counterintuitively still works for detecting preview mode, even though it doesn't give a revision ID. Even more counterintuitively, the behavior of the magic word is different on talk namespaces and non-talk namespaces:
-
.{{REVISIONID}}
to detect whether you are in preview, to calculate the revision ID of a different page (or the current page if it is in the talk namespace), but not the calculate the revision ID of the current page if it is not in the talk namespace. It also means (I think) that this bot task could have been implemented on top of
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 3, at the cost of only updating once an hour. (I'm not seriously suggesting this, just pointing it out)
* Pppery *
it has begun...
17:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry this task stopped temporarily last night when my computer went to sleep. I've modified its Windows Task Scheduler configuration to wake the computer, so hopefully that won't happen again. RMCD bot already was waking the computer every 15 minutes; now this task should wake it every 10 seconds. Fortunately my machine is immune to sleep deprivation. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, one more scheduling glitch worked out. The permalink updating task was down for 24 hours after I had to reboot my computer yesterday. It was only configured in Windows Task Scheduler to start when the task was created or modified. Now it's also configured to start at system startup. Hopefully that's the last kink needing to be worked out. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Still working out the kinks to ensure that this bot stays up 24×7. There was another period of downtime today. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm told I have to use it on this talk page, but the instructions say to use it in the WP-space page. — kwami ( talk) 00:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of current discussions, how do I add one exactly?
-- Tecumseh*1301 ( talk) 02:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I unintentionally created one very uncomfortable situation by mistakenly not using this page to propose one move. I feel quite horrible about this and I wanted to ask if you can give us any good advice what to do or propose where I can ask for additional feedback/ideas. The article in question is Talk:Vukovar-Syrmia County#RfC on Proposal to rename article. Again apologies for the whole situation and apologies for specific case/issue question on the general discussion page.-- MirkoS18 ( talk) 13:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I attempted to move What you gonna do? to What You Gonna Do??? per consensus here, but I am getting this message:-
"What you gonna do?" cannot be moved to "What You Gonna Do???", because the title "What You Gonna Do???" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.
Kraose ( talk) 16:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Can some please help me move Bored (Billie Eilish song) and Hostage (Billie Eilish song) to Bored (song) and Hostage (song). Both got more supports than opposes and has been more than 7 days. I do not know how to move the titles so if someone can please help, I would really appreciate it. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone move TNT (American TV network) to TNT (American TV channel)? It's a channel, not a network, and even the page says it's a channel. — ÐW ( talk/ contribs) 06:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Analogous to "Open source" the title should be "Inner source", not "Inner Source". However, there is already a redirect in the opposite direction. -- Michaeldorner ( talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move Heery International to Cbre Heery, Inc. Company was renamed, as reflected in article text. I don't have permission to edit the requested moves page. Lynneberg ( talk) 19:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Can some please move Hostage (Billie Eilish song) to Hostage (song). It has more supports than opposes and has been open for more than a week. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 22:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:RM has a section header Requests to revert undiscussed moves, but the section is empty. Is there a streamlined procedure to request reverting such moves?
Cleveland Ballet, about a ballet company that was active for forty years and is still clearly the primary topic, was moved by a new editor and enthusiast of the current ballet company in Cleveland, with no discussion. Since there are no instructions for requesting a revert (and I can't overwrite the redirects her move created), I put in a plain old RM; but it would be good if we could document a process for requesting reversions of things like this. TJRC ( talk) 17:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I recently got trial approval for a bot to fix links to articles before/after page moves. In cases of double redirects, there are bots like russBOT, who do the link fixing completely automatically. But there are certain instances where we have to fix links manually. If you come across such instances, please let me know here (by pinging me) or at my talkpage; and I will fix the links using the bot. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I think template renames belong at WP:TfD. Naming conventions (the obsession of RM regulars) do not apply to templates. Templates are technical, and changes can have wider impact, and the expertise for this can be best found at WP:TfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
am I wrong to suspect that this transclusion count..., you are partially incorrect; uses subst'd by a bot are no longer transcluded and so will not show up in a transclusion count, but for example the 45k uses of {{ ill}} are included in the 77k transclusions of {{ interlanguage link}}. Not really sure how that's relevant but there's your answer. Primefac ( talk) 13:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure this has been brought up before, but I've noticed we've seen more requests to move pages where the nominator proposes a move because they don't like the current title but don't propose a new title. (See Talk:List_of_prominent_operas#Requested_move_10_July_2020 for an example.) It seems many of these requests go nowhere because there is a never a consensus reached on a new title. I think it might be time to consider disallowing such requests and encourage a discussion about alternative titles before launching a formal RM. Calidum 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
When I did so, the message "Request to move a single page must be placed on that page's talk or the page its talk redirects to" comes. Please help me! -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Flag of the Bahamas#Requested move 20 July 2020 has been open for far too long. It was relisted again, improperly, by a party to the discussion just because they're not WP:WINNING. The actual policy/guideline and source facts are crystal clear in this case, and it need not have been relisted even once, much less twice now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there any guidance published anywhere on when repeat RMs (a new RM soon after one on same article was closed) are allowed and/or discouraged and under what circumstances? I know informally at least most long term participants seems to think there should be at least 6 months if not a year between RMs, presumably with certain exceptions. But is this published anywhere? If not should it be? If so, where? — В²C ☎ 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A repeat with an identical RM to one recently closed after a clear consensus or a very lengthy discussion that stalled should be frowned upon. However a new, different RM taking into account the discussion in the recently closed RM may be good. – wbm1058 ( talk) 21:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The closer of an MR requested input at an AN here:
Those with RM/MR experience might want to weigh in. — В²C ☎ 21:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Since an RfC has been suggested by myself and others, instead of repeated RMs creating inconsistency, I thought it would be a good idea to start a discussion on how to proceed. I have a low success rate in creating well-conceived and organized RfCs. @ BarrelProof, Roman Spinner, and Levivich: Would any of you be willing to help me craft a unbiased RfC for this? I think the best place to do this is at the village pump but we should agree on a good primer and question. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Question: In cases where the death has been ruled a homicide by a medical examiner or similar expert, should articles titled "Shooting of [name]" be renamed "Killing of [name]" (or something else) even if the shooter has not been charged or convicted of a crime?
Primer: Many of these articles are police-involved shootings. COMMONNAME has been an unfruitful guide in previous RMs because in most cases both "shooting of" and "killing of" have been commonly used in RS to describe the events. Arguments for CONSISTENCY have won out in these discussions to keep the titles at "Shooting of [name]". This RfC aims to determine if there is consensus to consistently rename all such articles as "Killing of [name]"
===="Shooting of [name]"==== ===="Fatal shooting of [name]"==== ===="Killing of [name]"==== ===="Death of [name]"==== ====Other titles not listed above==== ====Further discussion===
We cannot even state that JFK was murdered (or assassinated); no one was ever convicted. I believe in the 9/11 attacks, there were no convictions, either (and, hence, no murders?). What flawed logic.You are omitting one very obvious factor here, and that is common sense. A shooting of a public figure from a concealed location = obvious murder. A plane deliberately flown into a building full of people = obvious murder. A prostitute stabbed and dismembered on the streets of Victorian London = obvious murder. An actual conviction is not necessary for common sense to be applied here. But many other killings are not obvious murders, even if they are clearly unlawful killings or homicides. Manslaughter is not murder and is, in my experience, not commonly referred to as murder in reliable sources, despite your previous claims to the contrary. Some historic unsolved killings are indeed commonly referred to as murders in reliable sources, even without a conviction (including murder/suicides that are declared to be such by the authorities), and if they are then we use that term, but media coverage of ongoing cases is frequently not especially reliable in the frenzy for a good story, and we should be very wary of using the term "murder" just because they do. Not because we're worried about the rights of any accused, but because we're a respectable encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow was recently moved to Deaths of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow when their bodies were found buried in their stepfather’s yard. Nobody doubts these kids were murdered. Leave it Deaths? Or go with Murders? —- В²C ☎ 19:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
A neutrally-worded RFC should present facts about the defintion of the noun killing. Dictionaries including MacMillan and Cambridge define it as an intentional act to kill.
[2]
[3] Merriam-Webster only calls it the act of one that kills.
[4]. This can lead to an NPOV issue if readers are misled about any intent involved in a death. Part of editors' confusion might be that other forms of kill do not specifiy intent,
[5]
[6] while the noun can. These would not imply any intent: "He was killed while in police custody." "He was shot by police, killing him". But this could say his death was intentional: "The killing of Floyd prompted protests."—
Bagumba (
talk)
06:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
American dictionaries define "killing":
The act or action of causing death, as of a person.
the act of one that kills(" kills" defined as
to deprive of life : cause the death of)
the act of a person or thing that kill(" kill" defined as
to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.)
