Wikipedia talk:Moving a page/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WhatLinksHere

There is an issue with Special:WhatLinksHere. When moving an article, only the moved article appears as a redirect in WhatLinksHere under the new article name and the talk page redirect does not appear in WhatLinksHere. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I strongly suspect that this is closely related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Category membership issues, in that the links tables (which is what is used to generate both WhatLinksHere and the lists on cat pages) are lagging behind reality. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on talk pages

Why is there nothing here about when and under what circumstances it's appropriate or advisable to discuss a proposed page move on the article's talk page first, rather than just being bold and doing it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is. WP:MOVE#Before moving a page. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. That's about going to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm talking about when I'm thinking of moving, say, Adolf Hitler to, say, Der Feuhrer, but before I do so, I go to Talk:Adolf Hitler and flag my thinking and seek feedback, because I think it may be controversial and may not attract universal agreement.

I only use Wikipedia:Requested moves when I have tried to execute a non-controversial (or agreed) page move but found my way blocked (I don't have administrator-like powers). In all other cases, I either discuss my thinking on the article's own talk page, or simply move the page. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand Wikipedia:Requested moves. Sure, you can be bold and simply move the page if you believe the move will not be contested, and there is nothing technically blocking your ability to perform the move. You may use the technical section of Wikipedia:Requested moves to request administrator help if there is something technically blocking your ability to do it yourself. Going to an article's talk page and flagging your thinking and seeking feedback is precisely what Wikipedia:Requested moves is all about – all RM discussions take place on the specific article talk page which is the topic of discussion. The WP:RM page is simply a bot-generated listing of the discussions that are happening on individual talk pages, which is used by editors who "watchlist" such discussions and administrators to look for discussions which are ready to be closed. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that "all RM discussions take place on the specific article talk page which is the topic of discussion". But there are times when the discussion takes place on the article's talk page without ever involving WP:RM at all. Is there any rule that says that all such discussions must be funnelled via WP:RM? Not to my knowledge.

So, there are two ways of starting a discussion about a page move:

• (a) raise it at WP:RM, or
• (b) raise it directly - and only - at the relevant article's talk page.

I always go for option (b) unless there is something "technically blocking [my] ability to perform the move", in which case I'll consider option (a) if I have the energy to re-learn the syntax of such requests (in other words, if I think the move is important enough for me to spend my time going down the bureaucratic route).

Do you see what I'm saying? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Option (b) is option (a). If you go to the article's talk page, and (without starting a new section) add at the bottom {{subst:Requested move|(new name)|reason=(your reason why)}}, a bot will update WP:RM automatically. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you saying that you don't want to be bothered with learning either the syntax {{subst:Requested move|(new name)|reason=(your reason why)}} for starting discussions about potentially controversial moves, or the similar syntax for requesting uncontroversial moves, as you think that's too bureaucratic. Perhaps you can use {{Help me}} to ask someone else to do it for you. Some editors don't like the one-week limit on discussion (though that can easily drag out to a month or more if a consensus doesn't form right away), or that they have to request a move that they're not sure should really be made, and want to just start an informal and less structured discussion. I'm not keen on that, unless it's just putting up a trial balloon before deciding to initiate the more formal request. If a move is made based on a local consensus that wasn't advertised at WP:RM, then you risk WP:CONLIMITED objections later on, after others discover the fait accompli move. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm on about. Let me explain. At last count, I have made 1,544 page moves throughout my 12-year Wiki-career. Some of these (a small number) have indeed come after going through WP:RM. A larger number have involved a local consensus at the relevant talk page. But the vast majority have been relatively minor, and I considered it was not necessary to discuss them beforehand, anywhere at all.

Have any of these 1,544 moves been objected to, or even reverted? Yes, a small number, probably about 1%. So, experience tells me that the risk to which you refer is not significant. Or maybe I tend to dabble in the less trafficked articles; God knows, someone has to.

My query came about as a result of a rare reversion of one of my moves (George Frideric Handel's lost Hamburg operas to Handel's lost Hamburg operas). The editor who reverted my move expressed his objections at my talk page, thus: "It is normal practice to open a talk page thread before moving an article title. You shouldn't just barge in and do it unless there is an obvious error".

