Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RM)
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

Requested move 22 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Snowing. (closed by non-admin page mover) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Wikipedia:Requested title changes – title changes seems like a better name because we are requesting to change the name or title of the page. for example in this requested move the request is to change the TITLE to Wikipedia:Requested title changes so that is why title changes is a more appropriate name for this page. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

move closure reconsideration request

This isn't an RM, and the IPs are starting to get disruptive. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reconsider the move request above to change page title to Wikipedia:Requested title changes as it was closed too fast in less than a day as most move requests take more than a week for consensus. the instructions on top of the closed move say Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page but the talk page of the closer is extended confirmed protected so i am starting that discussion here on this talk page. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A move review is unlikely to be successful here, as this close is a textbook definition of one that would fall under the Wikipedia:Snowball clause. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahecht, for what it's worth, this IP has been repeatedly disruptive over the past month or so. They've reverted my snow close on Talk:Project 2025 twice over the same general concerns (closed too early), and they've been edit warring on Wikipedia:Sandbox of all places, leading Daniel Quinlan to block them. All that to say they've been on my nerves for a while now. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the IP is just a troll. A anyone would be justified in blocking them for a lot longer than 72 hours. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE and deserve zero consideration. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ip title changes is a better title than move 2600:381:C285:663C:10C3:8FE:8B17:2245 (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find everyone above too dismissive. While it's extremely unlikely for us to change what we call it now (and it'd take far more than one RM), "move" is indeed confusing terminology, and nobody unfamiliar with MediaWiki would understand what you mean if you used it without qualifying it. It requires you to conceptualize page names as spaces to occupy, even though there are effectively infinite combinations of eligible Unicode characters, while nobody would have trouble understanding if it was called "rename". But WP:Rename already redirects to Wikipedia:Changing username, which points in a hatnote to Wikipedia:Moving a page, and that seems adequate to address the confusion newcomers will inevitably have. Nardog (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i agree move is confusing terminology title change makes much more sense. so that is why i request to reconsider the closure of this request to change article title to Wikipedia:Requested title changes. 173.72.3.91 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the room and accept that nobody else agrees with you. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2600:381:C285:663C:10C3:8FE:8B17:2245 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ch 2600:381:C285:663C:10C3:8FE:8B17:2245 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. Please knock it off. 162 etc. (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[[Wikipedia:Requested name changes]] is also fine 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

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)[reply]

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

Moves during discussion?

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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: [1], [2], [3].
  • 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: [4], [5], [6], [7].

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)[reply]

Procedural close request

Andy's malformed RM at Talk:M40_gun_motor_carriage#Requested_move_2_August_2024 needs to be closed and re-done correctly, either as capitalizing moves from the current titles, or revert those that I lowercased and I'll do an RM from the old titles to lowercase. Would some move-savvy admin please step in and put us out of our misery there please? Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: can you help fix this, one way or another? Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most frequently moved pages

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thanks! Levivich (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<- 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
page_title page_namespace page_is_redirect move_count
0 Ahecht/sandbox5 2 0 92
1 Flexiant 1 0 76
2 Ahecht/sandbox5 3 0 68
3 Ahecht/sandbox6 3 1 68
4 Flexiant 0 0 58
5 War_in_Iraq_(2013–2017) 0 0 51
6 Params/testcases/sandbox 828 0 51
7 Ahecht/sandbox3 2 1 49
8 War_in_Iraq_(2013–2017) 1 0 49
9 Ahecht/sandbox6/Archive_1 3 0 42
10 I_Would_Do_it_All_Again 0 1 40
11 Ahecht/sandbox6/Archive_2 3 0 38
12 Ahecht/sandbox4 2 0 37
13 Andy_M._Wang/mobile4 2 0 36
14 2016_Taiwanese_general_election 0 0 34
15 MusikBot/sandbox 2 0 34
16 Qwerfjkl/sandbox/60 2 1 33
17 Silikonz/sponge 2 0 33
18 Andy_M._Wang/mobile4 3 0 32
19 Ahecht/sandbox6 2 1 31

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

Interesting, thanks! Now we know Ahecht is the undisputed champion of the Sandbox Shuffle 😂 Levivich (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich That's what happens when you maintain a page swap script that needs testing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It should go between the join and group by lines. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for color change

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)[reply]

Here is an example of the change.
Current appearance:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveen Bandara → Kavin Bandara – The correct name is Kavin Bandara and not Kaveen Bandara, which may mislead readers. The current name is incorrect and does not reflect the individual's actual name, potentially causing confusion and misinformation. Correcting the name to Kavin Bandara ensures accuracy and reliability of information for all readers ... GanganaB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Sohom Datta's proposed appearance:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveen Bandara → Kavin Bandara – The correct name is Kavin Bandara and not Kaveen Bandara, which may mislead readers. The current name is incorrect and does not reflect the individual's actual name, potentially causing confusion and misinformation. Correcting the name to Kavin Bandara ensures accuracy and reliability of information for all readers ... GanganaB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&oldid=1240498988"