British dictionaries:
an act of killing somebody deliberately
an occasion when a person is murdered
A killing is an act of deliberately killing a person- Levivich dubious – discuss 00:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
an act in which someone is deliberately killed. — BarrelProof ( talk) 14:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, BarrelProof, Amakuru, Roman Spinner, Reidgreg, GeneralNotability, Ritchie333, Red Slash, RevelationDirect, BD2412, Mandruss, Bagumba, Sdkb, Joseph A. Spadaro, SmokeyJoe, Necrothesp, Ɱ, Born2cycle, and Masem:
Please copy the wikitext at
User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs/Killing to
Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor and use the
preview mode
to read it.
I do not think an RfC is necessary and will likely lead to more WP:NOCONSENSUS. I think I have convincing evidence in the prepared mass RM that we should move all the pages per WP:CONSISTENCY.
I would like to see if I can get moderate support for starting this RM before causing all disruption that is bound to come from tagging 98 articles with RM discussion notices.
The flowchart may be adopted some day. But, right now, I want to first deal with the most pressing issue: how police killings by firearms have become either an exception or disjointed from the corresponding lists, depending on how you look at it. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?. ---
C&
C (
Coffeeandcrumbs)
20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I realize this has probably been discussed before, but I think it is time we set some definitive rules for where RM discussions concerning multiple pages take place. I believe if an RM is made that would swap an article at the base name with a disambiguation page, the RM should be held at the talk page of the base name. See the recent move request at Talk:Yard (disambiguation) for an example. By holding the RM at the disambiguation page, instead of at Talk:Yard, it is in a less trafficked location. In that example, someone might not realize the same move request had been rejected previously at Talk:Yard. -- Calidum 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello. can you redirect municipalities of Hokkaido? ex. Engaru, Hokkaido
" Hokkaido" has been removed name— Preceding unsigned comment added by AichiWikiFixer ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I did a close, however my browser hung and I did a force-quit, but I am not sure if the bot picked it up, can someone double check the list for me? Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I don't know if I'm on the right page but I need some help in moving an article. I have actually done several page moves already but this one is quite complicated for me. I wanted to move Gerald Anthony Gullas Jr. to Samsam Gullas (which is the WP:COMMONNAME) but the second article has already a redirect to the first article. I tried to move the first article using the second article's title but it won't allow me because "page of that name already exists". I need to know if this requires technical help. Thanks a lot in advance! — Emperork ( talk) 00:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
There's a proposal under way to rewrite the guidelines about links to disambiguation pages: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Draft wording. One question is the extent to which they should apportion responsibility for fixing incomings links after a move of a disambiguation page to the primary title. – Uanfala (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help with the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs. A lot are speedy/procedural ones, but there are some that do need moves. The ones that need work on are under the headers Non-article content at AfD and Templates, categories and files at MfD. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 22:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to comment on the following issue:
Talk:Michael Fagan (intruder)#Article focus
Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in these, yet most editors don't realise this. What can we do to make sure that this is clear? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
My request to move Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand) to Office of Film and Literature Classification was removed in this edit, but it looks like the overprecise-title page hasn't been moved. Or am I mistaken? Neckstells ( talk) 10:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The name "East Timor" in the Wikipedia article "List of sovereign States and dependent territories in Oceania" should be changed to Timor-Leste, as the latter name is the one that is used by that country in the United Nations. Atelerixia ( talk) 07:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello I would like the name changed on the Snooker player Jamie Rhys Clarke's homepage to Jamie Clarke. The name Rhys was added in error when the page was created. He does not use that name at all and never has done. Multiple sources including World Snooker, BBC, Eurosport etc list him as Jamie Clarke. Can this name be removed please ?. Rdgards 178.167.203.183 ( talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to do it ?. Regards 178.167.133.131 ( talk) 13:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
At
WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Three possible outcomes, I changed adding another fact for the third result sentence. I decided to put "If a good-faith RM nomination proposes to move a page and has no comments after at least seven days, the default result is move
" since I think that if there were no discussions for a single page more, I would assume that it is uncontroversial. I also think that if a RM discussion has no comments,
administrators and/or
page movers would usually move those pages. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I wrote a user script which helps with closing and relisting requested moves. Feel free to try it out and let me know what you think of it. TheTVExpert ( talk) 15:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion was closed as consensus to move, despite only two people taking part and one of those being neutral. I can't imagine this is something that would happen in other areas of Wikipedia, so is that the normal practice here? Wouldn't it have been better to relist? Also, neither of the relevant Wikiprojects were notified; whose responsibility is it to do that? Thanks. -- Ykraps ( talk) 08:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Old move ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Old moves ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated at Templates for Discussion. -- 65.92.246.246 ( talk) 04:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Since WP:AN/RFC doesn't seem to attract too much traffic... can an experienced RM closer take a look at Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#Requested_move_6_January_2021 ? While requests usually stay open a week, there is overwhelming consensus in favor of the move that can suggest a WP:SNOW closure; the topic is clearly no longer just "protests." SnowFire ( talk) 00:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I’m Doggy54321. I recently found a potential glitch in the way we request technical moves. I moved
User:Doggy54321/sandbox to
User:Doggy54321/Sandbox as all my other subpage titles start with a capital letter. I didn’t like how it looked, so I made a request here at
WP:RM/TR to have it moved back to "sandbox" as I could not do that myself (I am not a page mover). I noticed in the template we use to request technical requests that there is a "move" button. I assume anyone reading this knows what that is and how it is used. I pressed it because I was curious to see what would happen (I was expecting an error message), and it took me to something reminiscent of
Special:MovePage (I’m pretty sure it was but it had some setting on it). I pressed the move button and moved
User:Doggy54321/Sandbox back to
User:Doggy54321/sandbox by unconsciously deleting pages under
G6 and then moving the pages back. If you look at the history of
User:Doggy54321/sandbox, this is somewhat documented. But, if you look at
my log, you can see that I fully deleted the pages and moved them over redirect. I’m going to assume this is a glitch that needs to be solved ASAP, as I’m fairly certain that this action is supposed to be restricted to only people with the page mover right. Please ping me upon your reply using {{
ping}} (or any other notification template). Thanks!
D🐶ggy54321 (
let's chat!)
23:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have tried my best to find out how to move an article. Then I read that this is done by a bot. Whatsoever. Can anyone move Peter Kalmus and turn it into a disambiguation page? We have two scientists with this name. Currently under Peter Kalmus, there is a British particle physicist. Then there is Peter Kalmus (climate scientist), an American climate scientist. In my view the latter is even more popular. Even if not, I cannot see why they are not on the same level and why the former is "hidden". I wonder if someone could move that? 194.62.169.86 ( talk) 06:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Earlier today I added a move request template to an article. It is shown on this Project Page as "(Discuss) – Starting rate of UK income tax → Starting rate of UK income tax" i.e. two identical titles. The problem seems to be that the article was moved in a strange way, first a merge [7] [8] into another article, then a recreation of the earlier article by the same user but at a different redirect page [9]. Now the main page is 10p tax rate but the talk page is Talk:Starting_rate_of_UK_income_tax. I'm not really sure what the correct fix is. I seem to remember there were quite a lot of these mismatched talk pages many years ago. I feel the move should never have been carried out like this and redirecting the Talk Page just confirms it. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There are two Rudi Dollmayers who share the same name (as they are related, one is senior, the other jr) but professionally they both go by simply "Rudi Dollmayer" which I discovered after interviewing the model. I started off with simply naming the page "Rudi Dollmayer (model" but by doing so, realized it doesn't come up in any search unless I put the full title with (model) is there any way around this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvdoglover ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The title is Canadian Investment Manager. This is old, and it is now renamed Chartered Investment Manager . Please move to reflect that Asadqureshy85 ( talk) 05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
I've noticed that WP:RMNAC is considerably more rules-oriented than WP:NAC in general, and due to the contentiousness often involved, RM even has its own appeal process, WP:MR, while almost all other closure decisions have to go to WP:DRV, if they are XfDs, or go to WP:AN otherwise. This seems to suggest that there is a process for determining that someone who has been doing RNMAC improperly should no longer be permitted to close RMs, pending some later showing that they are competent to do so. I would like to know what that process is, if it exists. (Beyond that, I sometimes wonder whether it's time to propose that RMNAC be limited to page-movers and admins, except maybe in unquestionable WP:SNOW cases. And that actually would provide a formal permissions-revocation path, namely that of PM, if one does not already exist.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Beyond that, I sometimes wonder whether it's time to propose that RMNAC be limited to page-movers and admins, except maybe in unquestionable WP:SNOW cases-- the problem for this is that closing RMs is one of the major ways to demonstrate a need for the PMR bit in the first place (and the other way, draftifying articles without admin oversight, is more contentious/has a worse failure mode). Vaticidal prophet 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
AfD NACs are inherently badsubset personally. But AfD isn't equivalent to all other XfD venues, or RM.
NACs are not discouraged for requested moves, as long as the non-admin is highly experienced with RMs and our closing procedures. All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review ( WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there.. You should file a WP:Move review instead of coming here with a grievance over a move closure that did not go the way you wanted it to go. Polyamorph ( talk) 02:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-admin closures of RM discussions must follow the same rules at WP:NACD, and advice at WP:NAC. They must be declared with template {{subst:RMnac}} placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the {{subst:RM top}} template (or use the |nac= parameter in the closing template).
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.
