Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have WP:Most frequently edited pages; does anybody know what are the WP:Most frequently moved pages or have any ideas for how to find out? Levivich (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Quarry can answer this - I don’t have time now, but I’ll write a query sometime in the next few days unless someone beats me to it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: See Quarry:query/85482. It seems the most frequently moved page is Flexiant, with 58 moves, followed closely by War in Iraq (2013–2017), with 51 moves.

Note this is limited to non-redirects in mainspace - I can try to expand the query if you want a broader result, although it may time out. BilledMammal (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Levivich (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

<- Doing something like this might be faster. The logging table is horrible. This takes 126s from my laptop through an SSH tunnel.

with moves as (
select log_page from logging_logindex where log_type = 'move' and log_page is not null
)
select * from (
select page_title, page_namespace, page_is_redirect, count(*) as move_count
from page
join moves on moves.log_page = page_id
group by page_title, page_namespace, page_is_redirect
) as mp
where mp.move_count > 10
order by mp.move_count desc
limit 20

Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! Now we know Ahecht is the undisputed champion of the Sandbox Shuffle Levivich (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich That's what happens when you maintain a page swap script that needs testing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add a "where page_namespace is 0" to Sean's query and it didn't work. My SQL knowledge suqs. Help? Levivich (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It should go between the join and group by lines. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a silly question but why do we have linked section headings on this page? Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves, Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves, etc.? MOS:SECTIONHEAD is pretty explicit that for technical reasons section headings should Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked and that for stylistic reasons they should Not be wrapped in markup, which may break their display and cause other accessibility issues. Why aren't the links in those headers done on a subsequent line with the {{see also}} template or something similar instead? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The links are for each section that is actually a transclusion of a subpage. They should be left there as it's helpful for getting to the subpage. I agree with the Manual of Style that this shouldn't be done in articles, but it's quite common for subpages in project space, including at XfD venues. SilverLocust 💬 00:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with the current practice, but maybe as a middle ground we could use something like {{Transcluded section}} to make it more apparent that it's a transcluded section? Primefac (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone actually run into technical issues from links in the section headings at, e.g., AfD, RfD, TfD, DRV, RM, MRV, RFPP, RFAR, or messages on user talk page (such as for AfC/Draftify notifications)? (Other than several Thursdays ago when a MediaWiki update broke headings with links. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 213#Section headings with links.) SilverLocust 💬 18:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a "technical restriction" in the sense that it will break things, but more of a "backend/formatting" statement to differentiate it from stylistic header restrictions. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Requested move notice}} currently uses the Mbox metatemplate. Some editors have expressed a desire to replace this messagebox with a top icon (using the Top icon metatemplate).

Background: Before August 2016 notices were not routinely placed in mainspace. By popular demand, after this discussion, my bot started posting notices. While this development was widely praised, it did not have universal support. One editor (who's now inactive) said "I disapprove or placing move messages in article space. People who go to a page to read information are not going there to read information about Wikipedia internal procedures, Information about editorial concerns should be placed on the talk page (that is what talk pages are for) this includes proposals to move a page."

In April 2020, there was a discussion about a proposal to revise the template to make this notice less disruptive. One editor in that discussion expressed the opinion that "every single one of those enormous cleanup templates should also be converted into this". However, there was no discussion about changing the metatemplate to address all cleanup templates. Rather, the discussion designed a new hybrid template which was a halfway-cross of message boxes and top icons. That discussion stalled after running into technical issues with an interface-protected edit request.

Fast forward to this month, when the template developed for that 2020 proposal was put up for discussion, and userfied. That led to a new template-protected edit request, which I closed as "not done" due to needing a discussion to achieve a broader consensus. So here I am, essentially re-opening or relisting that April 2020 conversation. The rationale for change was best expressed in that TfD:

I think the best path forward to solve these concerns is to avoid the trouble of attempting to design a new hybrid meta-template, and just go with an off-the-shelf top icon.

Look at the Rock-climbing equipment article to see how this will work. Click on the RM icon on the upper right of the page (next to the featured list icon) to go to the discussion.

Question. Should the current article-space messagebox be replaced with a top icon?

• OK with me. I'll implement this if the RM community prefers this solution. I'm also fine with the status quo, though sympathetic to the concerns expressed in the box above. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support the top icon looks nice. I agree that move discussions are editorial in nature and not relevant to most readers. This doesn't apply to other banners. Polyamorph (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep showing the full banner to logged-in users (via Help:-show classes) and anyone editing the page (via {{if preview}}). I am fine with having just that topicon show for logged-out people, who are much more likely to be here to read than to discuss editorial decisions. But I don't want to remove the banner message "Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed" and end up with more people moving articles during RMs. And I imagine most logged-in users (who most likely edit) would like to see the proposed title without clicking the discussion (and would like to still see RM notices when on mobile, which hides topicons). SilverLocust 💬 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is a good point, as logged in users are (most likely) also editors it makes sense to replace the banner with the top icon only for logged out users. Polyamorph (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Generally support this, readers are not helped by RM notices in the way they are by cleanup banners. Keeping it for logged in users per SilverLocust makes sense too if possible. CMD (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The topicon has typically only been used for article ratings, which most editors (including myself) generally ignore. There's no way in heck I'd ever notice a move request notification if it were only placed there, and I doubt most other editors would either. SilverLocust's proposal as a second-best approach, but my guess is that it would result in a flood of extra move requests by IPs being posted to WP:RM/TR. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Page Movers,

Please do not move articles that are in the midst of an AFD discussion. Specifically, I'm talking about the Elliot Rodger effect request on August 19th. This was tagged for an AFD under a different page title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, the article was moved to a different page title after the AFD was started (first problem) and then came a request here to move it to yet another page title (second problem). Moving an article during an AFD really complicates the discussion closure as our editing tool, XFDcloser, can't make sense when it is asked to handle an article that is at a different page title than the one identified in the AFD. So, when you are reviewing a RM request, please postpone doing it if you see that it is part of an AFD discussion. If the article is Kept, feel free to carry out a page move. If it is deleted, then the question is moot. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Good reminder. However it seems that this article was also subjected a RM before being moved without waiting for the discussion to be closed... and then the AfD was opened at the new title before it was moved back to the original title, which to the AfD is a mismatch of titles now. For RMs, it is also encouraged not to move the article till the RM discussion closes as this may confuse the participants and the closer as the rationale of the RM nom may not be applicable for the new title. Here, it seems unfortunate that the same type of instructions on both sides, AfD and RM have result in this conflict. This should be a rare occurrence still. – robertsky (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I’ve got an update to Move+ planned that will correct the AFD listing if a page is moved; I think that would address your concerns, or do they go beyond technical issues? BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... like RMs, the nominating statement for AfDs may make sense only when the article is at that title. Maybe automatically add a note on the AfD discussion that the content had been moved due to the RM discussion as well? – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This will mostly match what Robertsky said above, but it took me a few tries to understand what happened here. To be clear, this wasn't a case in which a normal move request concluded and action was taken during an open AfD, and the timeline is somewhat different from what Liz noted: the RM was created before the deletion nomination. In this case, 1) a now-blocked sock created a page; 2) the sock moved the page several times; 3) an RM was opened to stabilize the title; 4) the sock moved the page again out of process, necessitating reversion; 5) the page was nominated for deletion before the page was moved back; 6) the page was moved back. The move request (which includes a "from" field) preceded the initiation of the AfD, so the listing was showing as broken at WP:RM. Mandating that these sorts of things not be fixed when it is possible to do so could also lead to disruption, such as allowing a blatantly POV or offensive title to remain that way, out of process, for an additional week by performing the move directly before nominating something for AfD. While there may not be a centralized way to explain this effectively to editors nominating articles for deletion, AfD nominators should really be checking to see that the article is at the right title before nomination as well. If there are disruptive page moves taking place then the article title may not reflect the consensus scope, leading editors to believe the article should be nominated for deletion, etc. As Robertsky says, this should be a rare occurrence. Without the AfD nomination this would have ended up as G5. Dekimasuよ! 04:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Arrest of Pavel Durov has joined the parade of articles with simultaneous "delete" and "move" discussions. Which will be the first to close? Mainstream media in the US seems to be relegating coverage of this to "page 2", which I suspect could not be happening if an American billionaire were arrested and charged with crime(s). – wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This is more common occurrence where the AfD and RM are still at the same title, unlike the one above where the RM and AfD are of different titles. Typically, the closure of RM is delayed by relisting until the closure of the AfD. Sometimes both close at the same time, usually when both RM and AfD arrives as at the same consensus that the article would be better at the proposed title. – robertsky (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday, I made the following change to the {{RM top}} template. This changed the color of the template from a lighter green to a more saturated green color (since that was the closest dark-mode compatible color available), while also making the template compatible/readable with dark mode (previously, the template would stick out as a blindingly green sore thumb on pages when dark mode was enabled). However, @SilverLocust reverted said change due to the aforementioned color change.

TLDR, would the changes proposed in this edit be acceptable to peeps working in RM? Sohom (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of the change.

Current appearance:

Sohom Datta's proposed appearance:

(Note that this looks more like a CfD close rather than the traditional RM close appearance.)

Alternatively, with WP:TemplateStyles (Template:RM top/styles.css), it should be possible to change the color in dark mode using @media screen while preserving the current color in light mode. See mw:Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis#Target night mode using standard media query as well as HTML classes. This would be a new transclusion rather than the current subst-ed styles, but that shouldn't be an issue. SilverLocust 💬 ~ 12:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy about substing a TemplateStyles declaration on a large number of page, but yes, if using the original colouring scheme is preferred, using TemplateStyles would be the way to go. (From a technical POV, this would be significantly easier) Sohom (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If there's nothing further here for a couple days, I am fine with restoring the color change. SilverLocust 💬 22:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

On the vector legacy (2010) skin, the old color is unchanged. To view the change, click here to reload this page in vector 2022. (cc: Primefac). SilverLocust 💬 21:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that Monobook (which I use) also does not show any change to the color. Is this only a change to its appearance in Vector 2022? Bensci54 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The color change is on Vector 2022 and Minerva (the mobile skin). On the other three skins (Vector, Timeless, Monobook), the CSS variable --background-color-success-subtle isn't defined, so the fallback color is used. (And Sohom's edit kept the old color as the fallback color.)

