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

Right-of-way (property access)
I need assistance/advice. My change of name to Right-of-way (property access) (removal of hyphens) was reverted by 162 etc.. This was based on the claim that there had been no discussion. The truth is that my intentions were indicated on the Talk page of the article and on an associated article, Right of way. As after several days no objection was raised (I had expected some response) I acted in accordance with WP: Be bold. Rwood128 (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since your WP:BOLDMOVE was reverted, you should open a requested move by following the instructions at WP:RM/CM. SilverLocust 💬 08:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2024
for the current discussions section show requests for last 10 to 11 most recent days instead of 7 and make elapsed listings after a 10 or 11-day listing period instead of 7 173.72.3.91 (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is the wrong process (it's a request for a bot to be recoded, not an edit request), and needs a much broader discussion before being implemented anyway. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

helpful links section in the RM template
Since there's a huge disparity between the amount of watchers between here and the template talk page, allow me to link Template talk:Requested move from here.

Indeed, the top of this page seems to have some helpful search links that sound like they could also be included in such a list of helpful links in the template (to help people find previous RMs for the same topics). --Joy (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Before I request
I first brought this to the Teahouse and then once again here:  Article Page; but I am not really sure how to go about requesting 2 page moves in one request. I would like to move the article Saddle tramp as the main article under that title at WP and move the  (disambiguation) page to its own disambiguation title - which will be linked from the header link on the Saddle tramp article. But it is not very clear how to do that on the Requested moves page. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Maineartists: Check out, in particular the template example shown there. –  13:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding how to request
I'm not sure where to find the templates for requesting a page move I.e opening the discussion. It will be more logical to have this information prominently at the top of the page. As it stand, the first /lead is filled with the closing instructions and a page mover guide, etc, but doesn't seem to have an immediate clear guidance on how to request a move or a link to do so. Has anyone considered this? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What could potentially be split and moved out is the list of technical requests to just below the instructions for the controversial moves. Nothing else should be changed since this is an information page on all moves. The lead accurately summarises what moves are there and what to do. Technical move instructions should still be at the top as we do get plenty of the technical requests, more than the number of controversial discussions. – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:PCM section has all of that information, and that section is listed in the Table of Contents. I can't think of any other process on Wikipedia where we just plonk a bunch of templates at the top and say "read below for how to use these"; we have those templates in line with the prose and examples. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Some cases should be moved via Rfc instead
Over the years I have come across many cases that would be much better moved via an Rfc rather than RM. This is because in the cases, there also needs to be a scope change. Consider the move requests at 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. At the move request many users express concerns about scope and potential merger. At the merger discussion, users express concern about the name. Its a circular discussion. An Rfc would clearly lay out the options at the table: "Move to X, with merger", "Move to X, without merger" etc. In such cases, can a user start a RfC instead of a RM? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any rule that says contentious moves can only occur following an RM, so if you think there are other important things to discuss along with a page move (or as a result of a mage move, or vice versa) then by all means use that route. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also keep in mind that an RfC like the one you suggest should only be created when there is no open move request. An RfC should not be used to supersede an existing move discussion, and is likely to be closed in such a case. Dekimasu よ! 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are we recommending that edit histories should use nonsense names?
See talk:Magique (disambiguation), where it is said that a redirect containing edit history should be moved to a nonsensical title "Magique (disambiguation)" when the content is not a disambiguation page, but a former character article. This kind of movement would make edit histories of many topics end up at nonsense names, whenever a primary topic changes a primary redirect with history swapped with an article. That unrelated disambiguated title would now contain the former article come redirect's edit history, for a merged article. The edit summary will never keep up with multiple moves, so the attribution templates on the talk pages should be used to track the location of edit histories, with sensible names; and through the move logs.

-- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
I have initiated a discussion at the Village Pump on the question, Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals? BD2412  T 00:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @BD2412 nice. I have something similar in mind with regards to potential high-viz moves. – robertsky (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have a proposal, I'd like to see it in the Village Pump discussion. Cheers! BD2412  T 01:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)