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

Several editors have been moving/discussing whether Influencer or Social media influencer is the proper page name

I created this page and moved it to article space on December 2 at Influencer. It has moved to Social media influencer and back and forth since. Discussion on the talk page suggests that a consensus has not been properly achieved and that the article should be nominated properly at RM. However, I believe an admin is needed to properly restore the page to its original location before commencing a formal RM discussion. Can we get some help in relocating the page in order to commence an RM.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I just need someone to move Social media influencer back to Influencer, so that we can properly consider the page name as a RM nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorting

Would it be useful and practical to implement move request sorting comparable to deletion sorting? Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Move Spinabenz (rapper) to Spinabenz

The "Spinabenz" link opens to his single "Who I Smoke" and I can't have the title of the article as "Spinabenz". Now that I made an article for this artist I believe that it shouldn't redirect to his single and I should be able to change it to his artist name without adding "(rapper)" Martinm23forever (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Donald Albury 15:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Malformed requested move

Cinderella157 correctly points out that this move request I started is malformed. I proposed a move of Israel-Hamas war to Gaza War (a page that already exists) without clearly stating the existing page should become Gaza War (disambiguation). That's clearly my mistake. What should I do:

• restart the RM with a correctly formed RM
• modify the RM and ping all !votes below notifying them of the change and inviting them to modify their !vote at their discretion (this is my preferred option)
• leave a comment in the RM requesting that, should the RM succeed, Gaza war should be moved to Gaza war (disambiguation), ping all existing !votes in that comment, and presume future !votes will see that comment.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

While technically not complete, I think the assumption the user states that the old title will go to (disambiguation) is reasonable, so it can just be added as an additional line under the first move indicator. I would then add a comment indicating that you have updated the nomination to correct the oversight. I don't think you necessarily need to ping those who have already commented, but you can if you wish. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done this. If incorrect, let me know.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTOTHERPAGES states "Generally, a move request on whether to move X to Y should have no impact on page Z's title".

In our case, X is Israel–Hamas war (article page), Y is Gaza War (disambiguation page), Z is Gaza War (disambiguation) (redirect page). RM made clear that X and Y are affected. Y page has been promptly notified at the start by RMCD Bot. Z is subject to G6 speedy deletion to allow Y to Z move. RM is not malformed. Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Objecting to a technical request

Requesting clarification from editor(s) regarding contesting a technical request for a page move based on available information:

"If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, (...)" (original emphasis)

Does it require objection to the proposed move, or can/should requests be categorised as contested without the need to oppose the move in question; on the basis that the move is controversial by default, such as moving articles to primary topic?

This is in relation to Requested move 20 January 2025. I am asking here for UNINVOLVED opinion, as there is no point going round in circles arguing the same procedural points with 162 etc. given our different of opinion. This also concerns more broadly the contesting at RMTR, and this dispute has little to do with the RM in question at this point, so I believe this discussion is better redirected to here.

Personally I believe this should be a procedural close with the page moved, or otherwise re-listed at RMTR, based on the rationale for contesting " I do not oppose or support the proposed move. I do object to the article being moved uncontroversially.". 162 etc. can clarify if I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding this reasoning, but it seems I'm not the only one to question it either.

PS: Feel free to apply boomerang if you feel it necessary based on the discussion. CNC (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any reason you shouldn't be able to object to an undiscussed move on the grounds that you think a more detailed discussion is required, as long as you're not being disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this not just WP:BURO? As if the page had been moved, it wouldn't have been reverted based on lack of opposition (so far at least). RMTR is also for reverting undiscussed page moves as a fall back. I've seen controversial page moves occur before and reverted at RMTR, so unless the reason is to reduce RMTR requests, I'm struggling to understand the logic here. CNC (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern here is not so much BURO as the bots changing links subsequent to a move. If it turns out to be controversial and reverted after the bot run, you may be left with A Lovely Mess to clean up. I'd rather have the discussion ahead of time and avoid the subsequent cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A technical request that is potentially controversial should be opened for discussion. It's fine to contest a request without disagreeing with it. SilverLocust 💬 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing, I now realise PCM covers this given the theoretical, and subjective application. I was going by BOLDMOVE documentation with it's more liberal wording, but evidently that doesn't apply here. For further clarity, does this mean that moving a page using page mover rights should be done respecting PCM or BOLDMOVE? I looked through PGM and didn't find any immediate clarity. Finally, it'd be worth having a link to PCM from RMTR, as then I would found this sooner. I didn't think to check that section as based on bold move I wasn't aware I was requesting a potentially controversial move. Thanks again. CNC (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The current situation is confusing and frustrating indeed. If you contest a technical request at all (whether you actively oppose it or not), you should use the "discuss" link (or remove the entry if the requester opted it out), not start an impromptu RM on the page. The section "Contested technical requests" should be removed and replies prohibited. Nardog (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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)