So, on the question of how to go about obtaining a consensus in general, he and I are in agreement: use the talk page; no mention of WP:RM.

But before responding to him, I wanted to check exactly what the guidelines actually say about these procedures. And that's where I discovered a lack of any mention of the procedure that is widely used (I could find thousands of examples if necessary).

So, if the position is that all page move discussions must be conducted under the aegis of WP:RM, we should say so. But if it's perfectly acceptable for them to occur with the support of a local consensus only – as long as the participants are prepared to risk the move being countermanded by a global consensus at some later time – then we should also state that explicitly.

But saying nothing at all about local consensuses is not a goer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

When no specific instruction or guideline exists, I think the rules of common sense apply. Thus, it would be perfectly OK, in my view, to boldly move a page if the title contains errors of capitalisation, spelling, italicisation, or if it clearly breached a title convention established for articles in that subject areaa. However, changing the wording of a title to a personal preference, without notification or justification, is a slightly different matter. Common sense (and common courtesy) suggests some discussion before the action, on the talk page at first, resorting to RM only if matters can't be resolved by local consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, some common sense applies here. If you can quickly come to a local consensus, that's fine. You'll bypass the need for an independent third party to determine consensus and close the discussion. However, if it soon becomes apparent that there is substantial disagreement, I suggest not delaying too much in opening a formal, advertised discussion. If you have a long, drawn out discussion before advertising it, you can have problems with new editors arriving on the scene who aren't up-to-speed on the issues, and have to rehash them. Most page moves are technical and routine in nature; I do a lot of those myself. There is usually a significant backlog at RM, so it's helpful not to burden independent admins with too many routine moves. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@user:JackofOz as other have said common sense comes into it. However in the case of a good faith move that you have made that is reverted by another: Then what?

Let us take George Frideric Handel's lost Hamburg operas as an example case.

I think that if user:Brianboulton (the editor who reverted your move) had explained his/her reason for his/her revert on the article's talk page, rather than on your user talk page, it might have encouraged others interested in the article's title to get involved the merits of the two possible titles. However that is not what was done.

You have made a bold move and it has been reverted. You are now faced with two choices. You can simply leave it alone (there are millions of other articles), or you can initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article with or without a RM request. If you choose not to involve RM, and the only person who responds is user:Brianboulton, then unless the two of you reach an agreement there will be no consensus. (As no consensus if often the outcome of these limited conversations, then as the move initiator why not short circuit the process and use the RM process to try to build a wider consensus for what you believe to be a move to a more appropriate title?)

However if you have initiated a conversation on the talk page without RM and if there is no consensus, then either the page remains where it is, or the disagreement over the article title is escalated with the dispute resolution process. If one of you chooses to escalate then WP:RM is a better process to use than the other options (such as a WP:RfC), because it is specifically tailored to handling page moves. Those who lurk at watch WP:RM often have a broad knowledge of WP:AT policy and its naming conventions (supporting guidelines) and so can help steer less experienced editors to make decisions based on policy rather than their own personal preferences; and unlike an RfC there is a defined close procedure with appeals built in for a RM request.

Because in the past there have been move wars, to stop that happening there is a tradition of only moving a page if there is a consensus to do so, and a specific section of guidance at WP:RM designed to stifle page move wars (see WP:RMUM).

-- PBS (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, User:PBS.

Making an uncontroversial move – if you can, do it yourself!

I considered it uncontroversial, so I moved it.

I now see there was a bigger picture that I failed to see at the time, viz. similarly named articles all using the same format. That just shows that it's not always possible to know with absolute certainty whether a move would be controversial or not; one must use one's best judgement. One should never be criticised for being bold if one is operating in a reasonable and non-malicious way.

If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page.

User:Brianboulton is very welcome to initiate such a discussion on the article's talk page.