•  #eeffee  (a light green) was on all skins before this
•  #d5fdf4  (a light blue-green) is now used on Vector 2022 and Minerva
•  #00261e  (a dark green) is now used on Vector 2022 and Minerva in dark mode

SilverLocust 💬 17:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Restored per lack of objection. SilverLocust 💬 02:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I messed up placing the template at Talk:Autobiographical comics. I tried to fix it but have doubts it will work. What do I do? (Sorry about the inconvenience.) RJFJR (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@RJFJR: The template is currently correct, but you haven't stated a reason for the move. You should replace "Please place your rationale for the proposed move here" with a rationale, which can be brief. SilverLocust 💬 23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust: Thank you. I've filled in a reason. RJFJR (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Just generally speaking, if you screw up a subst, just replace what got messed up with a new subst. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion was opened 3 weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

It needs closure. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Closure requests are made at Wikipedia:Closure requests rather than here. This one has been listed. SilverLocust 💬 20:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

…contested moves with a participants after the seven-days-period be treated as RMNOMIN? Best, Reading Beans 04:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean "with no participants".

Depends what was said in contesting the request.

• If it's just something like "I'm not sure about this given ..." or "There has previously been disagreement about ...", then I wouldn't consider that an objection to the move.
• If the contesting comment indicates disagreement with the move, then it shouldn't be considered unopposed. You could reference the contesting comment in a relisting comment or copy it into the RM.
• In either event, the contesting comment should be taken into account in evaluating (per WP:RMNOMIN) whether the move is consistent with policies, guidelines, and conventions.

SilverLocust 💬 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes! “No participants”. Thank you for thoughtful response. Best, Reading Beans 08:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I nominated Park Sung-hoon for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Sung-hoon (2nd nomination)) as it is now just a disambiguation page for 1 article; I assumed that the page should be deleted and then Park Sung-hoon (actor) should be moved into its place. But now I'm thinking I should've just skipped the deletion step and just nominated Park Sung-hoon (actor) for a move to Park Sung-hoon and just let the disambiguation page WP:USURPTITLE'd

Do I withdraw the deletion nom (can I?)? Or just let it run its course and then move Park Sung-hoon (actor) when the page is deleted? RachelTensions (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@RachelTensions: Yes, you can withdraw the AfD because nobody has commented yet. I do recommend just requesting a move of Park Sung-hoon (actor) to Park Sung-hoon (while mentioning that the proposed title is a disambiguation page that will be unneeded per WP:ONEOTHER). If moved, the disambiguation page will be dealt with as cleanup. SilverLocust 💬 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Either is fine, but I do agree it looks like a withdrawal and further {{db-move}} request will be easier. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Was just notified to this discussion existence after I had !vote on the AfD earlier today. Was this closure cum withdrawal allowed when I had already !vote on it? I believe is an procedure infringement, either we uninvolved snow it or let it run the full course. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

sigh. Page deleted per {{db-move}}, because getting too hung up on pedantry is silly. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is maintained by a bot that copies everything inside the user's original subst'd {{Requested move}} template, and wraps it all into one paragraph that begins with an asterisk (*), which encodes for a bulleted list entry. Moreover, it appears that upon editing the lead paragraphs of a talk page section created with this template, the bot automatically updates Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. More intelligence is needed. Talk:Sloboda#Requested move 24 August 2024 has a discussion that includes {{hidden}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes four lint errors: two missing end tags for <div> and two stripped tags for </div>. I edited that talk page and inserted a blank line above {{hidden}}, to see what the bot would do. Well, the bot inserted two spaces before {{hidden}}, but the template is still in a paragraph beginning with asterisk, so the four lint errors are still there. Similarly, Template talk:WP LGBTQIA has a discussion that includes {{Not a ballot}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes a multiline table in list lint error. And that's what the bot did. The bot needs more sophistication to avoid creating lint errors in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions.

Also, near the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is the markup

'''This list is also available''' in a '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)|page-link-first format]]''' and in '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (table)|table format]].''' nnn discussions have been relisted.''

which has a spurious close italics ('') at the end, which needs to be removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions no longer includes the discussion on Template talk:WP LGBTQIA, but you can find it in the version of 00:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC), just before that section was removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If the hidden note is causing issues, it should be moved from the request itself to the first comment. In general, the request shouldn't be a wall of text. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur with this. There are times when it is helpful to add a copy of the signature closer to the top of the request to prevent a wall of text from appearing here. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Heh, the point of using {{hidden}} was to not make it a wall of text :)

Please update the software and/or the instructions if people filing RMs should do something differently in the future, I don't recall ever seeing any warnings against the use of the hidden template there. --Joy (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

My original proposal was to modify the bot to avoid picking up templates that shouldn't be bulleted. That still might be worth doing, but it seems that we should also ask users to avoid using templates that shouldn't be bulleted. Template:Requested move/doc#Specified new name includes the bulleted item "Why ... = your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate". We could put, right below that, a two-asterisk indented bullet something like, "Please do not include templates that expand to tables, such as nav templates or {{Not a ballot}}, and also avoid collapse templates such as {{collapse}} and {{hidden}}." Comments? —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds like an improvement over the current phrasing. And obviously saying something like "Please post any such extra information afterwards, as a comment." after that. --Joy (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I enhanced the bot in October 2023 to support {{collapse top}} & {{collapse bottom}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

wbm1058: Could you add support for {{hidden}}? Is there a systematic way to support the whole family of collapse templates? —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It took me a while to realize that though the {{hidden}} problem was only reported here yesterday, it was created a month ago. Was it really "hidden" for that long, before anybody noticed any problem? Of course, that means this discussion, which generally is only supposed to run a week, has been open for over a month, too. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in the grand scheme of things it would actually be more helpful if more people read the Sloboda discussion and said "yeah the medieval settlement type is what we really want everyone to read first" or "yeah the English reader doesn't know this term, it's really ambiguous" and we get over it sooner rather than later :D --Joy (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please move Tzemile Giousouf article to previous title Cemile Giousouf 194.219.206.56 (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, please make these requests on the "Project page". Click on "Edit" next to "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" where you will see instructions on how to request the move. Station1 (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

but the page is not open for ip 188.4.251.27 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not click on Edit at the top of the page or the top of the section. They are semi-protected. Click only on the Edit link next to "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". Let me know if you still have problems if you do that. Station1 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to do a WP:RM, but whenever I do, it doesn't work properly. Do you know why? GilaMonster536 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For starters, you have placed it in a comment section. I will move it for you. The Banner talk 18:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks GilaMonster536 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, it's still not in the correct format. GilaMonster536 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There was also an unclosed link in the request ([[) that was preventing the template from functioning. SilverLocust 💬 18:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Santeria can be considered a derogatory term and the religion, as it exists in the Cuba and throughout the diaspora, is known as "Regla de Ocha". I believe the page should be moved to "Regla de Ocha" with a redirect in place from Santería > Regla de Ocha. I'm happy to volunteer editing the page to reflect the proper name of the religion once that is done.

Also, there are several misnomers, incorrect statements and "beware of the boogeyman" tactics currently in use on the Santería page. All of this stems, first, from the name being incorrect for the page, so why not show some respect to the members of the religion, worldwide, by migrating the page correctly? Vxla (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This is a talk page for discussing the process described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. To propose a specific title change, please follow the instructions found at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial and initiate discussion on the talk page of the article you would like to move. Dekimasuよ! 03:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been three RMs on the article about a move to Severance Music Center (currently a redirect). I initiated the first two, but had no idea about the third until recently. All three were closed with a maximum of two oppose votes, both of them by either EurekaLott or Necrothesp, and two only have one oppose, by the latter. I was going to relist this, but that would make three of four that I started, so I decided to put my comments here before doing so. I didn't use WP:MR because all three closers have been different editors. As to RSs, I believe that the last RM, again the one that I didn't start, has an adequate amount of them as examples. I encourage the two opposing voters to comment here. Mapsax (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

[Followup] Apparently, this is the wrong place for this. Please let me know where a more appropriate place is. Mapsax (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned a long(ish) time ago about creating a clerking bot, and I am working on it, but I was wondering your thoughts on what the responses from the bot should be for the different occasions. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What would this bot be clerking? Primefac (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac completely forgot to mention what the bot would do, but it was discussed a few months ago to clerk WP:RMTR, remove requests after they are moved, and move requests to the admin needed section if the pages are protected. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 35#Bot to clerk RM/TR – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right. I have adjusted the header to be more clear. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: what do you mean by responses from the bot...for the different occasions? You mean what message the bot should leave on the requester's user talk? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Basically the message it should leave on the talk page when it's been contested and there's been no action for 72 hours, plus how should it note down that it has moved an request needing an admin to the admin page. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: As a very rough draft for the first, what about this? Your request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. The third sentence can be something similar to the last sentence of User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I’ll note that down when finishing off the bot. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried to move it a while ago to correct it, and I messed up and used the wrong apostrophe. And I can't fix it. Ironzombie39 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Should be sorted. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A user renamed the long-standing "Mathematical object" article to Mathematical object (philosophy) without any discussion, I can't move it back or rename it as the original title was made a redirect to Mathematical object (disambiguation). Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Resolved Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I closed these a little while ago. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Protections aren't generally controversial, so the format isn't very useful for something that typically requires debate. There is WP:RMTR for uncomplicated moves that no one will object to. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  What I mean is that there isn't an "add topic" button or something like this on this page, unlike the protection request page, you would have to edit the page manually, which you can't do as an IP user, because this page is semi-protected. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  • There is no reason to edit it. WP:RMTR has no protection. Regular RMs are made on article talk pages and transcribed here. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    I mean the move request page, not Wikipedia:RMTR. RaschenTechner (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    Do you find using a single template on the talk page of an article difficult? See WP:RSPM -- there is only two parameters: the requested new name and your reason. TiggerJay (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    But you still need to edit this page, there is no "add topic" button even though there should be one. RaschenTechner (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

    As Nohomersryan stated, they are very different applications, used in different places. The "add topic" is used on the WP:RMTR page, and that discussion is not included on the article talk page -- its not necessary since it is specifically "discussed on the article talk page". However, by contrast, regular moves are discussed on the talk page, so a simple button on the WP:RM would be impossible to work currently, as it would require backend changes to the Mediawiki software or requiring people to otherwise run untrusted Javascript. However, an example of a tool talk might help you specifically is to look over at Wikipedia:Twinkle and make a request on that talk page. That is a tool that would add an extra navigation tab at the top of your browser that would let you do RMs when viewing the article itself. TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The line is pretty clear, if an editor wants to close a move, they should be willing to do the postmove cleanup, such as fixing bypass redirects in templates or retargeting links and cleaning up leads.

