Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:RM

NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.

On 3 June 2007, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves to Wikipedia:Proposed moves. The result of the discussion was no consensus, not moved.

On 5 February 2018, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves to Wikipedia:Proposed moves. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"

Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

Archives

Administrators' noticeboard/Move requests (2005)
For why RM was created, see:
- requested moves -- policy change?

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

Script to close RMs

Hi. Some of you might be aware of User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser, a script I took over maintaining that simplifies closing discussions. I have added an option for "Requested move" that will use {{RMT}} and {{RMB}} as well as automatically removing the requested move templates. You still have to remember to add {{nac}} or {{RMpmc}} yourself, but I hope the script is useful. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No more discuss link on technical requests

I have removed the discuss link in Template:RMassist/core per Dicklyon's opinion in Special:PermanentLink/903320542#ANI notice. This means that requests at WP:RM/TR do not have a discuss link anymore. From now on, it is the original requester's responsibility to start their own move discussion on the talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeoffreyT2000 Huh? On what consensus have you done this? Where was the discussion? Listing a technical request for discussion is one of the most common actions resulting from a technical request. Please revert this. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be restored in addition the text "This is a contested technical request (permalink)" comes up so users can see that the request was originally posted at RMT. This link is definitely useful and doesn't IMO incorrectly show where it was originally posted due to the permalink. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored the discuss link. This also means that I do not have to send Template:RMassist/editintro and Template:RMassist/preload to WP:TFD for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the cases where people don't want their name on the move request they can just withdraw or oppose or whatever. — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RMassist/core has a |discuss=no parameter anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Listing a technical request for discussion is one of the most common actions resulting from a technical request" is what I would prefer to see changed. When a TR is declined, it would often be better to let the OP post a better rationale, construct a more complete multiple RM, or withdraw, at their option. Sam Sailor suggested an RFC here, but I want to get a quick reaction before considering that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For background, see Template talk:RMassist § Why WP:Requested moves/Technical requests is on a sub-page. This feature was implemented in May 2014 upon the request of EdJohnston. Both Ed and Anthony Appleyard used to basically manually do what this template does, before I implemented the discuss link. The |discuss=no parameter was implemented in March 2015 after another editor made a similar objection to the one I see here. See the earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 27 § Automated mishandling of a request. It was my hope that admins would honor |discuss=no when used, but there is no guarantee of that. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoffreyT2000, Amakuru, Crouch, Swale, and Wbm1058: Keep the discuss link. Very often a move request entered in uncontroversial mode proves to be controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That section ended with "The question is whether conversions should be opt-out or opt-in by default, and I'm preparing to have a request for comments to settle that issue." I don't know if that happened. Anyway, the option remained unknown (to me at least); now that I know, I added the parameter to the template in the comments WP:RMTR, defaulting to discuss = yes as now but with a hint that it can be changed if desired. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, I don't recall starting that discussion; I juggle a lot of balls, and that may be one I dropped, likely because I was feeling strong support for the status quo from the admins working this beat. I found this related discussion in my talk archives. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Military campaigns

There seems to be a desire to rename "Military Campaign" to "Military campaign". This is clearly a controversial issue see for example:

so WP:RM#CM should be used and the should not be carried out as as technical moves or ever just moved via the tabl at the top of an article.

Also the moves are being proposed per MOS:CAPS, but MOS:CAPS has nothing to do with it as that is not a guideline for article titles policy (AT) (the guidance on this issue for article titles is in the AT section "Article title format" (link via WP:LOWERCASE). The lead in that section states "The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles" and the first sub section "Use sentence case"

As this is a controversial issue, then if "Military Campaign" to "Military campaign" article titles are to be changed, then:

The proposer needs to establish that the is descriptive title and not a name.
If it is a name then the proposer needs to establish what is commonly used in reliable secondary sources.