But that gets me back, via a circuitous route, to my original question. Rather than someone boldly moving a page and then having it reverted and then discussing the matter at the talk page, what's wrong with commencing a discussion at the talk page as the first step in the process? It's not always necessary to go through WP:RM, it's really not. I just think these guidelines should explicitly allow/recognise this sort of procedure. Particularly as it is widely practised and always has been and always will be. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines are just that. If you want to start a conversation on the talk page of an article before moving the article then of course you can do so. There is really no reason to say as much, because if bold moves are tolerated then by extension so to are conversations on a talk page about potential moves. If you do not get a clear consensus to move the page then presumably as an experienced and conciousness editor you would not make the move. However in this case, what you did was was acceptable as the bold move was in made good faith. This is what usually happens and we do not have to say as much. This page only comes into play if you are blocked from making a move or if you think that the move will be controversial. If you move a page and the move is reverted (unless you can persuae the person who reverted the move to revert their revert, the move is controversial and a RM will be needed to move it to your preferred name). This process was originally introduced, like the Wikipedia:Requests for history merge to be a non-controversial technical page. However within hours of its creation there was the first "oppose"[1] and it started to become a clearing house for controversial as well as technically difficult moves. -- PBS (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

... an experienced and conciousness editor - why, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me for a long time. Thanks.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The instructions seem to be outdated. Should we update them?

This page still recommends manual recategorization, which is a very slow and tedious process. Cat-a-lot can be used to automate this process, but it isn't mentioned on this page at all. Should we edit this article to recommend the Cat-a-lot script as an automated categorization tool? Jarble (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble:: I wouldn't recommend that anyone be using manual or script-based recategorization, not when we have bots to do it. I think the Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_category section should just be replaced with: "Category moves can be requested via WP:CFD. For the technical details of the category renaming process, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions."--Aervanath (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Aervanath: Bots are able to redirect categories automatically, but I'm not sure about the best way to split categories. Is there any tool (other than Cat-a-lot) that can automate this task? Jarble (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jarble: For splitting categories, I would ask at WT:CFD or other forum where category-focused editors hang out if there are better tools, but I suspect that there aren't. Either way, I wouldn't recommend adding it to this page, since splitting categories is really beyond its scope. This page is when you need to rename the category wholesale, not split it.--Aervanath (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the target links clickbox isn't showing.--Laurianna2 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Recommended changes for "Post-move cleanup" section

In order to reduce confusion, I think it would be useful for the information in the "Post-move cleanup" section of this article to be identical to (or at least more closely match) what appears in the "move successful" page which pops up after a move. I did my first article move today and at one point accidentally navigated away from the "move successful" page. So I searched and found this page but the information presented here wasn't quite the same as what shows up on the "move successful" page. Having the text be as close to identical as possible would be very helpful. Gmporr (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gmporr: It looks like you are requesting a change to MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the better identification of what I was referring to; I definitely didn't know where to find MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. But really, rather than wanting a change there, I think a change to Moving a page#Post-move cleanup, to include either the bullet list from MediaWiki:Movepage-moved, or a link to it, is the solution to my concern. Seeing the bullet list pop up after having moved an article gives a concise list of what the user needs to do. When I navigated away from it and couldn't find it again, I found this page but wished it had included the same bullet list to make things more user-friendly. Gmporr (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. For now, I've added a nutshell to the section, which summarizes the changes. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Revisions on 16 September 2016

I made some updates to move how-to pages: one two three, essentially favoring {{subst:RMassist}} over {{Db-move}}, which I explained in comments and edit summarries. The primary reasons are:

1. WP:RMT requests are easily traceable via permalink, and when moves are carried out, contain the permalink so that the requests themselves are easily attributable. (just like an automatic db-move link generated by the template)
2. Unlike db-move, WP:RMT provides a central location naturally conducive to further discussion prior to a move that's carried out. This could be a quick exchange regarding interpretation of title guidelines or something similar. The Db-move suggestion is a discussion on the page's own talk, which likely has far less visibility or watchers.
3. The infrastructure provided by {{subst:RMassist}} includes an easy "discuss" link that posts on the talk page. There is no easy link to initiate a further discussion after a db-move decline.
4. That there is no need to pollute the CSD categories with requests that can be satisfied with a pageswap, of which almost requests listed at WP:RMT are also equivalent to db-move requests anyway. The only difference is that the redirect adds two moves in its existing revision history.
5. For the past month or so, I'm led to believe that Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion are not handled as rapidly as those at WP:RMT. Technical requests are often handled in less than a day.