The only general exception I'd see to that is if some editors in the discussion have volunteered preemptively that they will do some of the cleanup if it's not just ordinary cleanup. Like say an alternative result of a split or so that requires more than routine cleanup. Raladic (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My perspective has been that editors should avoid closing articles if they cannot complete the task within a reasonable amount of time, say an hour or so. The exception to this that I can think of have been in RMnac situations where sometimes an experienced editor can perform most (but not all) of the necessary close steps (such as a delay such as waiting for a CSD to make room) or they might be closing the discussion, and then asking requesting a technical move, etc. But in these cases, they should be monitoring for those changes to take place and promptly go about finishing up any cleanup work, which I'd AGF and gracefully give many hours (but not multiple days) for this to be accomplished (e.g. an Admin performs their action while the closer is now asleep). However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks. However, if any RM closer is consistently dropping the ball with regards to cleanup tasks, do AGF and use their talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks: Yeah, I'm sure nobody would mind if a non-closer volunteers to help cleanup. But my original question was about the expectation of closers to cleanup their moves, such as old titles that got usurped or links in navboxes. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, I think my initial statement that if you cannot commit to doing the cleanup tasks, then you should avoid closing an RM. TiggerJay (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

These texts don't seem to align:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting a requested move - "While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote."

• Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting and participating - "A relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey."

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

I think the current guidelines are good enough as they are.

While it's rare, sometimes someone clerking at RM may be relisting something neutrally and thereafter some arguments are made by editors and the person who relisted it will often be following threads as well a week later to potentially close it, but sometimes new arguments are made since relisting (since that's the point) and as experienced editors, sometimes then instead of closing a discussion as say no consensus based on the presented arguments, that editor may instead decide to become a party of the discussion and present new evidence as a participant, which, while rare, is not entirely unheard of, since the people that relist/close sometimes have more experience with regards to WP:AT policies and if such evidence wasn't presented in an RM, it can be useful to present it instead of just letting an RM play out resulting in potentially a wrong move. Raladic (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

They seem to say the same thing. Many editors consider many acceptable things inadvisable, but PAG is based on consensus. But the way the first sentence is structured implies that the opinions of many editors outweighs the lack of editor consensus. Perhaps it could be changed to read, "While many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote, there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it." Safrolic (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence discourages against participating after relisting, the second one says it's allowed. I think some clarity, on both pages, is needed if it's allowed, discouraged or both. Frost 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The lines from Wikipedia:Requested moves about supervote are wrong and should be removed. A supervote is when a closure reflects the closer's own preference, which should have been a vote, but instead is a super-powered vote that gets the last word and shuts down rebuttal. A relist does none of that. It doesn't stop other people from discussing. It doesn't stop other people from closing ("there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion"). All it is is one person's non-binding opinion that a discussion wasn't ready for closure at a particular time. Participating after relisting is no big deal. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The underlying idea is that there are always enough participants for a discussion without relying upon the input of involved editors. The lines effectively discourage adding a !vote at the same time as relisting, which would usually be disruptive in practice if not in theory (most closers wait for resisted discussions to expire even though that is not required). With that in mind I think it is best for both lines to be retained. The general practice should be discouraged, and it is noted that it is not explicitly forbidden in special cirumstances. Dekimasuよ! 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

While I can see what you bring up, they're not exactly conflicting, but they could introduce confusion, especially for those who never look at the closing instructions so regular participators in the RM might feel that it is inappropriate. However, at the end of the day I believe that most closers properly understand how much weight to place on the relisting editor -- which is basically almost zero. However, we still want to discourage the general practice of people relisting and !voting, as it might give the appearance of trying to game the system, especially when their !vote is running in contrary to what otherwise might appear to be consensus forming. TiggerJay (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Redirect the former page to the latter, tag it with {{r from merge}} and {{r with history}}, make sure to add all of the appropriate talk page attribution templates (e.g. {{merged from}}) and call it a day. Just because there isn't actually any text being merged doesn't mean that the pages can't be merged. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And if you want List of mandolinists (sorted) to go to List of mandolinists after the merge, a WP:PAGESWAP will be required, which can be performed by a page mover or administrator. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Is that better than using the templates to point to the history? I have now completed the merge, so right the history of what is now List of mandolinists is at List of mandolinists (sorted), which is a redirect. blameless 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

sigh you did exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting, though in fairness my statements were based on the (sorted) version being the final target. I have sorted everything out though. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I misunderstood. But thank you for fixing it! I think having one list instead of two will be a lot clearer to readers. blameless 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I should have been clearer and it was a fairly simple fix. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

It looks like there are also a lot of closes that weren't contested and none have ended up at Move review. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the standard procedures if discussion participants have issues. Feeglgeef definitely needs more practice writing close rationales, but I don't think a public flogging here will be productive. Toadspike [Talk] 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised by the close as well, as there was only overwhelming consensus for only one of the two moves. My guess is that perhaps in their inexperience conflated partial consensus for full consensus, but it wasn't anything that was really going to concern me until I saw his talk page with multiple other people talking about other closing actions. Admittedly I remember when I first began doing NAC closures back in the beginning and not quite getting it right, perhaps some simple coaching if they're open to it is all that's needed. TiggerJay (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. TiggerJay (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it was the right move. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @Nardog performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @Bernardgeorgeh if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a WP:RM discussion in the appropriate way. TiggerJay (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Last month @RaschenTechner mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. TiggerJay (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on WP:RM/TR would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nohomersryan: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

On Twinkle under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc, but the functionality is referenced at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_42#RM_requests. —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. – robertsky (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. I don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @Robertsky, I appreciate it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

(2025 New Orleans truck attack) I'm not sure why it is doing this, as according to WP:RSPM a bot should have a banner put at the top of the article. You can view my template in the article's talk page. Any feedback is appreciated! Therguy10 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. SilverLocust 💬 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! Therguy10 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Has anyone else noticed the number of requests that have been relisted has gone up a lot these last few months. There are 116 relisted requests today. Compare that to 82 on this same day last year and 43 two years ago . ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a combination of factors, including a higher number of both contentious moves, as well as a number of undiscussed requests that is triggering this. Coupled with the number of recent BADNAC as made even experienced NAC movers cautious. It's been a few years since I was an active page mover and so much has changed that I'm still only comfortable with !voting until I get all of the changes and perspectives updated in my thought process... But I might just have to jump in sooner than latter. TiggerJay (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that plenty of recently backlogged RMs have no comments at all, or very few comments. While it is within policy to close such discussions, I have noticed a tendency to wait and give it another round of relisting to attempt to improve participation. Frequent relisting might also be a reason for a vicious cycle that causes too many open requests at once, reducing overall RM participation. The last systematic study about duration of open RMs was probably Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 34#Size of RM backlog over time by Colin M almost 3 years ago. And situation may have declined since that time. RMCD bot's table list shows 154 RMs to be less or equal to 7 days old and 141 RMs to be open for more than 7 days. It seems that number of RMs opened has also seen a slight increase recently, and the overall number of open discussions older than 1 week has decreased, but the number of discussions open for even longer has increased quite significantly. I see that somewhat contentious discussions as old as 10-20 or more days lay idle in backlog section without a close. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There are two details I noticed that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions doesn't cover:

1. "Write a clear, concise closing statement" explains how to write the closing statement, but not what to do with it. It should be put after the RESULT in subst:RM, not added as a comment below the discussion before the discussion is closed, right?
2. "Moving procedures" says nothing about performing the actual move itself! Presumably it be done after closing the discussion with result "Moved," not before, but noting the specific step in these instructions would be helpful.

I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the process to update the instructions (if desired), or I'll update them later myself if no one objects. - Brian Kendig (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Good points / questions. For the first one, the reason has always traditionally been placed inside of the template. There have been some rare exceptions, but I have also noticed a new newer closers making this mistake -- but you would hope that before someone jumps in to do NAC that they are very experienced as a contributor and see what proper closes look like. To the second point, that is often but not always the case, sometimes when someone is doing a NAC they lack the permissions to actually perform the move, so what they do is close the discussion and then raise it over at WP:RM/TR so that an admin can just do the move without having to do the dirty work of determining consensus and closing discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Closing the requested move specifically uses {{subst:RM top|result of the discussion.}} as what to do (unless I'm misinterpreting your concern from #1). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a Uncontroversial technical move request on the 126th Armed Police Mobile Division (People's Republic of China), may I ask on average how long does a uncontroversial technical move request take? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting first that this was enacted about two hours after this post was made, but second that requests are usually handled with 24-48 hours. Patience is a good thing sometimes. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. Just wanted to ask in case I ever need to make another one. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I created this page and moved it to article space on December 2 at Influencer. It has moved to Social media influencer and back and forth since. Discussion on the talk page suggests that a consensus has not been properly achieved and that the article should be nominated properly at RM. However, I believe an admin is needed to properly restore the page to its original location before commencing a formal RM discussion. Can we get some help in relocating the page in order to commence an RM.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I just need someone to move Social media influencer back to Influencer, so that we can properly consider the page name as a RM nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Would it be useful and practical to implement move request sorting comparable to deletion sorting? Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The "Spinabenz" link opens to his single "Who I Smoke" and I can't have the title of the article as "Spinabenz". Now that I made an article for this artist I believe that it shouldn't redirect to his single and I should be able to change it to his artist name without adding "(rapper)" Martinm23forever (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Donald Albury 15:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157 correctly points out that this move request I started is malformed. I proposed a move of Israel-Hamas war to Gaza War (a page that already exists) without clearly stating the existing page should become Gaza War (disambiguation). That's clearly my mistake. What should I do:

• restart the RM with a correctly formed RM
• modify the RM and ping all !votes below notifying them of the change and inviting them to modify their !vote at their discretion (this is my preferred option)
• leave a comment in the RM requesting that, should the RM succeed, Gaza war should be moved to Gaza war (disambiguation), ping all existing !votes in that comment, and presume future !votes will see that comment.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

While technically not complete, I think the assumption the user states that the old title will go to (disambiguation) is reasonable, so it can just be added as an additional line under the first move indicator. I would then add a comment indicating that you have updated the nomination to correct the oversight. I don't think you necessarily need to ping those who have already commented, but you can if you wish. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done this. If incorrect, let me know.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTOTHERPAGES states "Generally, a move request on whether to move X to Y should have no impact on page Z's title".

In our case, X is Israel–Hamas war (article page), Y is Gaza War (disambiguation page), Z is Gaza War (disambiguation) (redirect page). RM made clear that X and Y are affected. Y page has been promptly notified at the start by RMCD Bot. Z is subject to G6 speedy deletion to allow Y to Z move. RM is not malformed. Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Requesting clarification from editor(s) regarding contesting a technical request for a page move based on available information:

"If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, (...)" (original emphasis)

Does it require objection to the proposed move, or can/should requests be categorised as contested without the need to oppose the move in question; on the basis that the move is controversial by default, such as moving articles to primary topic?