The protection log also shows there is some sort of protection but what? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
14:38, 18 March 2016 Lectonar protected Help talk:Getting started Edit/Move, Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite)─ The Aafī (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am unable to edit the main requested moves page myself, so I am placing a request here. I would like to have the redirected article Pirates! Gold ( edit history) moved to Draft:Pirates! Gold so that I can restore to this version and begin building it up as an article. I tried to do this previously but was reverted and advised to start a discussion, which I did at Talk:Sid Meier's Pirates!#Splitting proposal where I was given the idea to start a draft and submit to AFC. 2601:249:8B80:4050:FDCF:44F6:2142:124C ( talk) 16:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Can you change the name of “Category:Tulfah family” into “Category:Saddam family”, for 2 reasons, the article to which this category is attached is saddam's family not telfah’s, and the members of this category are not of telfah family, they are mostly of Albu Majid (Saddam smallest familial group) and of Albu Khattab (the subclan of Saddam’s maternal brothers).-- Abu aamir ( talk) 07:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Please request this page to The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1976 film) because it was released on Dec 30, 1976. And please delete the redirect The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1977 TV series) because it wasn′t a TV series. I cannot insert the request. Pinguin99 ( talk) 08:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd consider re-writing this a bit since in practice these aren't difficult to deal with and such requests should probably not be closed simply because they aren't formatted correctly, obviously if someone keeps doing it a note can be left on their talk page. If the request is to move an article to where a DAB page is such as for Sutton Sutton, London → Sutton you just add the DAB to the RM like this (or add the delete to make way for WP:ONEOTHER that User:Paine Ellsworth adds). If its a DAB moving to where an article is (or another article is) you just add the article at the base name to the request either using a question mark or picking the most appropriate title you can think of (like this). And if its an article moving to a qualified title but the DAB isn't included you include the DAB in the request (like here) though you should make sure that this is the case since its possible the user may think unnecessary disambiguation is appropriate in which case you can then oppose on those grounds otherwise if the move has been carried out you can just move the DAB as well (like here) since if there's consensus that there's no primary topic that suggests redirecting to basename to the DAB and as such the DAB moved to the basename per WP:MALPLACED. The problem with the current wording is that it may encourage someone who doesn't want a move to close it when it can simply be fixed. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, you will see an edit note saying to add new entries "on a new line, directly below". It's not clear whether this means to add them at the top of the list existing there, or at the bottom; indeed, right now you can see that people have been adding new entries to both the top and the bottom. While I honestly can't imagine something I care about less than whether it's "new entries at the top" or "new entries at the bottom", I think it's obvious that we should pick one, and then make it clear which you ought to use. jp× g 21:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Putting a word in on WT:RM that I've made a thread at WP:VPR#Make page movers eligible to move move-protected pages likely of interest to some watchers of this page. Vaticidal prophet 11:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
MOS:LINKSTYLE says not to put links in section headings (and to instead use {{Main article}} or {{See also}}, but many section headings on this page (Requesting technical moves, Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, and Current discussions) have links. Can I go ahead and remove those links and put {{Main article}} instead or has there previously been consensus to keep it that way? Davidxu160801 ( talk) 16:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm posting here to hopefully avoid AN/I and/or Move Review. There are two sections on the talk page of Ceyockey questioning two of their recent RM closes,
and are not getting any responses from them, even though they have been active since all the comments were made. I am hereby requesting an uninvolved admin to review these two closes and decide what action may be taken. I know we can go to move review but consensus seems so clear on both—contrary to the way they were closed—so I'd like an admin to take an objective look and hopefully just revert and reverse. FWIW, I was involved in the first one, but not the second. -- В²C ☎ 23:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Having exhausted closer Talk and RM Talk avenues, I went ahead with a Move Review: Wikipedia:Move_review#José_Diego_Álvarez (closed). -- В²C ☎ 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (link updated after closing changed heading — В²C ☎ 15:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC))
Is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions an official Wikipedia guideline that has passed RFC? It uses the word "guideline" a couple times in the lead, but it is lacking the normal guideline template and category. If it is not a guideline, I may edit those words to say "suggestion". Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
this article says "An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request.
administrator's noticeboard says "if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion"
which is correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotohill ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion about etymology where I quoted that "sections" are "subarticles" and correctly naming them is appropriate. Catchpoke ( talk) 03:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
What is the process to contesting a move made under WP:RM if an editor disagrees with the decision of the editor that closed the RM discussion? Obviously the first step is to discuss with the editor in question, but where would an editor go after that? Mjroots ( talk) 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:DRAFT, articles should only be moved to draftspace if "there is no evidence of active improvement." Two articles that I was actively editing, Draft:Tyler Glaiel and Draft:Florian Himsl, were moved by User:TheBirdsShedTears to draftspace (after their speedy deletion nomination was rejected for one of them). The last edit to Draft:Tyler Glaiel was a mere 3 minutes before TheBirdsShedTears's move, for Draft:Florian Himsl, 7 minutes before the move. It should have been obvious to TheBirdsShedTears that I was actively improving the articles. They were obviously moved out of process. As such, I want to request the moves are undone, but it's not possible to use Template:Requested move to request they are moved back because (error message:) "Template:Requested move is not for moves from draft or user space." But how then are we supposed to cancel moves that were obviously made out of process? Could somebody help me out please? I've spent 30 minutes trying to figure this out, time I'd much rather have spent on improving the articles. Thisisarealusername ( talk) 03:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Paul Cotton guitarist with Poco has passed away 8/1 according to his wiki page and Poco fanpage. Howmath57 ( talk) 17:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I cannot edit this page. It seems semi-protected. Please un-protect the page so us IPs can submit a request. In the meantime, I guess I'll submit my uncontroversial technical request here:
Template:RMassist must be used on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
73.162.91.15 ( talk) 02:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
If an admin/closer is involved in a move review, establishing an opinion on whether the RM being reviewed was closed properly, and the result of the review is that the original RM is reopened, can that admin/closer then (re) close the RM, or are they WP:INVOLVED?
Should this be clarified either way at WP:RMCI, WP:MR, and/or WP:INVOLVED? -- В²C ☎ 20:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editors,
I would like to change the name of this page from "Industrial Internet Consortium" to "Industry IoT Consortium (formerly Industrial Internet Consortium)"
This will reflect our new name and branding, as of August 2021.
Thank you! Evan Evanbirkhead ( talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you please move Draft:Vidrohi to Draft:Vidrohi (TV Series) because there already exists an article on Vidrohi which does not correspond to this one, please move this article to distinguish both correctly Only Smiles No Tears ( talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please help me with this? I had already moved the page of Priyanka Chahar Choudhary to Priyanka Choudhary and then made the edits to remove WP:BLPPROD but I don't know what happened now? It is appearing as two different articles. I'm really very sorry if I did some big mistake but please someone help me. Someone please merge the page as one page which should be named as only Priyanka Choudhary because that is her professional name. Please someone help with it and I'm really sorry for whatever happened. Sorry!-- Creativitylove ( talk) 04:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Then You Request To Any Admin for Renamed This Article. Best Regards Jiggyziz 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 13:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am a auto confirmed user with more than currently 100 edits. Can i get the access to move pages from draft to article namespace!... Thank you Regards, 0"cleopatra"0 ( talk) 18:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
0"cleopatra"0 ( talk) 12:40,11 october 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 16 § Template:Cleanup title.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
21:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
This RM was created by a user in violation of their ban (through a sockpuppet), but it has support of all !votes, and the pageviews demonstrate the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Should it be closed as "moved" anyway? VR talk 15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not uncommon to come across an elapsed (sometimes after one or more relists) RM with no participation and where the nominator's rationale is not policy-based (the vast majority of the time, this will be a WP:OFFICIALNAME-style argument about some relatively obscure organization changing its name). What's the best way to handle these?
What if closers had the option of closing such RMs as "technically moved"? i.e. move to the proposed title, but treat as equivalent to an undiscussed move done boldly or via WP:RMT (so the new title doesn't have an automatic presumption of being supported by consensus). I think this would help keep the backlog lighter, and help focus the current discussions list on moves that actually require discussion, rather than endlessly relisting obscure articles. If an RM has been open for 7+ days without attracting any participation, how likely is it that it was controversial in the first place?
Here are three examples currently in the backlog (no participation at time of writing, except one "per nom"):
I've actually left a closing comment along these lines at least once in the past, but I'm interested in hearing how others think this situation should be handled, and whether people think it might be worth mentioning something along these lines at WP:RMCI. We already have a related note there at WP:RMNOMIN about closing discussions with no participation, but it's unclear how an insubstantial nomination statement should interact with the "unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy" clause there. Colin M ( talk) 00:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I fudged something up at Fujiwara no Kenshi (994-1027). The original creator reverted my attempt to move the page to what seemed like a more reasonable title some years ago, and told me that I need to discuss such moves beforehand. Since my original move was a technical fix rather than anything I believed would be controversial, I don't think this was accurate policy-wise, but I decided to play it safe by opening an RM this time. However, I pinged the article creator, who immediately showed up and said they would be fine with one of the alternative proposed titles. Since I too had no problem with the said title, I figured I might as well undo my RM and make the move myself, but since I didn't "close" the RM but rather simply removed the template like at an expired RFC, I think I might have done something wrong... Can someone look at this? (You have my permission to undo the page move if necessary.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I come across RM where a proposal has support, but then someone proposes a new name and it remains unopposed as it was proposed late into the discussion. IMO, the best way forward to is ping the previous participants and ask if they'd support or oppose the new suggestion, like I did here. Is that ok? Does this make me involved and thus ineligible to close the discussion?