To do this with the least disruption a WP:RM#CM is needed. -- PBS (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Dicklyon Why are you still using the request technical moves for campaigns when you know that other requests have been contented and as such such requests are controversial? eg

-- PBS (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Anthony Appleyard, user:DannyS712 I am disappointed that you have been moving campaign articles without the usual contested WP:RM. The point of non-contested technical RM was set up for things like obvious spelling mistakes and the like which might affect the ability of a reader to find an article. It was never intended to be a way to bypass controversial moves such as adding or removing accent marks, or capitalisation etc (neither of which nowadays prevent readers ability to search for an artilce). Please revert the moves to campaigns articles that you have made and let user:Dicklyon put in a WP:RM#CM because a seven day delay while editors asses the evidence on whether to move the article does not harm to the project. -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: I have no objections to the moves I made being reverted. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS and DannyS712: Which moves do you want me to revert? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, your objection in the past was that I invoked MOS:CAPS instead of title policy. You have not commented at the one where discussion was started (Talk:Waterloo_Campaign#Requested_move_18_July_2019). All previous such discussions closed in favor of the move, which follows sources, policy, and guidelines. Nobody has been able to point out a single such move that might be wrong (if they have, please show me). Why do you want to keep re-litigating where there's a clear consensus? Dicklyon (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the instructions have always said "For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves." These are routine fixes to titles that were over-capitalized, contrary to WP:LOWERCASE; on the numerous ones that have been discussed, as well as the undiscussed ones, nobody has presented a reason to treat any of these as proper names; instead, they just say "looks better capitalized", or claim "it's a proper name" without refuting the evidence that sources routinely use lowercase. Do you have anything new to add to those discussions? Maybe starting at the open one where you've been pinged? Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you're pissing me off by this kind of out-of-process complaint instead of engaging in the discussions that you insist on having. If you think there's a chance of changing the longstanding consensus about not capping title except for proper names, this is not the place. If you think these are proper names, this is not the place. Come to the RM discussion or let the process work without your speedbumps. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS and Anthony Appleyard: Here's a proposal for how to proceed. PBS, you make a constructive comment at the one that already went to discussion, as a show of good faith; so far you have not said whether you would support or oppose, or whether you would even consider it controversial in light of the evidence: Talk:Waterloo_Campaign#Requested_move_18_July_2019. Then, you choose a few recent tech moves that you consider to be wrong or that have some reason to be considered controversial, and list them here and say why you think they were wrong or controversial. Anthony, please go ahead and revert when he does, and I will open RM discussions or a multi if similar items. But I don't want to go that way unless someone will point out a reason that all the recent consensus-affirming RM discussions were not enough. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second relisting request

Please could an uninvolved editor consider relisting the discussion at Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#Requested_move_15_June_2019. The reasons for it justifying a second relisting are: (1) the scope of the discussion was completely overhauled; (2) the topic is complex, has been going for 10 years, and needs more input to reach consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couple new shortcuts for "Relisting a requested move", etc.?

Hi, wondering if an editor experienced in this area can create suitable shortcuts for:

Cheers and thanks for considering, Facts707 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I created WP:RMRELIST and WP:RELISTRM to redirect to Relisting a requested move
WP:RMCLOSE already exists and appropriately redirects to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions, but I made WP:CLOSERM do the same.
Created WP:RMCOMMENT and WP:COMMENTRM to redirect to Commenting on a requested move

--В²C ☎ 23:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to Children's Minnesota

Children's Hospital and Clinics of Minnesota changed its name to Children's Minnesota in 2015. I am not autoconfirmed and need help moving the page to Children's Minnesota. Thank you. Kim Kimberlywelch (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - this isn't the page to request moves, that is done by following the instructions at this page. That said, I've reviewed the request and the updated name is supported by sources, so this request has been

Done. Cheers. Steven Crossin 02:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, hope everything is fine.

I have created a page for Microsoft Kaizala app as Iwas impressed by its features that serve business communication effectively. However when I tried to move the page from my user sandbox into Wikipedia it could not be moved. The page prompted: The page could not be moved, for the following reason:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

So I request you to help me in moving the page with the name Microsoft Kaizala. Kindly suggest the steps on how to publish the page Microsoft Kaizala. Thanking you all. Nagsail (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point at the template, not at this page

When I tried to move a page to an existing title, I was directed to edit this page instead of told to use "subst:requested move" template in the article's own talk page. INstead of wasting editor's time, could the prompt be a little more accurate and point at the proper way to achive the move? Editors are disposable here, I know, but it would be a nice gesture. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]