This is in relation to Requested move 20 January 2025. I am asking here for UNINVOLVED opinion, as there is no point going round in circles arguing the same procedural points with 162 etc. given our different of opinion. This also concerns more broadly the contesting at RMTR, and this dispute has little to do with the RM in question at this point, so I believe this discussion is better redirected to here.

Personally I believe this should be a procedural close with the page moved, or otherwise re-listed at RMTR, based on the rationale for contesting " I do not oppose or support the proposed move. I do object to the article being moved uncontroversially.". 162 etc. can clarify if I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding this reasoning, but it seems I'm not the only one to question it either.

PS: Feel free to apply boomerang if you feel it necessary based on the discussion. CNC (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any reason you shouldn't be able to object to an undiscussed move on the grounds that you think a more detailed discussion is required, as long as you're not being disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this not just WP:BURO? As if the page had been moved, it wouldn't have been reverted based on lack of opposition (so far at least). RMTR is also for reverting undiscussed page moves as a fall back. I've seen controversial page moves occur before and reverted at RMTR, so unless the reason is to reduce RMTR requests, I'm struggling to understand the logic here. CNC (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern here is not so much BURO as the bots changing links subsequent to a move. If it turns out to be controversial and reverted after the bot run, you may be left with A Lovely Mess to clean up. I'd rather have the discussion ahead of time and avoid the subsequent cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A technical request that is potentially controversial should be opened for discussion. It's fine to contest a request without disagreeing with it. SilverLocust 💬 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing, I now realise PCM covers this given the theoretical, and subjective application. I was going by BOLDMOVE documentation with it's more liberal wording, but evidently that doesn't apply here. For further clarity, does this mean that moving a page using page mover rights should be done respecting PCM or BOLDMOVE? I looked through PGM and didn't find any immediate clarity. Finally, it'd be worth having a link to PCM from RMTR, as then I would found this sooner. I didn't think to check that section as based on bold move I wasn't aware I was requesting a potentially controversial move. Thanks again. CNC (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The current situation is confusing and frustrating indeed. If you contest a technical request at all (whether you actively oppose it or not), you should use the "discuss" link (or remove the entry if the requester opted it out), not start an impromptu RM on the page. The section "Contested technical requests" should be removed and replies prohibited. Nardog (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Gaza war regarding moving dozens of child articles. Any suggestions or feedback on how best to proceed would be appreciated (RM/RMUM/RMTR)? Included is a list of all "Israel–Hamas war" titled articles. The thread is Related pages, templates, and categories. The discussion is about the topic Gaza war. Thank you. CNC (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Do people here, especially who patrol RMTR requests, and contest ones which cannot be done uncontroversially, think that we can include a warning in the editnotice for Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests that only add a request if it either explicitly violats any WP:AT policy, clearly supported by WP:RS, and the name change keeps in mind WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the contesting just include a link to these policies and is eventually removed as stale/RM is started by proposer. This can possibly make people think again before posting requests. Open to ideas about how should we frame it. Link to current notice: Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, would it be possible to get a relisting at Talk:Wassoulou Empire? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has been opened for a month already. Not really sure a relisting is going to help. Vpab15 (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

But doesn’t relisting it move it to the top of WP:RM#C so it gets more input? I was under the impression that RMs where there was no clear consensus get relisted a few times Kowal2701 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is a diff (that diff has been erased somehow) of this RM subject page to look at – you'll need to scroll down to the very end of the #Backlog section and find this entry:

• (Discuss) – Most–Híd → Most–Híd 2023 – Current name of the party – see https://rez.vs.minv.sk/PolitickeStrany/detail?id_spolok=152949 ==Not neutral== "the Party of the Hungarian Coalition, who have become increasingly nationalist under the new leader, Pál Csáky". Who said this? Source?--B@xter⁹ 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP had not signed the new RM, and the RMCD bot continued into the next section on the talk page to find a timestamp from 2009 to use. This RM should have wound up in the #Time cannot be ascertained and #Malformed requests sections, but instead I found it at the very end of the #Backlog section as the oldest unrelisted RM. The move request has been fixed, and fortunately, this is not something you see everyday. In fact I've never seen the RMCD bot make this particular kind of error before. But I may have missed it. Pretty cool, eh? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
PS. I inserted a diff to the original RM post in the (Discuss) link above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The wording at WP:NOTOTHERPAGES currently states:

If consensus at X signals that Z should move, close the request at Talk:X, do not move Z, and file a new move request at Talk:Z.

I propose this be changed to say:

If consensus at X signals that Z should be disambiguated, and there has been no notification about the potential disambiguating move at Talk:Z, relist the request and announce the likely disambiguation move at Talk:Z.

I think this makes it more consistent with WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, which is just a few paragraphs above. I agree that it can be problematic to disambiguate a title, which is always potentially controversial, without notification at the base name's talk page, but the same issues does not exist in the other direction.

Here's a recent actual example, where I was the closer: Talk:Crazy_Rich_Asians_(novel)#Requested_move_20_February_2025.

The original proposal was to disambiguate the title of the article about the novel, which was at the base name, and to move the dab page to the base name. But during the discussion it was proposed to move the article about the film to the basename, and I found consensus for that, and submitted a technical request for it be moved accordingly. At the technical request, @162_etc. objected that this close decision violated WP:EXPLICIT and WP:NOTOTHERPAGES because "Crazy Rich Asians (film) was never nominated to be moved in this discussion". Others pointed out that such an objection should be made at WP:MR, and the move was executed. Subsequently, 162 opened another RM, Talk:Crazy_Rich_Asians#Requested_move_17_March_2025, again objecting to my close, proposing the move of the film back to the disambiguated title, but there was clear consensus to not do that.

Any objections? I recognize there need to be other minor and obvious tweaks in the NOTOTHERPAGES wording to make it all consistent with this proposed change to the guidance, so that needs to happen too. В²C ☎ 04:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Change implemented, in spirit with my proposed wording above, but a bit differnently. New wording; changes highlighted:

If a page is to be moved as the result of a move request, mention should be made of this in the move proposal and a notice should be placed on the talk page of the article to be moved (unless of course it is hosting the discussion). Generally, a move request on whether to move X to Y should have no impact on page Z's title, unless it is initiated as a {{multi-move request}} that mentions moving Z as a possibility. This is because the editors most interested and aware of Z are not able to contribute their expertise to the naming discussion, since it's happening at a different place without any notice given.

These situations often come up when Foo (barge) is proposed to move to, say, Foo (enormous sailing thing), and someone mentions that they think the barge is actually the primary topic. A consensus of these barge enthusiasts may then informally suggest that the existing article Foo be moved to Foo (bar), without actually notifying Foobar-interested editors by signaling at Talk:Foo that a move request involving that page is taking place. This often leads to strife and another, more contentious move request. If consensus at X signals that Z should be disambiguated, relist the move proposal and leave notice at Talk:Z.

Even if consensus is clear, or when following WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, when closing a move request do not disambiguate article titles for which there has been no notice on the corresponding Talk page. Again, in those cases relist the move request and post a notice on the to-be-disambiguated article's Talk page. Such notice is not required when an article is being moved to the base name of its current disambiguated title.

--В²C ☎ 03:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This might be helpful advice in certain situations, but it is unnecessary in others. The sentence begins "even if consensus is clear", but the entire point of the addition is the assertion that consensus is not clear in such cases. If consensus is clear and the "no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title" and "seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" criteria at WP:BOLDMOVE apply, a do not seems to be overdoing it. Following any reasonable objection to a move that takes place in this way, there should be no problem with going through an additional move request or making a reversion. As always, WP:RMCI is an explanatory essay and shouldn't really be adding additional prohibitions that don't stem naturally from other parts of our normal process. Dekimasuよ! 03:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, by adding “or when following NOGOODOPTIONS” it’s now less restrictive than before. Also, before it applied to all moves, now it’s limited only to moves where the un-noticed page is being disambiguated. I think it’s safe to say that whenever a title is being disambiguated it is “potentially controversial” and it’s reasonable to place a notification at its talk page and wait a week. Better than starting a new RM as it was previously. —В²C ☎ 05:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:Mysore an editor has started a move discussion less than 4 days after a previous discussion was closed, because they did not like the outcome. This seems to be a waste of other editors time, and an effort to wear down objectors until they get their own way. Is there no minimum time period between requests? If not, why not? - Arjayay (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, a wait of at least three months is recommended. Starting a move discussion one week after the previous one, with no new arguments, is disruptive. I have closed the discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Vpab15, although I feel we need something stronger than a recommendation. - Arjayay (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Curious, editor Arjayay, you're here 20 years and you're a page mover. So how often have you seen "stronger than a recommendation" actually work on WP? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Paine Ellsworth, (it's only 17 years by the way), but the current phraseology "Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one." is so vague that it is not even a recommendation, just an observation on statistical probability, which invites editors to totally ignore it.
A clear guideline, such as "after a refusal, the same move request should not be made within X months" (I'd actually like more than 3 months, but that can be discussed) gives a simple, specific, reason for an almost immediate re-request, such as this one at Mysore, to be closed/deleted. Our Indian articles are beset by numerous repeated attempts at renaming, Bengaluru took 18 years before it was eventually moved, wasting huge amounts of editors time and effort. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

There have been previous attempts to reword that recommendation, or observation on statistical probability or whatever, but editors did not want a stronger wording. Previously, the recommendation for "moved" and "not moved" decisions was even longer, and editors chose to remove that. I've seen more than a few out-of-process re-requests actually succeed, so it's probably unlikely that the vague observation will be altered anytime soon. Discover a good, sound argument to proscribe rather than to prescribe and all that could change, though. Got any up your sleeve? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that WP:THREEOUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy or guideline, so anything within cannot be considered "stronger than a recommendation."

Immediate re-nominations that add nothing new to the discussion are generally speedy or snow closed anyway. 162 etc. (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chanyanut​Sawasdee​1103701965541​ 122.155.52.27 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Etuodtiid

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting the move of my sandbox page to the main domain.

Current page: User:Twistkhalifaartista/sandbox New title: Twist Khalifa Reason: This is a valid biography of an artist, well-formatted, with reliable sources, and ready for the main Wikipedia domain.

Thank you for your assistance.