Another thing I've done is ping someone who previously moved a page (whose move was repeatedly referenced by others in the RM without a ping). Was that ok? Did that make me involved and thus ineligible to close the discussion? VR talk 14:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A disclosed paid editor has made a policy based argument in favor of name change for the subject of the article. I'm inclined to give their !vote as much weight as I'd give to a non-COI account. I couldn't find anything at WP:COI that would suggest otherwise. VR talk 12:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Suppose there is a move request X → Y. Supporters of both X and Y present equally convincing policy based arguments and are roughly equal in number. Should the move request be closed as "no consensus", meaning maintain the status quo as X? Now suppose that supporters of Y give slightly more convincing arguments or !votes for Y have a slight numerical majority. Should this be closed as "no consensus" (meaning maintain status quo of X) or "moved to Y"? VR talk 13:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens." Is that correct? VR talk 14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
If equally strong policy-based arguments can be made for and against a given proposed move, that would suggest applicable policy needs improving. In fact, any “no consensus” case is a likely indicator of policy ambiguity with room for improvement. For example, this is why I have always opposed including the historical significance consideration at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it’s inherently contradictory in many cases, not to mention that historical significance is already adequately reflected in the likelihood-of-being-sought consideration. I mean, the degree to which a topic is historically significant objectively affects how likely it is to be sought. — В²C ☎ 18:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Tiger King 2 was moved from main space into draft space during an ongoing move discussion. Should the page be moved back into main space until the discussion closes, or is some cleanup necessary? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I performed a swap Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ → Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/FAQ requested by WhatamIdoing but the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/FAQ page now returns an error "Template loop detected". Is it the templates that need modifying? Polyamorph ( talk) 10:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a long RM discussion here that is 19 days old. I'm wondering if it is ok to post this at WP:CR? Can RMs sometimes be posted at WP:CR like RfCs and other discussions? VR talk 14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I was told on my talkpage that the GA/FA reviews/properties must not be moved, and be left where they are (assumedly the creation place of the review). Is that really correct? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
that was told to me at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 8#Don't page move GANR. Also pinging Kingsif for their opinions. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
what if another page comes in place of the GA/FA- are you meaning what if a new article with a different subject is created with the former title? Well, again, GA and FA review pages are not subpages, so the review won't be "attached" to the new article any more than it was the moved article. There may be hiccups with starting a review for the new article, but what about if there had previously been a different article with reviews at the title the original article is being moved to - same issue potentially faced if you want to move the review page. But let's not worry about situations that don't exist.
This is a bit of a storm in a teacup. I routinely move GA subpages when I move pages. There’s a reason the move page includes that specific option. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
One of the main reasons to rename the review pages, would be if a new topic is made under that name, and then went to GA, it would be quite confusing. The thing is, it's so rare to begin with. I don't think it matters so long as the history template and such are also updated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Since the introduction of the "administrator needed" section to RM/TR, there's been confusion about what moves require one. I've just written and linked Help:When to place technical requests in "Administrator needed", which aims to explain the issue to editors who might not be familiar with RM/TR's inner workings and what is or isn't possible for non-admin page movers. It's still a bit rough around the edges and I'm happy for people to take a look at it, smooth out any such edges, and give their thoughts. Vaticidal prophet 05:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. to For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. 2603:9000:CA02:CACC:C1D3:C3A4:571:CBAF ( talk) 04:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
As an unregistered user making my first visit to this page, it appeared at first sight that it's impossible for me to request a technical move, because of the semi-protection. It's not clear that the instructions are in fact transcluded from another, editable page. Could something be done to clarify this? (By the way, I haven't made that request, not because I couldn't figure out how, but because it turns out there are several pages involved and the whole thing needs more research. Hopefully I can offload it onto an appropriate Wikiproject...) 89.168.66.108 ( talk) 18:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The note under WP:RM#Backlog currently reads "Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation." I propose changing the 2nd sentence to "Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with no consensus and minimal participation." Running through the backlog today I've noticed that there's a tendency to relist requested moves which have received little participation even if nobody has objected to the move. IMO if nobody has objected to the move, then the discussion should be closed and the page moved. If there is a reason not to move the page, then the correct response is to oppose the move, not to relist the discussion. -- Aervanath ( talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Lewis Cass, Jr. had a move request added a few days ago, but it has not been placed on the requested moves current discussion subpages by a bot. 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 18:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Manny SD Lopez had another RM opened hours after the first one closed. Howard the Duck ( talk) 12:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Can somebody please look at this move of Republic of Afghanistan to Republic of Afghanistan (1973—1978) (with an em dash)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The template listed under the section "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" currently has a default of "discuss=yes". Since this is apparently in conflict with the technical aspect of immediate reversion of "undiscussed moves" upon request on this project page, should not the default in that template be "discuss=no", or else include no "discuss" parameter at all? Note the recent confusion at this edit because the requesting user (me) used the default, which generated an edit for a formal Move Request on the subject article's talk page, which the requesting user (me) executed in good faith. Alternatively, should the template generate a notice on subject article's talk page that a technical request is in process? I'm sorry to disturb you, @ Tamzin:, et al. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Could an admin look at Talk:Armed Forces of the Philippines, which was not moved with its parent article leading to Talk:Philippine Armed Forces being made? Given the creation of the new page, albeit recent, I am not sure if a histmerge needs to be done or if it can just be cut onto the proper talk page. Thanks, CMD ( talk) 11:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a log somewhere of all the articles that have been moved as a result of being listed at Requested Moves? Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
If only RMCD bot is supposed to edit the page, why isn't it protected? Europe2016 ( talk) 07:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
If we find a bunch of extremely closely knit articles being considered for RMs under the same argument, but each one of them separately, can we (as non-admins) merge the various RMs to a central discussion? So that the discussion can develop in a single location rather than getting split across many talk pages. Obviously, such a merge will mean that the closer will link to the merged location during the close. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 09:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I suck too much to jump through a zillion hoops, but Rubens' tube should be at Rubens tube: I can't move it myself because the target page already exists (probably as a redirect), and I know from experience that if I swap them, some mindless autobot will revert it. But you can tell by reading the academic literature that nobody puts the apostrophe there. Just like "Hawking radiation" not being "Hawking's radiation". Equinox ◑ 12:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
It appears many editors don't know how to request X→Y, Y→Z page moves. Even though they make it explicitly clear in the body of the rationale. After significant participation in a RM, one might not want to deny a page move per WP:BURO, but the failure to file a proper request causes some of the involved pages to not get a notification about the RM and thus, all stakeholders might not be able to take part. The WP:Requested moves § Request all associated moves explicitly does tell the nominator what to do, which they probably not read. But I couldn't find what the uninvolved editor can do to resolve the issue. Can anyone help? --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
|multiple=yes
to the nomination (though I do suppose the latter is the relevant bit).
Primefac (
talk)
21:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I can't add what I think is an "Uncontroversial technical request":
{{subst:RMassist|Filmsite.org|Filmsite|sites are named with (say) [[IMDb]] as article name and [[IMDb.com]] as redirect}}
Thanks if you can copy it to the main page, 77.147.79.62 ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Solved it, but when you are on Wikipedia:Requested moves the page can't be edited and it's not obvious you first have to click down into the "technical request" subpage (which can be edited). So it's solved for me, but that interface kinda sucks. 77.147.79.62 ( talk) 17:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I think that WP:RM/TR requests should be recorded on the article talk page. Proposed moves, recorded at WP:RM/TR, sometimes are not well informed, or even in good faith, and some notification of the proposal and action really should be posted on the article talk page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
REVISIONID
still works on every page except the page it's on:[[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID:Wikipedia talk:Requested moves}}]]
Special:Permalink/1237684746 doesn't work here but[[Special:Permalink/{{REVISIONID:Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests}}]]
Special:Permalink/1238415083 does!I've installed a hack which allows them to work again. Since {{REVISIONID}}
doesn't work anymore on
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but {{subst:REVISIONID:Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests}}
does work on
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink I've created that new subpage and have installed a bot to keep it updated. This is a bold implementation under
WP:IAR to fix a previously accepted process that was broken by the MediaWiki developers. I will be filing a bot request for approval soon. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
19:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
BRFA filed –
wbm1058 (
talk)
20:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
mw:Help:Magic words#Technical metadata documents nine magic words for Latest revision to current page:
{{REVISIONID}}
1082780650{{REVISIONDAY}}
15{{REVISIONDAY2}}
15{{REVISIONMONTH}}
04{{REVISIONMONTH1}}
4{{REVISIONYEAR}}
2022{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
20220415022820{{REVISIONUSER}}
Lowercase sigmabot III{{REVISIONSIZE}}
230544Eight of nine still work. I don't understand why this "miser" fix didn't break all of them. Why isn't there a {{PREVIEW}}
magic word for indicating whether in preview mode? Or give me a {{PREVIOUSREVISIONID}}
magic word because that's all I need. The permalinks the process is getting from the page my bot writes are just the permalink from the last time
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests was saved. I have no need to know whether I'm in preview mode, so no need to determine the revision ID before the page is saved. Just make the software pull it up after the fact.