If anyone wanted to follow up on this, please let me know. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I would like to make a few comments on your changes:

1. Why is it better to have discussions about the move on WP:RMT rather than the article talk page?
2. There is nothing preventing someone from adding a discuss link to {{db-move}}
3. Unlike pages which are tagged with {{db-move}} people watching a page know nothing about an RM/TR request, making fewer people aware of the move request. Perhaps a bot could add some template to pages currently under discussion at RM/TR

Pppery 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pppery, I've noticed that (move) requests at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion tend to get handled slower (sometimes taking 5–6 days) than at WP:RMT. At RMT, many editors with a good understanding of titling guidelines are (currently) quite eager to resolve them, and it's a venue designed for page moves. If you disagree, feel free to undo my changes (I gave the diffs above). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you, but just wanted to point out a few advantages to {{db-move}} that perhaps should be considered. Pppery 17:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Mention of RMassist in the how-tos should be fine for now. I believe db-move's own suggestion per typical db is its own talk, but I probably wouldn't be against a discuss link. Potential bot listings on RMT could list db-move transclusions (but it's not like no one's looking at the category, and resolutions for pages there seem reasonable I think). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving sandbox to an existing page

I copied an article (with very little content) into my sandbox and worked on it there. Now I want to move it back to the existing page. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohits19 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally, by clicking the "move" tab, select "(Article)" from the drop-down box under "New title:" and entering an article title in the box to its right. That only works if the article name name doesn't exist. If you want to overwrite the current article Grunt (software), you have to copy/paste the wikicode from your sandbox into the editing box of that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe Mohits19 would like the revision history moved. This would need to be performed by an admin. I tagged the target page with {{histmerge}}. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!! The article was moved to the original page along with revision history. If I need to do this in the future, how and where do I tag the target page? -- Mohits19 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mohits19: It looks like the revision in which I tag Grunt (software) with {{histmerge|User:Mohits19/sandbox}} has been deleted during the histmerge. Basically put that code at the top of the page, you can see Template:Histmerge/doc#Examples for further details — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

All previous moves for a given page

Is there a way to see a list of all moves that a given page has undergone? Querying the move log only shows the moves away from a given title and for a page that has moved several times piecing together the history this way is quite a bit of a hassle. All page moves are recorded as edits in the page's history, I'd imagine an edit summary search for something like "moved page" could do the trick, but I haven't been able to find a tool that does that. – Uanfala (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Piecing together a complete move history can be a time-consuming pain. m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. wbm1058 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so there isn't anything at present. Well then, I guess I don't have anything better than the current proxy method I use – looking at the history of a redirect to the page that has moved. Most of the time this history contains only edits by the double-redirect fixing bot that tidies up after moves. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, I do that too. If you want to submit a wishlist item, I will vote to support it. wbm1058 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a tool - Edit summary search - unfortunately it can only look at edits made by a single user, it would be good if it could work for unspecified user; it would need to look at the edits of a page specified by its curid because the page name changes at every move. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving local file description to article space not allowed

A new user posted the start of an article at File:SeyhanArman.jpg, so I tried moving it to Seyhan Arman (using Twinkle), but I got the error message "Cannot move file to non-file namespace". I guess that makes sense in most cases, but it seemed a bit surprising. I'll copy-paste move the page to the new location instead. Perhaps it might be worth mentioning this limitation somewhere on this page? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6 "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, deleting the contribution isn't the problem. It's moving the contribution to a new page and maintaining the attribution that is. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Add WP:move review?

This page should mention WP:move review. Where to put it? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Snow closure

I've closed Talk:2017 Westminster attack#Requested move 24 March 2017 per WP:SNOW, and removed the tag from the top of the article. Please do whatever is needed, if anything, to clean up elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: you need to remove the {{requested move/dated}}; also, with a sig like yours, you need to explicitly number the params of {{archive top}}, i.e. |1= You didn't need to remove the {{User:RMCD bot/subject notice}} from the article, since the bot will do that automatically when it notices that the {{requested move/dated}} is gone. In fact, your removal of the {{User:RMCD bot/subject notice}} whilst leaving {{requested move/dated}} alone has caused the bot to revert you. This should be square now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please move User:Albanian presidential election, 2017