No. This is blatant spam with no evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a request in that didn't seem to be addressed and/or may have been accidentally deleted. This addition was put in as a request, but was removed by Intrisit (talk · contribs) via this edit. It looks like it may have been caught up in another user's requests/edits? Looking for clarity on if this was an accident, if this was rejected, or if I should resubmit. GauchoDude (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I clicked on references in the article and none of them used "é". Please use WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc.: Understood, thanks for the clarification. If you're using the article sourcing, you're gonna have a bad time. It's a terribly written, very substandard article in stub status. I thought the numerous examples I provided would have provided more clarity. I'll move to WP:PCM per your guidance. GauchoDude (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to be WP:BOLD and improve the article with better sources. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• If I write these lines in an unreasonable place, hope someone is responsible not to delete but take it to the right place. Currently, I do not have a comfortable conditions for social networks. I only wish that American friends should pay a little attention to the changes in Vietnamese administration today. Now Vietnam is no longer a district-level, so maintaining it is unstable with open knowledge space, especially with articles with brief content. I tried to call, explain and stated evidence, but many people stopped me by backing up the old information, so I had no other way but to speak up. I did not try to discriminate against anyone, but just wanted to present a truth that was happening in my Motherland. I am really tired because after my efforts are the mercy of those who do not care about Vietnam. (123.24.142.14 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC))

  Can you please provide reliable sources to back up your claim? If you could then maybe there will be some motivation to move the pages accordingly. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  In any article, I provided a full reference source, but someone who came later deleted them made me very hard to recover. This situation repeated dozens of times made me very tired. What can I do to make you see that it is the event that is taking place in Vietnam ? I have to repeat many times, provide many times, but you delete and ask where the source is. I am really angry and tired. 2401:D800:260:38B9:354D:D6E8:62AE:57E3 (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  The problem, as I've explained repeatedly to you under your various IP addresses and user name JIlQIM is that you have tried to rename the articles by cutting and pasting the content. That is not acceptable under terms of the license to which you agree each time you publish an edit. I know nothing about the substantive content you might be trying to update, but please STOP renaming articles by cutting and pasting the content. older ≠ wiser 11:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I would like to ask you, experienced editor, to move User:SyanMey/Sigma Software Group to Draft:Sigma Software Group.

This is a new article draft I am preparing for review. I am a new editor and cannot perform the move myself due to technical restrictions.

Thank you! SyanMey (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! SyanMey (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Friends who patrol the Malformed, Incomplete, etc. sections at the bottom: newbie moving pages left and right without closing the discussion. The volume of edits has nudged me to file an AIV report, but I would not be surprised if admin decides the fella needs more warning. Back to the point: you aren't seeing isolated incidents but a broader pattern of one new person's behavior. Just thought context may help. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Possibly someone's sock, I don't think I have seen any new editor's first edit to be an user warning on some other person's page. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, RM regulars. Hope you're doing well. Last year, a discussion resulted in consensus to create a bot to clerk WP:RMT (archived discussion). In the past few days, discussion on this bot has been occurring at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 87#Clerk Requested Moves/Technical. Since the original discussion on the bot was a while ago, I thought I'd notify you all. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. Just an update on the bot, it has been granted a 7 day trial. If you notice any problems with its edits, please do let me know on the BRFA, thanks. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Belated barnstar and thanks for everyone who made the RMT clerk-bot possible:

• Tenshi Hinanawi for all their continuous hard work, creating and now helping the bot when it throws an exception!
• DreamRimmer for keeping the BRFA process running smoothly
• robertsky for his excellent suggestions at BRFA
• Zippybonzo who started the original discussion
• 2pou, who closed it

Cheers! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

A little belated, but I'll just quickly say thanks to all involved, I've been less active than I'd like to be lately but it's good to know that it's finally running Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 11:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a weird stray bullet with no text after it for me, probably due to the weirdness with the span tags. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:AD44:7CF5:AF22:94CC (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. Fixed: Special:Diff/1295755718. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I created the article User:Judhisthir Reang about an Indian politician. I would like it moved to Judhisthir Reang as a public article. Please help move it from my user page to article space. Thank you! Judhisthir Reang (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I have moved your page to Draft:Judhisthir Reang, as it is not currently suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. This is both to demonstrate notability as well as give verification for facts about a living person. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the requirements at WP:BOLDMOVE:

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

• No article exists at the new target title;
• There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
• It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

This should be clarified as either:

Jruderman (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The meaning is "any new title", because such comments are by extension a minimal endorsement of the current title. I do not believe this actually needs to be rephrased for clarity, but if it does, it could be altered to "There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to moving the page." Dekimasuよ! 11:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, objection to moving the page to Title A will likely hold for Title B as well; opposition specifically to Title B does not strictly need to have been voiced for a bold move to be theoretically off the table. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Late here, but this has always been my read, as well. If someone objected to some other proposed move, they were on some level defending the current title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a missing point in the closing instructions. The instructions start with point 1: determine the consensus.

The first point should be to check the guidelines that are the basis for the RM per the bullet points following the sub-heading "When participating, please consider the following" in the "Commenting on a requested move" section. If the move request meets the guidelines, and what editors opposing the RM say contravenes the guidelines, it shouldn't matter how many people oppose the move.

As the same guidelines for closing an RM say, "This is not a vote". HandsomeFella (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Part of determining consensus is doing that; there are at least two explanatory essays linked at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Closing a requested move and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Determining consensus that expand on that sort of point. I'm not sure that we need to explicitly say "make sure this move is valid", because the whole point of a move discussion is to determine if it is a valid move. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

My sad experience though is that many closing editors seem to be just counting votes.

I think I've seen somewhere that there is a way to "appeal" a move that one thinks was carried out erroneously.

How do I go about it if I have an RM closed as "not moved" based on votes rather than what guidelines say? Is there a procedure for "appealing" a "not moved" closure too? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:MR, Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions (emphasis added). If you disagree with a close, by all means contest it, regardless of the result itself. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi: on your edit summary at Special:Diff/1301064387, I've noticed the blank | requester = parameters on some of the IPv6 requests, too! I'm wondering if maybe a couple (?) of unregistered people are filling in the /core subtemplate manually, instead of using {{subst:RMassist}}? Just some idle musings, I guess. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work clerking technical requests! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that they only see other requests as {{RMassist/core}} so they copy that, but because they don't know their IP, they leave it blank, meaning that the bot can't notify them and logs the request on its error page. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Please move User:Decentralizedgirl/sandbox to Alisa Lozhkina.

The article is ready for mainspace, fully sourced and neutral. It includes references from Thames & Hudson, Artnet, Texte zur Kunst, Los Angeles Review of Books, and Harvard. Decentralizedgirl (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Decentralizedgirl:

This is the wrong venue for submitting a draft; you should instead submit your draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (also known as AFC) by clicking the button "Submit for review" or by putting the text {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft in the Source Editor.

Also, I noticed that your draft has Markdown formatting in it (a single asterisk placed around words, *like this*, is one way to italicize text in Markdown; proper wikitext uses two apostrophes), which is a sign of AI-generated content. If your article was AI-generated, it may not be accepted at AFC; if it was AI-generated, please rewrite it in your own (human) words. Thank you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears you have created it as a draft at Draft:Alisa Lozhkina now. Please click on the "submit draft for review" button there instead to request review for publishing. Raladic (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

An Pongsun should be changed into Ahn Bong-Soon. Please change it. 칼빈500 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSPM for the instructions on opening a requested move discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to request an article be moved from my user space to public space (from User:Logan06767 (User:Logan06767 - Wikipedia) to 'India May'. This article is about an American politician running for state office in Iowa. Logan06767 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now.

Hi Logan06767 and welcome to Wikipedia :)

I recommend you move the page to your WP:SANDBOX while you're working on it.

Also, we will need reliable sources supporting the content before we can move the article into the article space.

I recommend you review some of our WP:Getting started and WP:A primer for newcomers#On building an article to help you familiarize yourself with our guidelines on writing a great article for Wikipedia :) You are also welcome to go to the WP:TEAHOUSE if you should have any further questions. Raladic (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I moved the page to User:Logan06767/sandbox - Wikipedia and added cited sources! Is there anything else that would be needed before moving this article to the public space? Logan06767 (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for adding some sources to your draft. I took a closer look and if we move the article to the article space right now, it will likely be nominated for deletion as it doesn't have much content and sources in the article yet. I took a closer look at the sources available discussing her and believe that she passes the WP:GNG criteria as there is enough significant coverage beyond the townhall event, but some of that content and the sources should ideally be in the article before its published to the article space.

You could either continue to develop the article yourself in your User:Logan06767/sandbox, or, if you'd like, we could help move it to our WP:DRAFTS space where other editors may also come across the draft and help with improving it to get it ready for the article space.

Since I took a closer look, I also have a list of sources that can help with improving the article and might help out a bit myself when/if I get a moment. I'll drop the sources into the talk page associated with your sandbox draft for now.

I just wanted to ask you first before moving it to the draft space. Let me know what you think. Raladic (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I added some more sources to the article. Do you think there's anything else that would be needed before moving to the public space? Logan06767 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Users might request RMs from mainspace to draftspace per WP:DRAFTIFY, but I think these RMs are unnecessary. This is what users should do instead:

• Confirmed users: must move the page themselves
• Non-confirmed users: should instead request a page in the mainspace to be move to draftspace at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation (example below).

== Please draftify the page [[X]] ==
I am requesting the page to be moved to [[Draft:X]] per [[WP:DRAFTIFY]] because <enter your reason here>. --~~~~

--2600:1700:6180:6290:F81A:8E6B:F671:5152 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are trying to achieve here, but I believe the existing processes are fine. Articles are mainly draftified as a result of a premature move/public into main space when the article gets reviewed by WP:NPP, or resulting outcome of an AfD discussion in cases like WP:TOOSOON where someone requests WP:ATD-I and a reasonable case is made for future possibility of the article.

It is rather more rare that someone requests a main space article to move to draft by way of RM and while yes, confirmed users can technically do so (unless an article exists at the draft name already), it does also require additional cleanup such as not leaving a redirect behind, which is why in such cases requesting at WP:RM/TR can be preferred since admins and page movers are a) more familiar with the exact details around page moves and cleanups, and b) can do the move without leaving a redirect, so there is less cleanup required, which is often preferred. Raladic (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Wrong venue for arguing for this. You have better luck soliciting ideas/proposals at WP:Village pump rather than here since in this case, the main guidelines you are targeting is WP:DRAFTIFY which the WP:RM venue is just one of the many possible avenues to faciliate dratification per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, i.e. to be used as a discussion tool after the original author objects to draftification. Most would prefer to use AfD as the venue, but the setup for Requested Move may suffice as a 'suitable venue', given that the discussion is held on the talk page of the article and similar notifications and banners are put up as well. – robertsky (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The current instructions state:

• If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.