The process was broken for three months. I did fix it. Again, if you have a better way to fix it, show me. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:REVISIONID:Wikipedia talk:Requested moves}}
{{subst:REVISIONID}}
This is a big tease. With test #1 I see the revision ID 959405315
in preview mode, while in test #2 I don't. But after the page is saved I don't see either. If I perform test #1 on any page other than this one, then the revision ID is saved to the page. You don't think this is rather hacky behavior?
wbm1058 (
talk)
16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't there a {{PREVIEW}}
magic word for indicating whether in preview mode
. There is, and it's called {{REVISIONID}}, which counterintuitively still works for detecting preview mode, even though it doesn't give a revision ID. Even more counterintuitively, the behavior of the magic word is different on talk namespaces and non-talk namespaces:
-
.{{REVISIONID}}
to detect whether you are in preview, to calculate the revision ID of a different page (or the current page if it is in the talk namespace), but not the calculate the revision ID of the current page if it is not in the talk namespace. It also means (I think) that this bot task could have been implemented on top of
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 3, at the cost of only updating once an hour. (I'm not seriously suggesting this, just pointing it out)
* Pppery *
it has begun...
17:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry this task stopped temporarily last night when my computer went to sleep. I've modified its Windows Task Scheduler configuration to wake the computer, so hopefully that won't happen again. RMCD bot already was waking the computer every 15 minutes; now this task should wake it every 10 seconds. Fortunately my machine is immune to sleep deprivation. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, one more scheduling glitch worked out. The permalink updating task was down for 24 hours after I had to reboot my computer yesterday. It was only configured in Windows Task Scheduler to start when the task was created or modified. Now it's also configured to start at system startup. Hopefully that's the last kink needing to be worked out. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Still working out the kinks to ensure that this bot stays up 24×7. There was another period of downtime today. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm told I have to use it on this talk page, but the instructions say to use it in the WP-space page. — kwami ( talk) 00:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of current discussions, how do I add one exactly?
-- Tecumseh*1301 ( talk) 02:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I unintentionally created one very uncomfortable situation by mistakenly not using this page to propose one move. I feel quite horrible about this and I wanted to ask if you can give us any good advice what to do or propose where I can ask for additional feedback/ideas. The article in question is Talk:Vukovar-Syrmia County#RfC on Proposal to rename article. Again apologies for the whole situation and apologies for specific case/issue question on the general discussion page.-- MirkoS18 ( talk) 13:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I attempted to move What you gonna do? to What You Gonna Do??? per consensus here, but I am getting this message:-
"What you gonna do?" cannot be moved to "What You Gonna Do???", because the title "What You Gonna Do???" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.
Kraose ( talk) 16:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Can some please help me move Bored (Billie Eilish song) and Hostage (Billie Eilish song) to Bored (song) and Hostage (song). Both got more supports than opposes and has been more than 7 days. I do not know how to move the titles so if someone can please help, I would really appreciate it. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone move TNT (American TV network) to TNT (American TV channel)? It's a channel, not a network, and even the page says it's a channel. — ÐW ( talk/ contribs) 06:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Analogous to "Open source" the title should be "Inner source", not "Inner Source". However, there is already a redirect in the opposite direction. -- Michaeldorner ( talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move Heery International to Cbre Heery, Inc. Company was renamed, as reflected in article text. I don't have permission to edit the requested moves page. Lynneberg ( talk) 19:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Can some please move Hostage (Billie Eilish song) to Hostage (song). It has more supports than opposes and has been open for more than a week. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 22:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:RM has a section header Requests to revert undiscussed moves, but the section is empty. Is there a streamlined procedure to request reverting such moves?
Cleveland Ballet, about a ballet company that was active for forty years and is still clearly the primary topic, was moved by a new editor and enthusiast of the current ballet company in Cleveland, with no discussion. Since there are no instructions for requesting a revert (and I can't overwrite the redirects her move created), I put in a plain old RM; but it would be good if we could document a process for requesting reversions of things like this. TJRC ( talk) 17:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I recently got trial approval for a bot to fix links to articles before/after page moves. In cases of double redirects, there are bots like russBOT, who do the link fixing completely automatically. But there are certain instances where we have to fix links manually. If you come across such instances, please let me know here (by pinging me) or at my talkpage; and I will fix the links using the bot. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I think template renames belong at WP:TfD. Naming conventions (the obsession of RM regulars) do not apply to templates. Templates are technical, and changes can have wider impact, and the expertise for this can be best found at WP:TfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
am I wrong to suspect that this transclusion count..., you are partially incorrect; uses subst'd by a bot are no longer transcluded and so will not show up in a transclusion count, but for example the 45k uses of {{ ill}} are included in the 77k transclusions of {{ interlanguage link}}. Not really sure how that's relevant but there's your answer. Primefac ( talk) 13:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure this has been brought up before, but I've noticed we've seen more requests to move pages where the nominator proposes a move because they don't like the current title but don't propose a new title. (See Talk:List_of_prominent_operas#Requested_move_10_July_2020 for an example.) It seems many of these requests go nowhere because there is a never a consensus reached on a new title. I think it might be time to consider disallowing such requests and encourage a discussion about alternative titles before launching a formal RM. Calidum 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
When I did so, the message "Request to move a single page must be placed on that page's talk or the page its talk redirects to" comes. Please help me! -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Flag of the Bahamas#Requested move 20 July 2020 has been open for far too long. It was relisted again, improperly, by a party to the discussion just because they're not WP:WINNING. The actual policy/guideline and source facts are crystal clear in this case, and it need not have been relisted even once, much less twice now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there any guidance published anywhere on when repeat RMs (a new RM soon after one on same article was closed) are allowed and/or discouraged and under what circumstances? I know informally at least most long term participants seems to think there should be at least 6 months if not a year between RMs, presumably with certain exceptions. But is this published anywhere? If not should it be? If so, where? — В²C ☎ 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A repeat with an identical RM to one recently closed after a clear consensus or a very lengthy discussion that stalled should be frowned upon. However a new, different RM taking into account the discussion in the recently closed RM may be good. – wbm1058 ( talk) 21:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The closer of an MR requested input at an AN here:
Those with RM/MR experience might want to weigh in. — В²C ☎ 21:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Since an RfC has been suggested by myself and others, instead of repeated RMs creating inconsistency, I thought it would be a good idea to start a discussion on how to proceed. I have a low success rate in creating well-conceived and organized RfCs. @ BarrelProof, Roman Spinner, and Levivich: Would any of you be willing to help me craft a unbiased RfC for this? I think the best place to do this is at the village pump but we should agree on a good primer and question. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Question: In cases where the death has been ruled a homicide by a medical examiner or similar expert, should articles titled "Shooting of [name]" be renamed "Killing of [name]" (or something else) even if the shooter has not been charged or convicted of a crime?
Primer: Many of these articles are police-involved shootings. COMMONNAME has been an unfruitful guide in previous RMs because in most cases both "shooting of" and "killing of" have been commonly used in RS to describe the events. Arguments for CONSISTENCY have won out in these discussions to keep the titles at "Shooting of [name]". This RfC aims to determine if there is consensus to consistently rename all such articles as "Killing of [name]"
===="Shooting of [name]"==== ===="Fatal shooting of [name]"==== ===="Killing of [name]"==== ===="Death of [name]"==== ====Other titles not listed above==== ====Further discussion===
We cannot even state that JFK was murdered (or assassinated); no one was ever convicted. I believe in the 9/11 attacks, there were no convictions, either (and, hence, no murders?). What flawed logic.You are omitting one very obvious factor here, and that is common sense. A shooting of a public figure from a concealed location = obvious murder. A plane deliberately flown into a building full of people = obvious murder. A prostitute stabbed and dismembered on the streets of Victorian London = obvious murder. An actual conviction is not necessary for common sense to be applied here. But many other killings are not obvious murders, even if they are clearly unlawful killings or homicides. Manslaughter is not murder and is, in my experience, not commonly referred to as murder in reliable sources, despite your previous claims to the contrary. Some historic unsolved killings are indeed commonly referred to as murders in reliable sources, even without a conviction (including murder/suicides that are declared to be such by the authorities), and if they are then we use that term, but media coverage of ongoing cases is frequently not especially reliable in the frenzy for a good story, and we should be very wary of using the term "murder" just because they do. Not because we're worried about the rights of any accused, but because we're a respectable encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow was recently moved to Deaths of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow when their bodies were found buried in their stepfather’s yard. Nobody doubts these kids were murdered. Leave it Deaths? Or go with Murders? —- В²C ☎ 19:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
A neutrally-worded RFC should present facts about the defintion of the noun killing. Dictionaries including MacMillan and Cambridge define it as an intentional act to kill.
