Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:RM

NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.

On 3 June 2007, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves to Wikipedia:Proposed moves. The result of the discussion was no consensus, not moved.

On 5 February 2018, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves to Wikipedia:Proposed moves. The result of the discussion was not moved.

On 19 September 2018, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves to Wikipedia:Articles for renaming. The result of the discussion was not moved.

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

Archives

Administrators' noticeboard/Move requests (2005)
For why RM was created, see:
- requested moves -- policy change?

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Dear Editors,

I would like to change the name of this page from "Industrial Internet Consortium" to "Industry IoT Consortium (formerly Industrial Internet Consortium)"

This will reflect our new name and branding, as of August 2021.

Thank you! Evan Evanbirkhead (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move Page

Can you please move Draft:Vidrohi to Draft:Vidrohi (TV Series) because there already exists an article on Vidrohi which does not correspond to this one, please move this article to distinguish both correctly Only Smiles No Tears (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need, it can be renamed when it's moved from draft namespace to the main article namespace. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "series" (TV or otherwise), is not a proper noun, so the disambiguator should be "TV series". HandsomeFella (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only Smiles No Tears I will help you with that but can you please help me with merging Priyanka Chahar Choudhary to Priyanka Choudhary?--Creativitylove (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Chahar Choudhary as Priyanka Choudhary

Can someone please help me with this? I had already moved the page of Priyanka Chahar Choudhary to Priyanka Choudhary and then made the edits to remove WP:BLPPROD but I don't know what happened now? It is appearing as two different articles. I'm really very sorry if I did some big mistake but please someone help me. Someone please merge the page as one page which should be named as only Priyanka Choudhary because that is her professional name. Please someone help with it and I'm really sorry for whatever happened. Sorry!--Creativitylove (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You Created Two Article with (Same Name, Same Contents, Same Refs) Priyanka Chahar Choudhary is prosed for Deletion

Then You Request To Any Admin for Renamed This Article. Best Regards Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 13:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to get access of "Move Pages"

Hello, I am a auto confirmed user with more than currently 100 edits. Can i get the access to move pages from draft to article namespace!... Thank you Regards, 0"cleopatra"0 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You actually aren't an autoconfirmed user yet. You should get the right tomorrow, though, since your account will be 4 days old by then. Surachit (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, now i am eligible for moving articles from draft to Mainspace. I have already completed 4days with more than 110 edits now. If possible, let me know any other requirement...! Thanks

0"cleopatra"0 (talk) 12:40,11 october 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 16 § Template:Cleanup title

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 16 § Template:Cleanup title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a preference for status quo?

Suppose there is a move request X → Y. Supporters of both X and Y present equally convincing policy based arguments and are roughly equal in number. Should the move request be closed as "no consensus", meaning maintain the status quo as X? Now suppose that supporters of Y give slightly more convincing arguments or !votes for Y have a slight numerical majority. Should this be closed as "no consensus" (meaning maintain status quo of X) or "moved to Y"?VR _talk 13:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the first question, yes, the result would be no consensus and the article stays at the same title (an exception would be if the article had been recently moved without discussion, and there was a discussion to move it back. In this case, even if the discussion ended as no consensus, the article should be moved back as the discussion shows there was not a consensus for the undiscussed move).

Regarding the second, policy/guideline-based arguments always take priority over numbers (unless there has been a very convincing rebuttal). Cheers, Number 5 7 13:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the general close guidance is at wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 and Bagumba: thanks for the responses. Number 57, what I meant was suppose equally compelling evidence for WP:COMMONNAME was shown for both X or Y, and no other consideration was raised, but Y had a slightly more !votes? Or, what if slightly more convincing evidence for WP:COMMONNAME was shown for Y than for X, but on the whole the evidence for either seemed inadequate? It seems that both of those would also be closed as "no consensus" due to "lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens." Is that correct?VR _talk 14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that if the arguments are dead equal (or close enough) and the numerical tally is almost equal (like... 40-60% in support depending on total participation) then it would be closed with no consensus (and the page stays where it is, barring a reversal of a BOLD move). Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks.VR _talk 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If equally strong policy-based arguments can be made for and against a given proposed move, that would suggest applicable policy needs improving. In fact, any “no consensus” case is a likely indicator of policy ambiguity with room for improvement. For example, this is why I have always opposed including the historical significance consideration at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it’s inherently contradictory in many cases, not to mention that historical significance is already adequately reflected in the likelihood-of-being-sought consideration. I mean, the degree to which a topic is historically significant objectively affects how likely it is to be sought. —В²C ☎ 18:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many naming guidelines are inherently contradictory, but that's because five main WP:CRITERIA are not all complementary. For example, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) is clearly in contradiction of WP:CONCISE as you end up with articles like Beverley and Holderness (UK Parliament constituency), where the disambiguation is completely unnecessary. However, it does ensure that the names of articles in that set are WP:CONSISTENT. Number 5 7 22:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is another example of where naming policy has gone awry. It’s perfectly reasonable to disambiguate consistently within a given group, but only those titles that require disambiguation. Titles in most groups only disambiguate when necessary (and consistently when they do, per their group-specific convention for disambiguation). There is no reason for UK Parliament constituencies to disambiguate unnecessarily. And then there would be no contradiction. —В²C ☎ 04:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fallacy to claim that move discussions that have a clear "no consensus" close due to valid policy-based reasons is a fault of policy per WP:NOT#BURO. We're not a burocracy and don't have hard rules - we do base everything on consensus and if that consensus is split, that doesn't meant policy is bad, just that there's two or more equally driving parts of policies related to names. --Masem (t) 05:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RM that has support but created by a sock

This RM was created by a user in violation of their ban (through a sockpuppet), but it has support of all !votes, and the pageviews demonstrate the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Should it be closed as "moved" anyway? VR _talk 15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus of the non-socks is clear, I don't see why the fact that a sock initiated the move would get in the way of the consensus Iffy★Chat -- 16:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would liken this to an AFD started by a sock - once there are significant opinions expressed, you can't just say "let's chuck out the entire discussion". Primefac (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]