In the past couple of days I've seen a technical request moved out of the "undiscussed moves" section and the "requires administrative assistance" section. The instructions call out "uncontroversial technical requests section" as being the only one that one can object to.

I can understand the need for editors to be able to object to "uncontroversial technical requests". I cannot fathom implementing a system for objecting to administrative requests (because surely an administrator would look into a bit more before performing the move, as the only reason to request an administrative move is if the page is move protected), and likewise, why reverting an "undiscussed move" would be something one could object to (after all, you're reverting a move that was not discussed).

Is there a consensus to change this to all technical requests which seems to be the impression editors here are being left with? Or is objection explicitly limited to "uncontroversial technical requests" as the instructions currently state? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Remove "uncontroversial" from the instructions, per above. The text should read: "If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request ..." 162 etc. (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, so just to be clear here, if we go down this path, I'm going to ignore WP:RM/TR going forward and simply plead my case directly to any admin I think I can convince for what should be simple technical requests, as this page has devolved into unnecessary bureaucracy instead of something actually useful. Having an administrator revert a recent undiscussed move on a move protected page (administrative moves) or a page mover revert an undiscussed move (recent or not, per WP:SILENTCONSENSUS) should not be fraught with uncertainty as they are (apparently) now.

I can completely understand the ability to object to "uncontroversial technical requests" as it's possible someone sees a request and is aware of WP:NC that would be applicable. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you cite some examples of "reverting undiscussed moves" which have been unnecessarily burdened down with bureaucracy? I think the vast majority of cases these reverts are handled promptly (such that they are rarely seen on the TR board because they are handled so quickly), leaving just some of the more complex cases left open for discussion. I can think of a small handful of cases where a speedy revert wasn't actually the best course of action for various nuanced reasons -- but I should say those should be the extreme exception. TiggerJay (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you cite some examples of "reverting undiscussed moves" which have been unnecessarily burdened down with bureaucracy? Yeah, the Draft Avatar 5 move back to it's original location, and the high school shooting one that is currently back in "contested" even though these instructions say (currently) only to move discussions that are listed under "uncontroversial technical requests", not "revert undiscussed moves" or "requires administrative assistance". —Locke Cole • t • c 21:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Perry High School shooting was correctly contested because the bold move from 18 months and 300 edits ago is stable for purposes of WP:TITLECHANGES policy (particularly "If significant changes have been made after a move, several months may be considered "stable".). Bold moves that have become stable aren't summarily reverted. See also the RM instructions at WP:RMUM ("If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, ..."). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things: 1) This move is certainly not controversial. And 2) the "good reason" is to follow the naming convention agreed upon by the community at WP:NCWWW. This is hardly a "bold move" as it's simply restoring the year to the title as it originally had. Regardless of what WP:TITLECHANGES says, WP:LOCALCON is a thing, as is WP:WEAKSILENCE. As I've said at the bureaucratic RM that was unnecessarily opened, I will never use WP:RM/TR ever again. I will plead my case to an admin directly, or utilize {{db-move}} to circumvent this nightmarish hellscape. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Now that User:Locke Cole has finished crashing out, is everyone else in agreement that the text should be changed as proposed above? 162 etc. (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't tempt me to run this whole process through WP:MFD. Also, your WP:ILIKEIT !vote above would need to actually have a reason for the change, which it presently lacks. So besides the fact that you guys ignore the process your own instructions set out, why should the text be changed? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I support striking the "uncontroversial" term from the instructions as proposed. However, while we're on the topic, because this comes up every once in a while, just because a question is asked in the "uncontroversial section" does not mean that it is necessarily contested until the request for clarifying information is provided. TiggerJay (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The current text is fine as it is. In general, requests to revert undiscussed moves should not be contested. There are rare cases where requests don't belong in that section, but those can be questioned without moving to another section. However, most requests in that section are legitimate, and we should not be countenancing routine contesting of reversions of undiscussed moves. Station1 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" subsection is now above the "Contested technical requests" subsection. It used to be below that section. I don't know when that changed, but it should probably be put back in that order to avoid people routinely contesting reversion requests. Station1 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Station1 It took a lot of digging (because the main page is edited directly for entries; maybe RM/TR should use sub-pages for the individual types of requests to limit the main page edit history to actual functional changes?), but the positions were rearranged here with an edit summary of Clear requests (none remaining) by Silikonz (talk · contribs). It's unclear if this was discussed anywhere, or if it would have changed anything about my experience, but just putting it out there for anyone curious. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

maybe RM/TR should use sub-pages for the individual types of requests to limit the main page edit history to actual functional changes? - no, clerking on RM/TR regularly requires moving things from one section to another and if it were multiple pages, we would just create a lot more edits than necessary as well as making the tooling a lot harder since it will have to make changes to multiple pages at the same time which can cause more race conditions, which is problematic. Raladic (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That change was made in 2023 two years ago. That very much means silent consensus found the change in section orders not to be a problem. In fact, moving the administrator needed section down to the bottom, and moving the contested section just above it was definitely helpful because most users coming to the page want to either request uncontroversial move or asking for undo of a recent undiscussed move.

Most average users don’t know when an administrator is needed and it’s mostly up to the clerks to determine if that’s the case, by analyzing the page histories when requests are made, and if they determine that a history merge is needed then they move it from the uncontested section to the admin section.

Similarly some users come here asking for an undiscussed move revert, but unless it fits the criteria, it does happen every now and then that such a request can’t be fulfilled because it doesn’t and in such cases clerks, will also move it to the contested section to let the filer know and to recommend a formal RM, or in some cases may just open the RM directly on behalf of the request if that’s the clear thing to do. Raladic (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That change was made in 2023 two years ago. That very much means silent consensus found the change in section orders not to be a problem. It was made two years ago, with an edit summary that gave no indication of the change, and other than WP:WEAKSILENCE, it has no implied consensus that a discussion here or a WP:BOLD change couldn't undo. some users come here asking for an undiscussed move revert, but unless it fits the criteria, it does happen every now and then that such a request can’t be fulfilled because it doesn’t and in such cases clerks, will also move it to the contested section The current instructions do not allow this, and "clerks" who choose to do this are not very good at following instructions. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Locke Cole, adding a comment that I initially indeed made a WP:BOLD change to switch heading placement due to many users placing requests directly in either contested or Administrator required sections in this revision. That edit summary was likely just a side effect of using the Clear requests button, which relies on a static revision.

There was a brief discussion here, but if this seems to be an issue there should be more conversation regarding this for sure. Silikonz💬 17:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It makes more sense for the order to be technical request, contested technical request, requests to revert, admin needed. That's because a request to revert is itself a contesting of a controversial move, the only difference being the contested move is a fait accompli as opposed to a move being caught and challenged before it can be carried out. Of course, someone can purposely or mistakenly put a request in the wrong section, and those can be corrected, but generally requests for reversion should be carried out and then challenged by means of a RM. Station1 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. The point of the page is for editors who cannot execute a move themself to be able to request assistance to do so.

For that, they will (usually) need either:

1. Uncontroversial technical requests, or
2. Requests to revert undiscussed moves

A user coming to the page to request assistance will never place a new request directly into the "Contested technical request" section, so it makes sense that it comes below.

In some rare cases, an admin may be needed, but most editors do not know the full details of when an Admin is needed (which is why we have a note there), so I think having that at the end makes sense. I could *maybe see the argument of the admin section being #3, but I don't thing #1 & #2 should logically be anything other than the two sections most likely sought for requests. Raladic (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added the link to WP:RMUM to the request section itself and added a separate bullet to the instructions at the top of WP:RMTR for such cases to make it clear that prior to requesting a technical reversion of an undiscussed move, the filer should review the guidelines (which in turn are based on AT policy). I also added a note that in some cases, clerks may determine that the criteria isn’t satisfied (such as requesting a reversion of a undiscussed move that has been stable and thus may not be uncontroversial anymore and should go through a formal RM).

The instructions at the top of the page are written for users that can’t move a page themself due to technical limitations to come and seek help on how to do so. It never mean those help-guide type instructions, which are meant for users seeking help, override the criteria of RM/RMUM reversion which in turn are based on the article titling policy of WP:TITLECHANGES, which is what RMUM is derived from and which the help-instructions at the top of RM/TR are derived from. So I’ve added the clarifying note that should help clear up any future misunderstandings and brings them in line under WP:POLCON. Raladic (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES is dealing with controversial titles. If one is reverting an undiscussed move, it was likely not controversial, and likewise, moving it back would not be controversial. Conferring protection to a title simply because it hasn't been undone is flatly against WP:CON and WP:BOLD. Now would boldly moving a page back after a year be subject to WP:BRD? No, I'd think not after such a long time. But that's the process the community has agreed upon, not conferring special privileges to edits simply because nobody has changed them in a long time. See WP:WEAKSILENCE, which is linked from WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. You're basically putting your thumb on the scale here and saying other editors can't edit something if it's been in place for a long time. Last time I checked, WP:RM/TR wasn't a shortcut for Wikipedia:Requested moves/Requests for Controversy. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Well your own example above of the high school shooting shows how clearly reverting that undiscussed move is in fact controversial as the Talk:Perry High School shooting#Requested move 3 August 2025 is showing, so the person that moved it to contested was appropriately interpreting the information at hand that it would require more conversation by the community to check if the silent consensus is also supported by explicit consensus or not.

What I summarized above is the practical aspect of experienced editors clerking RMTR are using their good judgement as we are WP:NOTBURO and sometimes what is written isn’t precisely how things work in practice and then we revise and update things so that our guidelines do reflect the community consensus when someone notices. Which just like content also sometimes happens by someone simply updating something that was ambiguous to create more clarity for the future, and sometimes it requires more formal discussions or even project wide RfCs. Raladic (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Well your own example above of the high school shooting shows how clearly reverting that undiscussed move is in fact controversial as the Talk:Perry High School shooting#Requested move 3 August 2025 is showing Translation: the drama we started is actually taking shape nicely, if the page had simply been moved, we would have missed out on some quality drama and arguing about guidelines/policies.

Again, a silent consensus has no greater weight nor meaning than someone undoing that silent consensus. But you artificially generated controversy because... y'all are bored? Need something to whittle away the hours? There's certainly no good reason to treat me any differently than someone who did the exact same thing a year ago. Now, had I been trying to RMUM a move that was performed because of an RM or an RFC or because of a larger community discussion? Absolutely, that's something that should be addressed prior to a move. But trying to create controversy where none existed is why I'll never use WP:RM/TR again.