[2]
[3] Merriam-Webster only calls it the act of one that kills.
[4]. This can lead to an NPOV issue if readers are misled about any intent involved in a death. Part of editors' confusion might be that other forms of kill do not specifiy intent,
[5]
[6] while the noun can. These would not imply any intent: "He was killed while in police custody." "He was shot by police, killing him". But this could say his death was intentional: "The killing of Floyd prompted protests."—
Bagumba (
talk)
06:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
American dictionaries define "killing":
The act or action of causing death, as of a person.
the act of one that kills(" kills" defined as
to deprive of life : cause the death of)
the act of a person or thing that kill(" kill" defined as
to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.)
British dictionaries:
an act of killing somebody deliberately
an occasion when a person is murdered
A killing is an act of deliberately killing a person- Levivich dubious – discuss 00:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
an act in which someone is deliberately killed. — BarrelProof ( talk) 14:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, BarrelProof, Amakuru, Roman Spinner, Reidgreg, GeneralNotability, Ritchie333, Red Slash, RevelationDirect, BD2412, Mandruss, Bagumba, Sdkb, Joseph A. Spadaro, SmokeyJoe, Necrothesp, Ɱ, Born2cycle, and Masem:
Please copy the wikitext at
User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs/Killing to
Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor and use the
preview mode
to read it.
I do not think an RfC is necessary and will likely lead to more WP:NOCONSENSUS. I think I have convincing evidence in the prepared mass RM that we should move all the pages per WP:CONSISTENCY.
I would like to see if I can get moderate support for starting this RM before causing all disruption that is bound to come from tagging 98 articles with RM discussion notices.
The flowchart may be adopted some day. But, right now, I want to first deal with the most pressing issue: how police killings by firearms have become either an exception or disjointed from the corresponding lists, depending on how you look at it. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?. ---
C&
C (
Coffeeandcrumbs)
20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I realize this has probably been discussed before, but I think it is time we set some definitive rules for where RM discussions concerning multiple pages take place. I believe if an RM is made that would swap an article at the base name with a disambiguation page, the RM should be held at the talk page of the base name. See the recent move request at Talk:Yard (disambiguation) for an example. By holding the RM at the disambiguation page, instead of at Talk:Yard, it is in a less trafficked location. In that example, someone might not realize the same move request had been rejected previously at Talk:Yard. -- Calidum 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello. can you redirect municipalities of Hokkaido? ex. Engaru, Hokkaido
" Hokkaido" has been removed name— Preceding unsigned comment added by AichiWikiFixer ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I did a close, however my browser hung and I did a force-quit, but I am not sure if the bot picked it up, can someone double check the list for me? Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I don't know if I'm on the right page but I need some help in moving an article. I have actually done several page moves already but this one is quite complicated for me. I wanted to move Gerald Anthony Gullas Jr. to Samsam Gullas (which is the WP:COMMONNAME) but the second article has already a redirect to the first article. I tried to move the first article using the second article's title but it won't allow me because "page of that name already exists". I need to know if this requires technical help. Thanks a lot in advance! — Emperork ( talk) 00:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
There's a proposal under way to rewrite the guidelines about links to disambiguation pages: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Draft wording. One question is the extent to which they should apportion responsibility for fixing incomings links after a move of a disambiguation page to the primary title. – Uanfala (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help with the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs. A lot are speedy/procedural ones, but there are some that do need moves. The ones that need work on are under the headers Non-article content at AfD and Templates, categories and files at MfD. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 22:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to comment on the following issue:
Talk:Michael Fagan (intruder)#Article focus
Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in these, yet most editors don't realise this. What can we do to make sure that this is clear? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
My request to move Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand) to Office of Film and Literature Classification was removed in this edit, but it looks like the overprecise-title page hasn't been moved. Or am I mistaken? Neckstells ( talk) 10:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The name "East Timor" in the Wikipedia article "List of sovereign States and dependent territories in Oceania" should be changed to Timor-Leste, as the latter name is the one that is used by that country in the United Nations. Atelerixia ( talk) 07:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello I would like the name changed on the Snooker player Jamie Rhys Clarke's homepage to Jamie Clarke. The name Rhys was added in error when the page was created. He does not use that name at all and never has done. Multiple sources including World Snooker, BBC, Eurosport etc list him as Jamie Clarke. Can this name be removed please ?. Rdgards 178.167.203.183 ( talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to do it ?. Regards 178.167.133.131 ( talk) 13:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
At
WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Three possible outcomes, I changed adding another fact for the third result sentence. I decided to put "If a good-faith RM nomination proposes to move a page and has no comments after at least seven days, the default result is move
" since I think that if there were no discussions for a single page more, I would assume that it is uncontroversial. I also think that if a RM discussion has no comments,
administrators and/or
page movers would usually move those pages. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I wrote a user script which helps with closing and relisting requested moves. Feel free to try it out and let me know what you think of it. TheTVExpert ( talk) 15:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion was closed as consensus to move, despite only two people taking part and one of those being neutral. I can't imagine this is something that would happen in other areas of Wikipedia, so is that the normal practice here? Wouldn't it have been better to relist? Also, neither of the relevant Wikiprojects were notified; whose responsibility is it to do that? Thanks. -- Ykraps ( talk) 08:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Old move ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Old moves ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated at Templates for Discussion. -- 65.92.246.246 ( talk) 04:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Since WP:AN/RFC doesn't seem to attract too much traffic... can an experienced RM closer take a look at Talk:2021_United_States_Capitol_protests#Requested_move_6_January_2021 ? While requests usually stay open a week, there is overwhelming consensus in favor of the move that can suggest a WP:SNOW closure; the topic is clearly no longer just "protests." SnowFire ( talk) 00:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I’m Doggy54321. I recently found a potential glitch in the way we request technical moves. I moved
User:Doggy54321/sandbox to
User:Doggy54321/Sandbox as all my other subpage titles start with a capital letter. I didn’t like how it looked, so I made a request here at
WP:RM/TR to have it moved back to "sandbox" as I could not do that myself (I am not a page mover). I noticed in the template we use to request technical requests that there is a "move" button. I assume anyone reading this knows what that is and how it is used. I pressed it because I was curious to see what would happen (I was expecting an error message), and it took me to something reminiscent of
Special:MovePage (I’m pretty sure it was but it had some setting on it). I pressed the move button and moved
User:Doggy54321/Sandbox back to
User:Doggy54321/sandbox by unconsciously deleting pages under
G6 and then moving the pages back. If you look at the history of
User:Doggy54321/sandbox, this is somewhat documented. But, if you look at
my log, you can see that I fully deleted the pages and moved them over redirect. I’m going to assume this is a glitch that needs to be solved ASAP, as I’m fairly certain that this action is supposed to be restricted to only people with the page mover right. Please ping me upon your reply using {{
ping}} (or any other notification template). Thanks!
D🐶ggy54321 (
let's chat!)
23:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have tried my best to find out how to move an article. Then I read that this is done by a bot. Whatsoever. Can anyone move Peter Kalmus and turn it into a disambiguation page? We have two scientists with this name. Currently under Peter Kalmus, there is a British particle physicist. Then there is Peter Kalmus (climate scientist), an American climate scientist. In my view the latter is even more popular. Even if not, I cannot see why they are not on the same level and why the former is "hidden". I wonder if someone could move that? 194.62.169.86 ( talk) 06:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Earlier today I added a move request template to an article. It is shown on this Project Page as "(Discuss) – Starting rate of UK income tax → Starting rate of UK income tax" i.e. two identical titles. The problem seems to be that the article was moved in a strange way, first a merge [7] [8] into another article, then a recreation of the earlier article by the same user but at a different redirect page [9]. Now the main page is 10p tax rate but the talk page is Talk:Starting_rate_of_UK_income_tax. I'm not really sure what the correct fix is. I seem to remember there were quite a lot of these mismatched talk pages many years ago. I feel the move should never have been carried out like this and redirecting the Talk Page just confirms it. -- Lo2u ( T • C) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There are two Rudi Dollmayers who share the same name (as they are related, one is senior, the other jr) but professionally they both go by simply "Rudi Dollmayer" which I discovered after interviewing the model. I started off with simply naming the page "Rudi Dollmayer (model" but by doing so, realized it doesn't come up in any search unless I put the full title with (model) is there any way around this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvdoglover ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The title is Canadian Investment Manager. This is old, and it is now renamed Chartered Investment Manager . Please move to reflect that Asadqureshy85 ( talk) 05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
I've noticed that WP:RMNAC is considerably more rules-oriented than WP:NAC in general, and due to the contentiousness often involved, RM even has its own appeal process, WP:MR, while almost all other closure decisions have to go to WP:DRV, if they are XfDs, or go to WP:AN otherwise. This seems to suggest that there is a process for determining that someone who has been doing RNMAC improperly should no longer be permitted to close RMs, pending some later showing that they are competent to do so. I would like to know what that process is, if it exists. (Beyond that, I sometimes wonder whether it's time to propose that RMNAC be limited to page-movers and admins, except maybe in unquestionable WP:SNOW cases. And that actually would provide a formal permissions-revocation path, namely that of PM, if one does not already exist.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Beyond that, I sometimes wonder whether it's time to propose that RMNAC be limited to page-movers and admins, except maybe in unquestionable WP:SNOW cases-- the problem for this is that closing RMs is one of the major ways to demonstrate a need for the PMR bit in the first place (and the other way, draftifying articles without admin oversight, is more contentious/has a worse failure mode). Vaticidal prophet 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
AfD NACs are inherently badsubset personally. But AfD isn't equivalent to all other XfD venues, or RM.
