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

Stale technical requests

I've been thinking about what is the best action to take when a request has been contested for a few days but the requester has not opened an RM. Should we unilaterally start a discussion for them or do we simply remove it as stale? – MaterialWorks 12:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's marked as "discuss = no", I'd definitely just remove it eventually. Else I try to explicitly say to the requestor to click on the "discuss" link if they want to pursue it, though sometimes if I agree with the request I'll open a discussion myself. As far as I know there's no defined timeframe when requests should be removed as "stale", but a few days seems reasonable. The guidelines only say Consider pinging the requester (emphasis mine) when contesting, but also if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move. It's when there is a little bit of discussion where it's more of a grey/gray area... I wouldn't assume requestors are watching the page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I also think that the requester should usually be pinged (though it is not required) and that it is usually better to leave it to the requester to open an RM (or someone else who, after seeing whatever reason there is to contest the request, supports the move and wants to discuss it). SilverLocust 💬 12:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree; perhaps the guidance should be changed from "consider pinging" to "should ping" (not must)? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the instructions are fine now. Someone will ping before the request is removed. And some replies are not very approachable for newcomers (terse, jargony, not entirely clear that it's been contested or what to do next). The main point is just don't remove it until the requester has been pinged with an appropriate explanation. SilverLocust 💬 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Minimize RM moves when article is featured on Main page

See the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Proposal to restrict RM discussions while plastered on Main per incident of Talk:SAG–AFTRA ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RM closer script

Does a script already exist for formally closing RMs? Like Wikipedia:XFDcloser for deletion discussions. There are a number of steps that could be easily automated when closing or relisting RMs. The step that I find particularly annoying is {{old move}}, which currently requires manually finding the information which is contained in the original request. @Eejit43: is this something you would be interested in developing? Given you wrote the excellent rmtr-helper script. Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, see: User:TheTVExpert/rmCloser. — MaterialWorks 10:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks MaterialWorks. Polyamorph (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a great script! If it doesn't fit your needs, let me know and I might be able to make a new one. :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Template-protect Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

The page is getting repeated manual edits from people who don't read the edit notice, and the bot already has TPER access. Anyone else think this would be a good idea? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see the benefit of some sort of protection, and I don't think EC would help, but on the other hand I don't think template protection is appropriate, as per WP:TPROT it's not a Template or Module page, and it's not highly transcluded. Maybe a bot undoing manual edits may help...? I've not looked how frequent the manual edits are. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Full protection would be overkill. I wouldn't object to saying WP:IAR and template protect it though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with full protection, I can't think of any cases where a regular user would need to edit that page. — MaterialWorks 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It was more the bot being able to edit I was thinking of, but could be made an WP:ADMINBOT? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Argh, I forgot that bots can't edit full'd pages. — MaterialWorks 17:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can this be made even bigger? I know there is no excuse not to see the big red Do NOT edit instructions but if the notice was took up more of the screen it might stop people editing it? Does the bot already monitor the page or just overwrite when changes are made? If the latter, then I agree with Kj cheetham that an undo bot would be helpful. Polyamorph (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of making that notice take up more screen space, even if going for an undo bot. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Here I've just made the text larger and added a couple of spaces: User:Polyamorph/sandbox. Polyamorph (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've deployed that code to the editnotice, but I still have no idea why there is so much resistance to making the undesired path impossible and instead people favor screaming even louder. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a question about the request - is there a reason this is an issue? As far as I am aware the bot will replace/update anything that needs it, so a user editing here is more wasting their time than anything. In other words, unless we're seeing edit wars with the bot, why is this an issue? Primefac (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because we're creating a trap for no good reason, and many people are falling in. How could that not be an issue? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no trap; there are two edit notices (one on the page, one in the edit box) that say not to edit the page. I'm also not necessarily saying that I'm opposed, just trying to figure out why it's enough of an issue to raise protection to something it's technically not. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the sheer number of manual edits (four in the last week and another eight in the two weeks prior) indicates the current system clearly isn't working. Yes, people should know better, but since they evidently don't despite the warnings why not force them to? I'm genuinely not understanding the reason not to do this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This would prevent manual updates in case the bot goes down for an extended period of time, which it did last August. (If anyone wondered, I took the bot script, available somewhere on wiki, and modified it to output to a text file before I updated the page manually.) – robertsky (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are enough admins watching this page to notice when this happens and unprotect. We shouldn't make the common case worse for the sake of rare oddities. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I would support that, but if there is opposition the alternative is to use a filter that requires an editor to confirm the edit before making it? BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That would also work, but seems wasteful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, this seems a similar situation to Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Protecting_the_GAN_page, which did seem to end with the bot becoming a template editor (Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor#User:ChristieBot) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed move at RM

What do we do if a user submits a formal RM for an undiscussed move, requesting it be moved back to the stable title? See here. Im tempted to close the discussion and move the page back with the recommendation to open a new RM if desired. Thoughts? Polyamorph (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

These aren't rare and always run the full length, ime. I've seen them close both ways. (I followed RM closer a couple years ago, though.) Vaticidalprophet 21:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably better off just letting it run at this point with a note to the closer that a no consensus result should result in defaulting back to the status quo ante title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what Jenks24 said. If the RM results in a no consensus outcome, it should be moved back to the original title, as it shows a lack of consensus to move it away from that title. Number 57 12:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Move "Uraniborg" to "Uranienborg"

Uranienborg is by far the most used name and the name that makes the most sense to use on English Wikipedia as it was a Danish, not Swedish, observatory. This Uranienborg is far more famous than the one in Norway which should continue to be named "Uranienborg, Norway". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marginataen, this is the talk page about the requested move process. To request a move you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests or Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)