Putting a year in front of an WP:NCWWW article title is not any more controversial than removing the year. If anything, removing the year without the historical perspective WP:NOYEAR talks about is the real issue here. But nobody contested that move and undoing it is apparently something that requires community-wide input. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Putting a year in front of an WP:NCWWW article title is not any more controversial than removing the year. - It may not be any more controversial but, List of school shootings in the United States (2000–present) shows pretty clearly that whether a shooting has a year or not is about 50/50. So really, it probably is that most (or all?) move of school shootings are controversial to begin with.

Also note that WP:SHOOTINGS is linked at the top of NCWWW for the nuance of violence and deaths, so I think you may actually want to create a guideline discussion at VP of whether there should be an actual explicit flow chart guideline for school shootings, given that they are sadly not that uncommon. Raladic (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Sigh... not every event listed at that page is a) just a school shooting (some were in a community that included a school), and b) just because the link text doesn't include the year, I found examples where the article was at a name that started with the year.

Again, you lot are assuming controversy and in fact creating controversy when you should be just moving the articles. If someone objects, they can be undone and either an RM can be started or maybe the matter will just stop there. Assuming that every attempt to move an article is controversial is just creating unnecessary drama. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:RMT is for uncontroversial technical requests. Anything that is in any way subject to interpretation (such as the Perry High School shooting article's title, to name one example) should go directly to WP:RSPM per WP:PCM.

Nobody is creating controversy. You're just trying to use WP:RMT for something it's not intended for. 162 etc. (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I didn't use RMT, I used RMUM. As to the rest, as your premise was flawed so was everything else you said. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

At the moment at RM/TR, I see a lot of removals before the bot gets to them, either for being contested (around 1-2 days before the bot would remove it) or a RM being opened for that move. Should the timing for removing contested requests be changed, or a change made to remove requests with open RMs? As a reminder, the bot will only remove contested requests after 3 days of inactivity. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I never knew the bot existed, excellent work -- is it documented in any of the WP:RM docs/instruction pages? I think the removing completed closes is something the closing editor should normally handle themselves in real time to avoid other editors from looking into an already completed request -- but it's good to have a bot there just in case, or for situations where it is moved outside of the knowledge of the RMTR volunteers. However, as for the removing stale conversations, I've always viewed it as (1) 48 hours of inactivity, so would support a decrease of your bot thresholds to that number; (2) if the nom replies in a way that indicates there is no further discussion to be had (withdrawn or BITS, etc) then those can close even sooner, but I would not expect a bot to understand that nuance. With regards to the frequency at which it runs, I'm not familiar with the implications of running more frequently, but I would support a more frequent (hourly) mop -- again with no understanding of the technical or procedural implications of such a suggestion. TiggerJay (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC) (ce: added the word "not" to the phrase "would not expect a bot to understand". Not sure why I omited that word, but I hope everyone likely figured out the meaning already, added for clarity and reduce confusion. TiggerJay (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC))

I don't think it is documented anywhere in the RM pages, I'll try and update that. On frequency, I changed it from hourly to 12 hour intervals because of a suggestion in the BRFA by Robertsky. I don't think RM/TR is active enough where the bot would be required hourly (currently it edits the page once every 2-7 days since it didn't need to do anything on its runs, though that could be to the issues above). Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the bot being at 3 days is fine. It means it’s not overly aggressive and gives users a bit of time to respond or one of the clerks deciding between opening an RM and n their behalf or just removing it as contested or leaving it alone, in which case the bot will do its magic a bit thereafter.

A good recent example I can think of was the this request regarding Laser boats. I waited for about two days, but sans response then opened a Talk:Laser (dinghy)#Requested move 6 August 2025 on the editors behalf for all 4 RMTR requests since their question of the move was reasonable, but required more consensus.

While knowing that the RM would probably be a no for the time being due to COMMONNAME, but that was for the community to argue with more time/input in a formal RM, whereas for us clerking RMTR we decide on the merit of a request being uncontroversial and if so, execute it for the users and doing the necessary cleanups, or if we have a hunch its controversial due to the various policy reasons, we move it to contested, explaining to the user why their request doesn’t fit as an uncontroversial request.

If the bot was more aggressive, then it would likely remove such cases prematurely. So I think the 3 day inactivity setup is just about right, I don’t think it should be any less than that. Raladic (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

For reference, TenshiBot's configuration is based on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 35#Bot to clerk RM/TR from Q1 2024. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Good information, it does sound like 72 was consensus at that time and don't oppose it. TiggerJay (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have tried to move a page, and tried to follow the directions on this page, but I don't have permissions to even edit and add my move request.

Please add an item to the end of the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section: Use the "subst:RMassist" template with the following parameters:

Harris Williams & Co.

Harris Williams

reason=The destination page is currently a redirect back to the page to be moved. The official company name changed several years ago. Codepounder (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The page you need to edit for such a request is at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests which is not protected. Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Tenshi!. I'm new to this and must have been on the wrong page after looking around a lot. Can this talk discussion just be removed since it doesn't really apply here? Codepounder (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 has now been closed and includes the authorization of contentious topic restrictions (when needed) related to move requests and move reviews. For editors active in move requests, it may be helpful to review the case. Dekimasuよ! 06:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! There's a move request as Talk:Situational leadership theory that's been open for over a month with no responses. Could someone please take a look? Thank you! Jk tilley (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The move request was not properly formatted as an RM using our template, so it was not so published in our listings. I fixed the template substitution for the user now and removed a WP:COI edit from the article. Raladic (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I have a biography page at User:FineLine2025/Ian_Henderson. I would like it moved to the main space as Ian Henderson (fine artist). Thank you for your help. FineLine2025 (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the right place for your request. I will leave some advice on your talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Is someone able to assist. Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations has renamed to become Cambridge OCR, effective 8 September 2025. The page title and logo needs updating Dayant101 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations

Hello, I have drafted an article on Dots.eco in my sandbox and would like to move it to Draft:Dots.eco for review, but I do not yet have permission to move pages. Could an editor please help me move it? Thank you! EcoJavier (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:AFC. 162 etc. (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Please move my sandbox page User:Rjnithin/sandbox to a new article titled புனித ஜான் போஸ்கோ ஆலயம், கவுண்டம்பாளையம், கோவை மறைமாவட்டம் (*St. John Bosco Church, Kavundampalayam*). Tamil titles are blocked for regular users, so I request an administrator or page mover to assist. Thank you. — Rjnithin (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Articles on the English Wikipedia should be written in English, so this page is not ready for the article namespace. In addition, this talk page is not the place to request moves. Instructions for requesting a move, including technical requests, are shown on the main page. Dekimasuよ! 08:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the above move wasn't done quite right, the redirect Jean-Yves Thériault (kickboxer) now has the article history and talk page of the musician and Jean-Yves Thériault (musician) has no history and no talk page since it was created from scratch. Should I tag Jean-Yves Thériault (kickboxer) with History merge but does that also move the talk page? Mika1h (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: 162 etc. (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

To editors Mika1h and 162 etc.: I responded on my talk page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The way we organize this process seems to encourage people to think of every discussion that has laster longer than a week as something that needs closing, something that backlogs us. Something that is bad, something that impedes us. We also seem to try to encourage expedience by having Wikipedia:Simple RM closing instructions in addition to the normal ones.

At the same time, we have WP:RM/TR for a lot of the simple stuff anyway. In cases where a WP:RM process is started out of caution, and the discussion is not actually contentious, expedience is fine, and we should just use WP:SNOW to expedite things further.

The problem I see with this is when sometimes interesting discussions are started that aren't exactly simple, and closing them isn't simple at all. Few people attend, and there's disagreement, making it less clear what the real consensus may be.

I encounter this with disambiguation/navigation-related page moves in particular. We discuss not just the name of an article for a single topic, but how to organize things with multiple topics in mind. We don't act upon a recent concern, but examine the overall history of topics. A week isn't a long time compared to the all-time history of encyclopedia topics.

In general, the more information we have about the issue, the longer it takes for a new volunteer to get onboarded into the discussion. The more complex the discussion matter is, the more likely it is that a new volunteer browsing the list of things to do will say "okay, this one is too much for me, maybe later".

In fact, you may be thinking the same thing right now about this missive. And rightfully so! :)

We already know that readers outnumber editors by orders of magnitude. If we don't treat a complex discussion with care, we end up with poorly attended discussions, closed in a poorly documented manner. There's no guarantee that we've captured the actual real-world consensus that would benefit readers (WP:RF). There's no guarantee that we've captured the consensus of the preponderance of editors, even.

In fact the current RM closing instructions do make a note of quorum issues: Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community [...] - but the next step is basically telling the closer they need to go... become familiar with all the relevant guidelines and policies, with everything. That just seems unrealistic. Even if you get closers to diligently familiarize themselves with everything, there's no practical verification, other than trial and error. This seems like an effective way to frustrate people :) I think it actually increases the risk of WP:Supervotes, especially combined with no requirement of elaborating rationales.

And once a discussion is closed, it can feel like we've closed the door on talking with one another. This of course doesn't have to be real, but even creating such an impression is unhelpful for the goal of building consensus through discussion (WP:CONS) in the future. Editors are inherently discouraged from restarting discussions later, because it feels like you're flogging a dead horse from the get-go.

I looked up the history of this matter, and found:

• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 1#How long should we wait before doing a move? - twenty years ago, there wasn't exactly a clear consensus on how long this period should be
• Wikipedia:Is disambiguation simple? - ten years ago, someone wrote an entire essay about how disambiguation rules go for more than eighty pages and are a nightmare

I think this is a reality we need to acknowledge more explicitly, in order to get closers in a better mindset.

• We should encourage volunteers to assess consensus, but make sure that there is no expectation of rushing in contentious cases.
• We bold the statement "No minimum participation is required", and this seems to primarily encourage acting in no-objection cases, but it may plant the seed of not caring too much for how few people attend in general.
• The "Write a clear, concise closing statement" section focuses on the output statement, but doesn't seem to clearly encourage closers to explain their rationale in complex cases.
• The same section says: While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change) [...]. This is sort of a negative reinterpretation of the WP:Consensus can change section of that policy. This sort of a thing is like a subtle derogation of policy by an explanatory essay.
• Speaking of which, how is this still marked as an explanatory essay, if it's really meant as a procedural policy?
• The Step-by-step closing procedure has a table where the green column defaults to the simple case of terse results, and underneath it says If additional explanation is provided as to why you have closed the move discussion as a certain result, [...] - this should perhaps just say "When ..." to encourage this more

Overall, we have bot considerations documented in more detail than we do about what do with disambiguation-related closures. Maybe a subsection on disambiguation should be added, explaining to closers how to assess whether the WP:DPT guideline was followed. For example, often times we have people making assertions about usage statistics or about significance, but they don't cite their sources. In complex discussions, closers should be encouraged to require a modicum of proof that people base their opinions on facts, that the discussion wasn't all just claptrap. Probably a reference to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages would be good, with a summary of what are the most common of those pitfalls in move discussions.