Did not know where to ask this so I will ask here. User:Albanian presidential election, 2017 should be moved to User:Northernelk888's sandbox as he incorrectly uses user space as his sandbox. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Thanks for the note. The correct place for this request would have been requested moves. However, it seems like Northernelk888 was just trying to move his sandbox to a main namespace article, Albanian presidential election, 2017, but forgot to unselect the namespace. I have history-merged "Albanian presidential election, 2017" with its userspace equivalent, and changed the redirect on the sandbox to the main namespace article. Graham87 09:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Update of "Fixing cut and paste moves" section

I'm updating this section, as it seemed to describe a process for non-admin users to fix cut and paste moves, which in fact can only be done by admins. The instructions themselves appear to be an old, outdated version of the instructions for admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Manual process. I'm replacing the obsolete instructions here with this text I copied from the "Before moving a page" section: "If you find a cut-and-paste move that needs to be fixed, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge to have an administrator take care of the problem." --IamNotU (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass page moves

What's the easiest way to get a lot of pages moved at once? I've just chanced across Category:Bydgoszcz for the Polish city, and a lot of the article titles in its categories and subcategories were created as "(name of building or street) in Bydgoszcz". In every case "in Bydgoszcz" should either be dropped or replaced with ", Bydgoszcz". --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"How to move" primary question

I came here for this question, but did not find an answer:

"I want to propose and discuss a move. What template to use where?" . -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:Requested moves. --Izno (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DePiep: As shown at the top of Wikipedia:Moving a page: you may request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves ... if the retitling is expected to be controversial and you need to seek consensus for the name change. In turn, Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move shows that the template {{subst:requested move}} (with some parameters filled in) should be used on the talk page of the page whose name is under discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you say so. I'm not just asking for myself on a talkpage. I think it should be clear in the page itself. Before I tried "move request" (WP:MR), to my disappointment. - DePiep (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC on expansion of move over redirect

Page movers and administrators have the ability to move pages over redirects. However, they can only perform this operation if the redirect has no other edits to it except its creation. This is with good reason, because it prevents abuse e.g. a page mover or administrator could blank and redirect a really important page and then move another page over it, thus deleting it.

I am proposing a change to how the system works. This is the latest example of many requested moves I have closed, hoping to move over a redirect, only to find that a bot, usually User:RussBot or User:Avicbot, have made one minor edit to it, such as fixing a double redirect. These edits are marked as minor, however, it still means that a round robin move is required, which not only makes the page history look more confusing to the untrained eye, but also uses up more moves than is really necessary. The anti-abuse measure would still work because pages with any history whatsoever could not be blanked and deleted in an abusive way due to the "all minor" restriction.

Therefore, I propose that the MediaWiki move over redirect function be changed to allow users with +extendedmover to move over a redirect only if the redirect, or its talk page, has no edits which are not marked as minor in its page history, apart from its creation. SITH (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – gives the minor edit checkbox an importance that it has never had before. Some people might accidentally mark a major edit as minor or vice versa, thus negating the effect of this idea. Also, IP users can't mark edits as minor, and I'm now thinking of all sorts of BEANSy ways people could use a trick like this to disrupt the requested moves process. Graham87 13:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Is this technically feasible? Also, just a note that moving pages over redirects doesn't require any more advanced permissions than simply moving the page: so that's not restricted to admins and pagemovers. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As the RFC creator explains, non-admins can't move over redirects if the redirect has non-trivial history; the proposal is to relax the history requirements (allowing page movers to move over redirects iff all edits after creation to the redirect are minor edits). Iffy★Chat -- 15:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I just wanted to double-check we're clear that any autoconfirmed user can move over a redirect (if the redirect points to the page being moved and it doesn't have more than one edit in its history). There are no groups of users that are capable of moving over redirects with history: as far as I'm aware, what admins can do is first delete the redirect and then move the page. Now more to the point, if the proposal is technically feasible – we really need to check it is before spending time debating it – then it will make sense to allow it for the same category of users that can now move over redirect with trivial history. And if it's going to be restricted to pagemovers, then it might not be worth the bother: if the aim is to avoid making round robin move, then the underlying problem is not technical but behavioural: pagemovers can already do that by moving the redirect to another title (that will itself be plausible as a redirect – usually it's not difficult to come up with one) and so vacate the title for the move. – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

