Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"
Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

Missing points in the instructions on how to close a discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move from user space

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Missing parameter in some RMTR requests

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request to move draft

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Name changed

[edit]

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

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

Prohibit RMs from mainspace to draftspace

[edit]

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: 

== 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Objecting to technical requests

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&oldid=1304358707"