NACs are not discouraged for requested moves, as long as the non-admin is highly experienced with RMs and our closing procedures. All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review ( WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there.. You should file a WP:Move review instead of coming here with a grievance over a move closure that did not go the way you wanted it to go. Polyamorph ( talk) 02:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-admin closures of RM discussions must follow the same rules at WP:NACD, and advice at WP:NAC. They must be declared with template {{subst:RMnac}} placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the {{subst:RM top}} template (or use the |nac= parameter in the closing template).
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.
The protection log also shows there is some sort of protection but what? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
14:38, 18 March 2016 Lectonar protected Help talk:Getting started Edit/Move, Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite)─ The Aafī (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am unable to edit the main requested moves page myself, so I am placing a request here. I would like to have the redirected article Pirates! Gold ( edit history) moved to Draft:Pirates! Gold so that I can restore to this version and begin building it up as an article. I tried to do this previously but was reverted and advised to start a discussion, which I did at Talk:Sid Meier's Pirates!#Splitting proposal where I was given the idea to start a draft and submit to AFC. 2601:249:8B80:4050:FDCF:44F6:2142:124C ( talk) 16:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Can you change the name of “Category:Tulfah family” into “Category:Saddam family”, for 2 reasons, the article to which this category is attached is saddam's family not telfah’s, and the members of this category are not of telfah family, they are mostly of Albu Majid (Saddam smallest familial group) and of Albu Khattab (the subclan of Saddam’s maternal brothers).-- Abu aamir ( talk) 07:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Please request this page to The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1976 film) because it was released on Dec 30, 1976. And please delete the redirect The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1977 TV series) because it wasn′t a TV series. I cannot insert the request. Pinguin99 ( talk) 08:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd consider re-writing this a bit since in practice these aren't difficult to deal with and such requests should probably not be closed simply because they aren't formatted correctly, obviously if someone keeps doing it a note can be left on their talk page. If the request is to move an article to where a DAB page is such as for Sutton Sutton, London → Sutton you just add the DAB to the RM like this (or add the delete to make way for WP:ONEOTHER that User:Paine Ellsworth adds). If its a DAB moving to where an article is (or another article is) you just add the article at the base name to the request either using a question mark or picking the most appropriate title you can think of (like this). And if its an article moving to a qualified title but the DAB isn't included you include the DAB in the request (like here) though you should make sure that this is the case since its possible the user may think unnecessary disambiguation is appropriate in which case you can then oppose on those grounds otherwise if the move has been carried out you can just move the DAB as well (like here) since if there's consensus that there's no primary topic that suggests redirecting to basename to the DAB and as such the DAB moved to the basename per WP:MALPLACED. The problem with the current wording is that it may encourage someone who doesn't want a move to close it when it can simply be fixed. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, you will see an edit note saying to add new entries "on a new line, directly below". It's not clear whether this means to add them at the top of the list existing there, or at the bottom; indeed, right now you can see that people have been adding new entries to both the top and the bottom. While I honestly can't imagine something I care about less than whether it's "new entries at the top" or "new entries at the bottom", I think it's obvious that we should pick one, and then make it clear which you ought to use. jp× g 21:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Putting a word in on WT:RM that I've made a thread at WP:VPR#Make page movers eligible to move move-protected pages likely of interest to some watchers of this page. Vaticidal prophet 11:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
MOS:LINKSTYLE says not to put links in section headings (and to instead use {{Main article}} or {{See also}}, but many section headings on this page (Requesting technical moves, Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, and Current discussions) have links. Can I go ahead and remove those links and put {{Main article}} instead or has there previously been consensus to keep it that way? Davidxu160801 ( talk) 16:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm posting here to hopefully avoid AN/I and/or Move Review. There are two sections on the talk page of Ceyockey questioning two of their recent RM closes,
and are not getting any responses from them, even though they have been active since all the comments were made. I am hereby requesting an uninvolved admin to review these two closes and decide what action may be taken. I know we can go to move review but consensus seems so clear on both—contrary to the way they were closed—so I'd like an admin to take an objective look and hopefully just revert and reverse. FWIW, I was involved in the first one, but not the second. -- В²C ☎ 23:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Having exhausted closer Talk and RM Talk avenues, I went ahead with a Move Review: Wikipedia:Move_review#José_Diego_Álvarez (closed). -- В²C ☎ 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (link updated after closing changed heading — В²C ☎ 15:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC))
Is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions an official Wikipedia guideline that has passed RFC? It uses the word "guideline" a couple times in the lead, but it is lacking the normal guideline template and category. If it is not a guideline, I may edit those words to say "suggestion". Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
this article says "An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request.
administrator's noticeboard says "if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion"
which is correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotohill ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion about etymology where I quoted that "sections" are "subarticles" and correctly naming them is appropriate. Catchpoke ( talk) 03:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
What is the process to contesting a move made under WP:RM if an editor disagrees with the decision of the editor that closed the RM discussion? Obviously the first step is to discuss with the editor in question, but where would an editor go after that? Mjroots ( talk) 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:DRAFT, articles should only be moved to draftspace if "there is no evidence of active improvement." Two articles that I was actively editing, Draft:Tyler Glaiel and Draft:Florian Himsl, were moved by User:TheBirdsShedTears to draftspace (after their speedy deletion nomination was rejected for one of them). The last edit to Draft:Tyler Glaiel was a mere 3 minutes before TheBirdsShedTears's move, for Draft:Florian Himsl, 7 minutes before the move. It should have been obvious to TheBirdsShedTears that I was actively improving the articles. They were obviously moved out of process. As such, I want to request the moves are undone, but it's not possible to use Template:Requested move to request they are moved back because (error message:) "Template:Requested move is not for moves from draft or user space." But how then are we supposed to cancel moves that were obviously made out of process? Could somebody help me out please? I've spent 30 minutes trying to figure this out, time I'd much rather have spent on improving the articles. Thisisarealusername ( talk) 03:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Paul Cotton guitarist with Poco has passed away 8/1 according to his wiki page and Poco fanpage. Howmath57 ( talk) 17:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I cannot edit this page. It seems semi-protected. Please un-protect the page so us IPs can submit a request. In the meantime, I guess I'll submit my uncontroversial technical request here:
Template:RMassist must be used on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
73.162.91.15 ( talk) 02:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
If an admin/closer is involved in a move review, establishing an opinion on whether the RM being reviewed was closed properly, and the result of the review is that the original RM is reopened, can that admin/closer then (re) close the RM, or are they WP:INVOLVED?
Should this be clarified either way at WP:RMCI, WP:MR, and/or WP:INVOLVED? -- В²C ☎ 20:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editors,
I would like to change the name of this page from "Industrial Internet Consortium" to "Industry IoT Consortium (formerly Industrial Internet Consortium)"
This will reflect our new name and branding, as of August 2021.
Thank you! Evan Evanbirkhead ( talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you please move Draft:Vidrohi to Draft:Vidrohi (TV Series) because there already exists an article on Vidrohi which does not correspond to this one, please move this article to distinguish both correctly Only Smiles No Tears ( talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please help me with this? I had already moved the page of Priyanka Chahar Choudhary to Priyanka Choudhary and then made the edits to remove WP:BLPPROD but I don't know what happened now? It is appearing as two different articles. I'm really very sorry if I did some big mistake but please someone help me. Someone please merge the page as one page which should be named as only Priyanka Choudhary because that is her professional name. Please someone help with it and I'm really sorry for whatever happened. Sorry!-- Creativitylove ( talk) 04:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Then You Request To Any Admin for Renamed This Article. Best Regards Jiggyziz 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 13:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am a auto confirmed user with more than currently 100 edits. Can i get the access to move pages from draft to article namespace!... Thank you Regards, 0"cleopatra"0 ( talk) 18:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
0"cleopatra"0 ( talk) 12:40,11 october 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 16 § Template:Cleanup title.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
21:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
This RM was created by a user in violation of their ban (through a sockpuppet), but it has support of all !votes, and the pageviews demonstrate the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Should it be closed as "moved" anyway? VR talk 15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not uncommon to come across an elapsed (sometimes after one or more relists) RM with no participation and where the nominator's rationale is not policy-based (the vast majority of the time, this will be a WP:OFFICIALNAME-style argument about some relatively obscure organization changing its name). What's the best way to handle these?