      The deletion of the overwritten redirect occurs for all cases of a move over a redirect, but it's not obvious that a deletion occurred (unless you examine the logs) when that redir had exactly one line in its history and it pointed to the former name of the page that has just been moved over it. It doesn't matter whether the the user performing the move is an admin or simply has the "confirmed" right - the deletion occurs and is visible in the logs for all to see. It also doesn't matter whether the redir was created by a previous move or was manually created. If the redir that is to be overwritten has more than one line in its history or it doesn't point to the page being moved, a non-admin is prevented but an admin sees a message like 'The destination page "Foo" already exists. Do you want to delete it to make way for the move? (Check the edit history.)', and they also get a checkbox 'Yes, delete the page' which is initially deselected. This dialog means that admins do not need to carry out a prior G6 deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• What about allowing a move over a redirect if all the revisions in the history are also redirects? Their histories are usually just double-redirect-fixes and the addition of {{R from}}, which isn't marked as minor but would be fine to overwrite. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not a MediaWiki developer, but I dont know how feasible that would be to implement because the Wikipedia database only has information about redirect status by page, not by revision, but I would not oppose that. Honestly I don't think it'd be a high priority for people working on MediaWiki, however. Graham87 13:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Movepage-moved: rethinking double redirects and disambiguation

MediaWiki:Movepage-moved is the text displayed after a page is moved. For the most typical case of a move (article namespace, no editnotices or subpages), it looks something like this:

Please clean up after your move:

• Check if there are any non-free images on this page, and update their fair use rationales to link to the new title.
• Check if the page's categories have a sort key, and update it as necessary.

$3

• Check what links here to see whether the move has created any double redirects, and fix the most serious ones. A bot will fix the rest later on. You can use the following text to replace older redirects:

  #REDIRECT [[$4]]

• If you turn "$3" into a disambiguation page or into a redirect that targets a disambiguation page, please disambiguate the links from other pages that point to it.

I'm proposing a rethink of the last two bullet points.

Do we still need the bit about double redirects? A major take-home message from Wikipedia:Double redirects is that they are easily fixed by bots, and human editors should devote their efforts elsewhere. There are four of these bots, and they operate so promptly, that I've often found that they've managed to fix the double redirects before I've been able to even start cleaning up after a move. I guess one can still make the point that editors should be be told to at least fix the most serious ones, say, in case most of the bots happen to be down at the same time. But what double redirects are serious? These are presumably high-traffic redirects to prominent articles, but such articles are overwhelmingly at stable titles and any moves are going to be either disruptive (and hence swiftly reverted), or if constructive, performed after a discussion by an experienced editor who knows what they're doing. In sum, I can't imagine a normal situation where this notice will be needed.

I think we need to also change the bullet about disambiguation pages. It was added after this brief thread from 2012, and even though it's definitely helpful, I believe that what it demands is both too much and too little. Too much, because edits to dab pages are tracked by the very active WP:DPL project, whose members are generally fast and efficient at fixing such links (too fast, I've sometimes felt, particularly in cases of dablinks resulting from bad moves). Of course, the opposing argument is that editors who move a page are sometimes more likely to have the background knowledge to fix the links correctly. Personally, I'm agnostic on this question, but I think dablinks are only one aspect of a more general case. See, they are about fixing links when an editor moves an article and creates a dab page at the old title. But there are similar cases of links that need fixing that do not at all involve a disambiguation page. For example, an editor moves one article and then creates a new article at the old title. Or turns the old title into a redirect to an article different from the one just moved. Or, with a suitable user right, moves a third article over the vacated title. What these situations, whether involving dab pages or not, have in common is that they result in a change of the topic structure. They move an article to, or away from a primary title. And the cases that don't involve a dab page are precisely the ones that we really do want editors to fix after, because they are not tracked: there is no established mechanism for tracking links to former primary topics the way there is a mechanism for tracking and fixing links to dab pages.

