Wikipedia:Requested moves

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.

"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.

For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.

Requesting technical moves

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "A ka soli zaŋ chaŋ move this page, domini daliri nima:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

• To list a technical request: the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

  {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=reason for move}}

  This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
• 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, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
• If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

• – No dash in company name per official website Kolmeweet (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• – Remove disambiguation in order to replace with primary topic Wesxdz (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

</noinclude>

What do you want done with the existing disambiguation content? Polyamorph (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Existing disambiguation content is either a dataset related to a specific virtual human domain, or a subset of possible virtual humans. I think it should be removed entirely or integrated into the existing Virtual Humans page either under applications, R&D, or a new 'datasets' category. The 'VHs' titles should be refactored to refer more specifically to a non proper noun topic rather than the research field. Wesxdz (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That page frankly feels like WP:SYNTH of content that either belongs in Avatar (computing) or Virtual actor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• – requested move; consensus at Talk:Street and Racing Technology#Requested move 7 August 2023 Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• – Move over redirect to make way for disambiguation page (currently at ENIC (disambiguation)) for an abbreviation with no primary topic Robminchin (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• – Consistency with other editions - 2022 AFC Women's Club Championship, 2021 AFC Women's Club Championship. Dhruv edits (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Contested technical requests

• – Move over redirect. McPhail (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Really the only one ever? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• – WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles of similar name. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 05:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Actually it should probably be the other way around and the others should also be moved to this style. "Descent" is the common term throughout Wikipedia and is actually far more accurate, as "origin" suggests only people who were born in China. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

    'Origin' simply suggests that their ancestors were originally from China, not they were 'born' in China. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

    'Origin' is much more ambiguous than 'descent'. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• – Dot. The Doom Patrol (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Tɛmplet:Yo This is not an uncontroversial request due to the two previous RMs held over this page. If you wish to continue with your request, click the discuss link in your request to begin a formal WP:RM discussion. Once you've done that, or if you do not wish to continue, please remove your request. – MaterialWorks 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrator needed

• – Apparently the page was protected for totally unrelated vandalism reasons. However, there is now an article about a notable video game with that name that requires moving to that location. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

• When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
• Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
• The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
• Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

• Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
• Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
• The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
• Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
• Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
• Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

See also

• Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts, which includes a list of recently closed, as well as open discussions

Tɛmplet:Time-UTC-Banner Tɛmplet:Noticeboard links