Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Administrators' noticeboard/Move requests (2005) For why RM was created, see: requested moves -- policy change? Archives by date Oct 2004–Jan 2005 Jan 2005–Feb 2005 Feb 2005–Mar 2005 Mar 2005–Aug 2005 Aug 2005–Dec 2005 Dec 2005–Jun 2006 Jun 2006–Sep 2006 Sep 2006–Feb 2007 Feb 2007–May 2007 May 2007–Nov 2007 Nov 2007–May 2008 Jun 2008–Oct 2008 Nov 2008–Jan 2009 Jan 2009 Jan 2009–Jun 2009 Jun 2009–Oct 2009 Oct 2009–Jun 2010 Jun 2010–Oct 2010 Oct 2010–Jan 2011 Jan 2011–Sep 2011 Sep 2011–Jan 2012 Jan 2012–Apr 2012 Apr 2012–Aug 2012 Aug 2012–Dec 2012 Dec 2012–Dec 2013 Dec 2013–Nov 2014 Nov 2014–Apr 2015 Apr 2015–Jun 2016 Jun 2016–May 2017 May 2017–Mar 2018 Mar 2018–May 2019 May 2019–Jun 2020 May 2020–Mar 2022 Mar 2022–Jan 2023 Jan 2023–

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

I feel like a lot of the requests that get contested fall into some extremely common PCM scenarios that are not detailed anywhere and are overall not intuitive to people unfamiliar with page move processes (a lot of RMTR requestors fall into this). The most common reasons for contests that I've seen after about a year of watching and processing requests are COMMONNAME over official name, company name changes and primary topic grabs. I feel like it would be worth throwing in PCM at least just those two because of how common they are. Wider input would be appreciated. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea to me! I wonder if it would also be useful to have an essay that catalogues common types of requests, and the policy questions that are likely to come into play for them, in more detail than would be feasible in WP:PCM itself. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough. The backlog is never-ending, especially with the NCROY-related discussions. Requesting for permission to close all outstanding discussions at the whims and fancy of the closers with no recourse at WP:MRV.^{[April Fools!]} – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you get a coin-flip AI to determine the outcome and write the close. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the result is...

no consensus?

– Hilst [talk] 12:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Challengers Bangalore needs closing; the discussion is a convincing support that is over 7 days old. It is a high volume page and has been move protected. The tournament they play in is happening right now, and its going to be odd for those readers to find the team with the wrong name. Desertarun (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun: You can request a closure at WP:CR, but the request should be neutral. SilverLocust 💬 21:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest to be aware that requested move discussions sometimes take a while – especially when there are significant differences of opinion and policy/guideline issues, as in the situation with that one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that WP:RMCD now lists a number of implied moves, as in "Fubar → Fubar (disambiguation) over redirect without leaving a redirect (implied), then WP:G14 delete if unnecessary". I see three problems with the way this is working:

• No move notice is getting put at the top of the "Fubar" page.
• Even though these are listed at WP:RMCD, they do not appear on the Talk page where the discussion is happening, thus lowering awareness of part of what is being suggested.
• It's a little dangerous to assume the nominator knows they are suggesting the implied move. Often, inexperienced editors just think "Everybody calls him Bill Smith, not William G. Smith, so I'll just suggest renaming the article to Bill Smith," without realizing there's a problem with that idea.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:RMCD is a page generated by RMCD bot, needless to say this was added by the bot's operator, @Wbm1058. He added that to the bot's listings after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 23#Deleted to make way for page move. (While his new method for handling these doesn't add an RM banner to the disambiguation page or show the implied move within the RM, the bot does add a notice in a new section on the disambiguation page's talk page.)

Before November, these RMs were being manually amended (example 1, 2) to explicitly state a destination for both pages (most frequently by @Paine Ellsworth; also by me and others) so that (1) both pages would have an RM banner and (2) it would be clear (for those who don't have color-coded dablinks enabled) that the proposed title is currently a disambiguation page.

I preferred to complete the requests just by indicating a second move to add "(disambiguation)" to the dabpage's title, but some users objected to that when moving the disambiguation page would make it unnecessary (WP:ONEOTHER), and instead wanted it to be stated as "→ Deleted to make way for page move" or similar.

(As Wbm1058 noted, the dabpage should still be moved even if it would then be deleted, and it's unnecessary for the RM to discuss deleting the dabpage, which can be handled via CSD or a PROD.) SilverLocust 💬 05:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions related to these matters, which continue to be an annoyance, are archived at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 33#Request all associated moves explicitly, Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 33#"Request all associated moves explicitly", and User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 2#Incomplete requests. We definitely do not want to literally, explicitly, move an article or a disambiguation page to an article titled Deleted to make way for page move. That's absurd. Deleted to make way for page move is not an encyclopedic topic. RM is for requesting page moves, not page deletions.

Further at the root of these issues is the 3 December 2019 addition of the new section §Make explicit all moves in the request, which declared all such requests "MALFORMED" and "likely to be summarily discarded", while this is a frequently-occurring scenario and what is requested is patently obvious in the majority of cases, even if not "explicitly declared". – wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per User talk:JuniperChill#Talk:Hamme#Requested move 10 April 2024 the closing editor says we can relist. Can someone in the know please assist, I don't want to break any bot workflow? --Joy (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]