Overall, I think we should scrap the bit about double redirects, and replace the one about dab pages with a suitably worded more general statement to the effect that incoming links should be fixed after moves involving a change in primary topic. Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Imagine a page move, this creates a redirect. If this redir is then left alone, it's fine for the bots to act on redirs that point to what is now a new redir. But consider that such new redirects might then be repurposed - they might be altered to point to a different page, or be converted to a dab page, or a full article. The serious double redirects are the ones which still existed immediately prior to that repurposing: if the new redir becomes a redir to a different page than the one moved, bots that fix double redirs will apply the wrong fix; if the new redir becomes a dab page or full article, bots won't touch its inward redirs, they will be left alone and not fixed at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

So that's what was meant by "serious"? But this situation happens only when there's some change in the topic structure (move to or away from a primary topic, or a move accompanied by a split) and will be subsumed under any instructions there will be for this situation, as redirects show up in the "what links here" like normal links. Or maybe there should be extra emphasis on them? – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oddness

Reskin moved page 186 G. Sagittarii to Yonmara yet its showing up at HD 182681, note Yonmara is a fictional name for a real star.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: There have been multiple moves with page histories moving around so they can be confusing. 186 G. Sagittarii was moved to HD 182681 in December.[2] The move left a redirect behind. Reskin moved this redirect to Yonmara. A page only containing a redirect should rarely be moved. I think Reskin was trying to do something else. He also made a disallowed copy-paste move.[3] Use Wikipedia:Requested moves if you are unable to make a wanted move. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes he was, he created Yonmara about a fictional star and is trying to recreate it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moves where the target name has an existing page

"Page movers can move the target page to a new location, move the intended page to the location, and request deletion of the moved page" (emphasis added).

That seems to be either wrong or hopelessly obscure or even unintelligible. Try to reconcile the first two clauses; because I can't.

I've been performing occasional WP:ROBIN swaps ever since I was granted the WP:PAGEMOVER privilege. There is no need to request any deletion if you do a ROBIN swap properly (unless you cock it up, as I did on about my 3rd ROBIN move, forget to uncheck "Leave a redirect behind", and have to admit that you've left a mess and please could a friendly admin clean it up?)

Without the PAGEMOVER privilege, yes, you may need to request deletion of the what-is-now the {{R from move}} redirect page using a suitable WP:CSD - but with the PAGEMOVER privilege, you don't. Narky Blert (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your quote came immediately after "Administrators can delete a page and move another page to the deleted name, in one step." The intention must have been to say what page movers can do instead in multiple steps to end with the same result (assuming the deletion request is followed), but it was not clear. I have changed it to: "Page movers can move the target page to a new location wihout leaving a redirect, move the intended page to the target page, and optionally request deletion of the moved page".[4] I think this also clarifies that the second move is not to the same location as the first move. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Article scope changes

In the section "There are several possibilities for why you will want to rename a page", now §Reasons for moving a page, Patrick with this June 2003 edit added the line:

• The scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed.

That's hardly changed over the years; it now reads:

• It is an article at a descriptive name and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed.

I think that should be qualified:

• It is an article at a descriptive name and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed in a relatively minor way.

In the case of substantial or extensive scope changes, the content under the old scope should remain in the previous article history, where the page title accurately describes the scope. The new title should be started by copying only the content that remains in scope, while providing attribution linking to the previous title in the edit summary.

I think we should try to avoid getting into situations like that I described at Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)#Requested move 19 January 2020 in subsection §Page move history. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on round robin moves

As of lately, I've come across more round robin page moves. Taking the most recent instance I came across as example:

• Draft:Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) was to be moved to Tropical Storm Bertha (2020), but the target already exists. Hence,
• Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) was first moved to Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) 2, and then,
• Draft:Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) was moved to Tropical Storm Bertha (2020).
• Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) 2 was then tagged G6.

While this is not necessarily a problem (more so if the G6'd page has no significant history, as in this case), I see two negatives to this:

1. The original history of Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) is lost into a random title (in this case Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) 2)
2. A csd request is still needed to delete Tropical Storm Bertha (2020) 2

Due to this (more particularly to #1) I propose we don't encourage the use of round robin moves for most/all common cases. And simply encourage to use {{db-move}}. In this case, to place {{db-move|1=Draft:Tropical Storm Bertha (2020)|2=Reason}} to Tropical Storm Bertha (2020). Thoughts? Rehman 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How to move a category

The first step in the instructions is:

• 1. Move the category page (description wiki markup).

