Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

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

Concerning numerous page moves

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)

RMTR edit notice update

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)

Relisting

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)

Something you don't see everyday!

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)

Proposed revision to WP:NOTOTHERPAGES

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)