What if closers had the option of closing such RMs as "technically moved"? i.e. move to the proposed title, but treat as equivalent to an undiscussed move done boldly or via WP:RMT (so the new title doesn't have an automatic presumption of being supported by consensus). I think this would help keep the backlog lighter, and help focus the current discussions list on moves that actually require discussion, rather than endlessly relisting obscure articles. If an RM has been open for 7+ days without attracting any participation, how likely is it that it was controversial in the first place?
Here are three examples currently in the backlog (no participation at time of writing, except one "per nom"):
I've actually left a closing comment along these lines at least once in the past, but I'm interested in hearing how others think this situation should be handled, and whether people think it might be worth mentioning something along these lines at WP:RMCI. We already have a related note there at WP:RMNOMIN about closing discussions with no participation, but it's unclear how an insubstantial nomination statement should interact with the "unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy" clause there. Colin M ( talk) 00:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I fudged something up at Fujiwara no Kenshi (994-1027). The original creator reverted my attempt to move the page to what seemed like a more reasonable title some years ago, and told me that I need to discuss such moves beforehand. Since my original move was a technical fix rather than anything I believed would be controversial, I don't think this was accurate policy-wise, but I decided to play it safe by opening an RM this time. However, I pinged the article creator, who immediately showed up and said they would be fine with one of the alternative proposed titles. Since I too had no problem with the said title, I figured I might as well undo my RM and make the move myself, but since I didn't "close" the RM but rather simply removed the template like at an expired RFC, I think I might have done something wrong... Can someone look at this? (You have my permission to undo the page move if necessary.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I come across RM where a proposal has support, but then someone proposes a new name and it remains unopposed as it was proposed late into the discussion. IMO, the best way forward to is ping the previous participants and ask if they'd support or oppose the new suggestion, like I did here. Is that ok? Does this make me involved and thus ineligible to close the discussion?
Another thing I've done is ping someone who previously moved a page (whose move was repeatedly referenced by others in the RM without a ping). Was that ok? Did that make me involved and thus ineligible to close the discussion? VR talk 14:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A disclosed paid editor has made a policy based argument in favor of name change for the subject of the article. I'm inclined to give their !vote as much weight as I'd give to a non-COI account. I couldn't find anything at WP:COI that would suggest otherwise. VR talk 12:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Suppose there is a move request X → Y. Supporters of both X and Y present equally convincing policy based arguments and are roughly equal in number. Should the move request be closed as "no consensus", meaning maintain the status quo as X? Now suppose that supporters of Y give slightly more convincing arguments or !votes for Y have a slight numerical majority. Should this be closed as "no consensus" (meaning maintain status quo of X) or "moved to Y"? VR talk 13:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens." Is that correct? VR talk 14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
If equally strong policy-based arguments can be made for and against a given proposed move, that would suggest applicable policy needs improving. In fact, any “no consensus” case is a likely indicator of policy ambiguity with room for improvement. For example, this is why I have always opposed including the historical significance consideration at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it’s inherently contradictory in many cases, not to mention that historical significance is already adequately reflected in the likelihood-of-being-sought consideration. I mean, the degree to which a topic is historically significant objectively affects how likely it is to be sought. — В²C ☎ 18:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Tiger King 2 was moved from main space into draft space during an ongoing move discussion. Should the page be moved back into main space until the discussion closes, or is some cleanup necessary? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I performed a swap Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ → Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/FAQ requested by WhatamIdoing but the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/FAQ page now returns an error "Template loop detected". Is it the templates that need modifying? Polyamorph ( talk) 10:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a long RM discussion here that is 19 days old. I'm wondering if it is ok to post this at WP:CR? Can RMs sometimes be posted at WP:CR like RfCs and other discussions? VR talk 14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I was told on my talkpage that the GA/FA reviews/properties must not be moved, and be left where they are (assumedly the creation place of the review). Is that really correct? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
that was told to me at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 8#Don't page move GANR. Also pinging Kingsif for their opinions. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
what if another page comes in place of the GA/FA- are you meaning what if a new article with a different subject is created with the former title? Well, again, GA and FA review pages are not subpages, so the review won't be "attached" to the new article any more than it was the moved article. There may be hiccups with starting a review for the new article, but what about if there had previously been a different article with reviews at the title the original article is being moved to - same issue potentially faced if you want to move the review page. But let's not worry about situations that don't exist.
This is a bit of a storm in a teacup. I routinely move GA subpages when I move pages. There’s a reason the move page includes that specific option. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
One of the main reasons to rename the review pages, would be if a new topic is made under that name, and then went to GA, it would be quite confusing. The thing is, it's so rare to begin with. I don't think it matters so long as the history template and such are also updated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Since the introduction of the "administrator needed" section to RM/TR, there's been confusion about what moves require one. I've just written and linked Help:When to place technical requests in "Administrator needed", which aims to explain the issue to editors who might not be familiar with RM/TR's inner workings and what is or isn't possible for non-admin page movers. It's still a bit rough around the edges and I'm happy for people to take a look at it, smooth out any such edges, and give their thoughts. Vaticidal prophet 05:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. to For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. 2603:9000:CA02:CACC:C1D3:C3A4:571:CBAF ( talk) 04:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
As an unregistered user making my first visit to this page, it appeared at first sight that it's impossible for me to request a technical move, because of the semi-protection. It's not clear that the instructions are in fact transcluded from another, editable page. Could something be done to clarify this? (By the way, I haven't made that request, not because I couldn't figure out how, but because it turns out there are several pages involved and the whole thing needs more research. Hopefully I can offload it onto an appropriate Wikiproject...) 89.168.66.108 ( talk) 18:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The note under WP:RM#Backlog currently reads "Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation." I propose changing the 2nd sentence to "Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with no consensus and minimal participation." Running through the backlog today I've noticed that there's a tendency to relist requested moves which have received little participation even if nobody has objected to the move. IMO if nobody has objected to the move, then the discussion should be closed and the page moved. If there is a reason not to move the page, then the correct response is to oppose the move, not to relist the discussion. -- Aervanath ( talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Lewis Cass, Jr. had a move request added a few days ago, but it has not been placed on the requested moves current discussion subpages by a bot. 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 18:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Manny SD Lopez had another RM opened hours after the first one closed. Howard the Duck ( talk) 12:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Can somebody please look at this move of Republic of Afghanistan to Republic of Afghanistan (1973—1978) (with an em dash)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The template listed under the section "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" currently has a default of "discuss=yes". Since this is apparently in conflict with the technical aspect of immediate reversion of "undiscussed moves" upon request on this project page, should not the default in that template be "discuss=no", or else include no "discuss" parameter at all? Note the recent confusion at this edit because the requesting user (me) used the default, which generated an edit for a formal Move Request on the subject article's talk page, which the requesting user (me) executed in good faith. Alternatively, should the template generate a notice on subject article's talk page that a technical request is in process? I'm sorry to disturb you, @ Tamzin:, et al. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Could an admin look at Talk:Armed Forces of the Philippines, which was not moved with its parent article leading to Talk:Philippine Armed Forces being made? Given the creation of the new page, albeit recent, I am not sure if a histmerge needs to be done or if it can just be cut onto the proper talk page. Thanks, CMD ( talk) 11:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a log somewhere of all the articles that have been moved as a result of being listed at Requested Moves? Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
If only RMCD bot is supposed to edit the page, why isn't it protected? Europe2016 ( talk) 07:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
If we find a bunch of extremely closely knit articles being considered for RMs under the same argument, but each one of them separately, can we (as non-admins) merge the various RMs to a central discussion? So that the discussion can develop in a single location rather than getting split across many talk pages. Obviously, such a merge will mean that the closer will link to the merged location during the close. --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 09:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I suck too much to jump through a zillion hoops, but Rubens' tube should be at Rubens tube: I can't move it myself because the target page already exists (probably as a redirect), and I know from experience that if I swap them, some mindless autobot will revert it. But you can tell by reading the academic literature that nobody puts the apostrophe there. Just like "Hawking radiation" not being "Hawking's radiation". Equinox ◑ 12:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
It appears many editors don't know how to request X→Y, Y→Z page moves. Even though they make it explicitly clear in the body of the rationale. After significant participation in a RM, one might not want to deny a page move per WP:BURO, but the failure to file a proper request causes some of the involved pages to not get a notification about the RM and thus, all stakeholders might not be able to take part. The WP:Requested moves § Request all associated moves explicitly does tell the nominator what to do, which they probably not read. But I couldn't find what the uninvolved editor can do to resolve the issue. Can anyone help? --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
|multiple=yes
to the nomination (though I do suppose the latter is the relevant bit).
Primefac (
talk)
21:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I can't add what I think is an "Uncontroversial technical request":
{{subst:RMassist|Filmsite.org|Filmsite|sites are named with (say) [[IMDb]] as article name and [[IMDb.com]] as redirect}}
Thanks if you can copy it to the main page, 77.147.79.62 ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Solved it, but when you are on Wikipedia:Requested moves the page can't be edited and it's not obvious you first have to click down into the "technical request" subpage (which can be edited). So it's solved for me, but that interface kinda sucks. 77.147.79.62 ( talk) 17:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)