TIA. --Joy (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I've just returned to a bit of Wikipedia work after a few years, and want to confirm if I've performed this close correctly: Talk:Bongo Rock (instrumental)#Requested move 4 November 2025.

The result of the RM was moved per WP:NOPRIMARY and WP:NCSONG. I moved Bongo Rock to Bongo Rock (instrumental) and suppressed the redirect, then created a new page at Bongo Rock as a disambiguation. I've then added a hatnote on both Bongo Rock (instrumental) and Bongo Rock (album) referring to each other.

Was this the correct process for this move, and is there anything I've potentially missed? I fear I may have forgotten some guidelines over the last few years and I just want to confirm I've done everything right as I step back into this space. Thanks! echidnalives - talk - edits 10:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi echidnaLives, sorry no-one got back to you sooner. When disambiguating a primary topic, you also ned to re-target the incoming links per WP:POSTMOVE#Cleaning up after a change in topic structure, as the move has created disambiguation links (Bongo Rock) in articles. You can do this with Move+ at the page, or using disambiguation assist tool. Some closers like to also create the associated redirect, in this case Bongo Rock (disambiguation), which has already been done by Paine Ellsworth. If there's one thing most closers always forget it's some bit of post move cleanup (half the time I find), so it's worth double checking these parts. Regards, CNC (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I completely forgot about that! I've just used DisamAssist to fix all the links, and I'll keep it in mind for future moves. echidnalives - talk - edits 03:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, have fun out there! CNC (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

There is now a separate section for UK Parliament constituency articles due to the many necessary requests from User: Jean-de-Nivelle to clean up a plethora of articles in that topic area. This has been going on for a while with Jean-de-Nivelle needing to making dozens and possibly hundreds of requests to the point of needing their own section. And then we tackle them when we get to them. And since we do them with no controversy, that indicates consensus that Jean-de-Nivelle is an authority on this matter. PROPOSAL: If there are still many dozens of these left, let's give Jean-de-Nivelle the Page Mover authority to it themselves with a little tutorial on how the procedure works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fine by me, if it has the consensus of the community. I've finished most of the current constituencies, but there are still many former constituencies to work through. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the Twinkle feature to add requests is automatically adding requests to that section instead of the main one? I'm not sure as I don't think I can test it. Z E T A^C 19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That's correct. Since the subheading was created, relevant requests I submit via Twinkle are automatically placed below it. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle Could you please file a request for page mover at WP:PERM/PM? Toadspike [Talk] 19:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I've taken a look and granted you the permission. Toadspike [Talk] 20:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just about to file the request. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that at some point Template:RMassist/preload substitution was messed up (see here). The substituted code should be cleaned up and in several places like Talk:Appling v. Walker#Requested move the discussion should be closed with {{RM top}} (probably just on technical grounds). Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I removed these misplaced technical requests from 14 talk pages including Talk:Appling v. Walker. These all dated from 2014, between 19 May 2014 when I created {{RMassist/preload}}, and 26 August 2014, when I added an error message to {{RMassist}}. There are still 5 lingering on talk pages but they're not really causing any trouble. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, found{{old move}}

When you are posting a {{Requested move}} it can be very helpful to first do page preview, before posting your edit. This can help you find many silly errors.

But the project page doesn't give this hint, especially to users unaccustomed to the RP procedure, maybe trying to post their first {{Requested move}} template.

It would be very helpful if you inserted a step to ask for a preview before posting your RM. Both to WP:RSPM and WP:RMPM. Anyway, that's a thought. CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I've had it with the nonsensical nominations that have been clogging up WP:RM this week and am reverting on sight. Hopefully this is a fad that won't last much longer. 162 etc. (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Stop removing the move request at FIFA World Cup 2026 for no reason, the user 162 etc. should be blocked. ~2025-38573-90 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The RMs are from the same IP, different temporary accounts. Not a fad, just one person. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I've reported this one to WP:AIV, and urge other editors to do the same when this behaviour is observed. 162 etc. (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that an RM can be closed at earliest 7 days after it is opened. When an RM is opened, even non-logged in accounts see a large banner at the top of the article. This is disruptive and undermines the credibility and stability of Wikipedia. I propose one or both of the following changes:

1. The name change banner should only show up as an extra decoration for logged-in users, possibly even only for users who have the "show editor info about page" option enabled.

2. After an unsuccessful RM from A to B, any new RM from A to B during the next 180 days SHALL be automatically closed.

3. After a successful RM from A to B, any RM from B to A during the next 180 days SHALL be automatically closed.

This is inspired by eternal summer v3, Gen Alpha. Jimmy (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how a proposed name change undermines credibility. Wikipedia operates transparently as a work in progress and invites input. —Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding 1: There are many constructive unregistered users and I have seen them participating in RMs before. Doing this would be excluding them outright. Additionally, regular readers are also encouraged to participate and share their opinions - many readers don't have accounts or are logged out. We should also be transparent about back-end processes like name changes since that's the point of a collaborative encyclopedia (and either way, the talk button is only one click away for anyone).

2 and 3: There are current events where their nature can change rapidly. These see high traffic and multiple back-and-forth RMs, and sometimes name changes get consensus to be moved only to be overriden due to a new update in the situation. This is the same for companies that do short-term name changes. What you're proposing only works for a subset of RMs, not all of them. HurricaneZeta^C 22:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that it undermines the credibility and stability of Wikipedia? There might be scope for modifying such banners. I oppose items #2 and #3 though. 180 days is far far too long for any kind of mandatory blanket rule like that, nevermind if another RM is proposing a different name to the previous RM. I should also note that an RM can be closed at earliest 7 days after it is opened isn't always true either, as per WP:RMEC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello all, good points.

Goal clarification

My intention in suggesting not showing the banner is not to exclude non-authenticated users, but rather to cause less visual or informational confusion to the casual browser who arrives on Wikipedia from search results.

I appreciate Wikipedia's contribution model and my goal is never to chill collaboration.

I base my actions as an individual actor on these principles:

• Increase or maintain collaboration
• Ease or maintain access to knowledge
• Decrease abuse and vandalism

Points that I concede

• RMs can be closed sooner than 7 days, I was under a different impression based on other help pages.
• 180 days is too long of a cooldown period for specific RMs, you have convinced me that information can in fact churn in shorter order than that.

Open questions

I will put more thought to the excellent counterpoints posed of:

1A. Does the banner in fact undermine Wikipedia's credibility? (In either case, is there a slice that we could isolate, where it causes more harm than good?)

2/3A. If there were to be a cooldown after successful or unsuccessful RMs, what should it be?

Jimmy (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

TenshiBot notifies requesters when removing stale contested requests from WP:RM/TR. I noticed that it hasn't been active there.

Should we consider having TenshiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) run this task more often? The original frequency comes from a combination of:

• consensus from a 2024 discussion, Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 35#Bot to clerk RM/TR
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TenshiBot#Discussion

Courtesy pinging bot operator Tenshi Hinanawi, so they are aware that I've asked this question here. If I should notify more people or move (heh) this discussion elsewhere, please feel free to let me know. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the rate of requests has changed, however there appears to be more removals of contested requests before the bot would remove+notify the user, even when discounting requests where an RM was opened. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing! Because I wasn't looking systematically, I did wonder if it was just me...so I haven't pinged anyone else yet, hahaha. Anyway, glad to know it's probably not just attention bias on my end or something. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I've left a note on the BRFA talk page pointing to this discussion if anyone's watchlisting that. Not sure where else should be notified as RM/TR's talk page is a redirect to here. That being said, it may be worth pinging people active at RM/TR because of that. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc., HurricaneZeta, 1isall, Vestrian24Bio, and Annh07: pinging those who have removed [someone else's] technical requests in the last fifty edits on RM/TR. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the status quo. The bot removal should be a last resort; if actual editors can resolve an issue first, that is a good thing. 162 etc. (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Given the bot can post a message on the requester's user talk, should the bot handle stale contested requests? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd stick to the status quo as well. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 19:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Same. With the quicker nature of RMTR I think it's better that the stale requests be removed ASAP as compared to when the bot runs. I can leave the template on the proposer's talk page when removing stale requests. The real problem may be that the bot is too slow compared to the humans there. HurricaneZeta^C 19:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Then should the bot go faster then, as asked in the initial question, and to what rate? The bot is supposed to remove stale requests with no response in 72 hours, but because of the frequency it runs, it might end up being 81 hours since the original request. An alternative might be to remove requests much earlier if a set time is already passed, or based on how many contested requests there are (similar to how another bot scales), etc. Maybe it can remove contested requests with open RMs?

For reference, bot runs every 12h, only removes contested requests 72 hours after the last response. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

"Then should the bot go faster (...)?"

No. 162 etc. (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer to this question at the Help Desk, and I hope that asking the same question in two places after the first one doesn't answer the question is not considered forum shopping. I am working with a group of users who want to change the name of an article, but there are two or three target names. My question is how to set up the Requested Move. Should I start multiple Requested Moves, one for each possible title, or is there a way to set up one Requested Move with multiple new names? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I don't think there's a built-in option in the template, but I have seen this being done by not specifying a target title and then in the body of the request specifying the target names (for example: Foo -> ? is the request, and the body specifies A) Foobar B) Bar) HurricaneZeta^C 22:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Since using the question mark (?) as a target title often leads to a train wreck, I would suggest trying to land on one highest and best possible title. Then the nomination can suggest other possible target titles, which can also be considered by editors. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I know we are not supposed to ask here, but I am unable to edit the Requested moves page, so I do not know where else to ask for a technical move. This page should be moved to Explorer (video game), can anyone help please?

• Template:RMassist must be used on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. ~2026-75481-1 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-75481-1 Since you're not autoconfirmed, you should go through the WP:AFC process for this article. WP:RMTR is the correct place to ask for this, by the way. HurricaneZeta^C 16:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I see that I can edit there once a temporary account is created, I was looking at it before I made my first edit. Thanks! ~2026-75481-1 (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:RM has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone please add the template {{R mentioned in hatnote}} below the redirect category shell so this redirect can be properly categorised? Qwerty123M (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Qwerty123M (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)