This is extremely unhelpful. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If you can't follow it, don't do it. Category moves are much more complicated than other page moves, and in most cases it's best to ask somebody experienced to handle it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. I've been an editor for 16 years, and have moved categories before, successfully. I'm wanting to move a category, but the Move item is missing from the Page tab where it always used to be. So, I assumed the procedure has been changed, and I came here to check. A newby editor would be totally lost at this point. So am I.

Exactly how do I move a category page now? By analogy, the step-by-step instructions for flying to the Moon would not begin "1. Fly to the Moon". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Category pages can be moved by page movers and by administrators. They cannot be moved by others anymore. Perhaps the instructions could clarify that you must have one of these roles. Otherwise, you must request at WP:CFDS or WP:CFD, the former of which RR64 posted above. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps? Definitely, I'd say. But thanks for the response. Now I know what's going on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fail to undo a unecessary page move

Hello, can anyone please undo page move to List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals, a new user just move the page here and now I'm unable to undo it. The present name of the article just changed the meaning of the article and is not consistent with List of men's footballers with 500 or more goals, List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps, List of women's footballers with 100 or more international caps etc. Drat8sub (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you undo it? What happens when you try? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, it's saying, "the page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." I failed to undo this. Please restore if you can. The user also moved other pages too. I fear the user may move other list articles' name too that are mentioned above and can it be Move protected citing other page problem? Drat8sub (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't "just moved", it was moved on 10 March. Now you want it to be undone today? Besides which, it was moved by Ae245 (talk · contribs) who is not "a new user", they've been editing for more than three years. Have you asked them to revert their move? What did they say? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, well my bad, I just seen their edit count, thought they are new. Anyway, I've just seen the page move today, that too because another user moved that again today, and for that reason may be due to double redirect I could not undone it. Ok, I am pinging the user there. If it does not work out, I will let you know. Drat8sub (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If the page move was A→B→C then to revert the A→B move you must first revert the B→C move, so that the full sequence is A→B→C→B→A. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, shame on me, have read the section carefully now. Hope it works. Drat8sub (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, sorry to bother again, I tried to undo from C to B to A, was able to do C to B but could not undo to A which was the original name of the article (here). I think at this point an admin can only complete the procedure, can you please? Drat8sub (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The procedure is described at WP:RM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Like a G6

Hi Maile66, yesterday you deleted Category:Fourth-generation jet fighter under G6 however you never seem to have completed the move. What am I missing here? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack I wasn't handling the page move, just the request for the deletion so the page move could happen. Looking at the record, it was requested by Fuddle so they could make the page move. Maybe they can enlighten us on what is missing here. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I used twinkle to request a move. That's all I know. Fuddle (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Fuddle moving this here from my talk page. I have no idea what happened, as I only responded to a request on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion like I've done hundreds (thousands?) of times. I clicked on the Delete" tab, and the "Delete" button at the bottom of the page. That's the way it's always worked, and I have no idea what happened this time. Maybe somebody on this talk page can resolve this mystery. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something to do with the change to category moves described in the section above? Graham87 07:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the page I deleted, and have removed the original Speedy Delete tag. So you're back to where you started. — Maile (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dablinks

There's a proposal under way to rewrite the guidelines about links to disambiguation pages: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Draft wording. One question is whether the guidelines should stipulate whose responsibility it is to fix incomings links after a move of a disambiguation page to the primary title. – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating archive bot settings when moving a page

Hello all,

Recently, PrimeHunter created Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage. Most (practically all non-userspace) pages in there are caused by page moves. I see that CapnZapp already updated the guide to remind you all to update the bot settings, but I'd like to draw extra attention to it. When you move an article with talk page archives, please update the bot settings as well. Thank you! --rchard2scout (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course an even better approach would be to change the codings of the archival bots to use the standard naming (of archive pages) per default. If we could get rid of the |archive=User talk:Example/Archive %(counter)d parameter (Lowercase Sigmabot III) and the |archiveprefix=User talk:Example/Archive (ClueBot III) parameters except for those few cases where a non-standard naming scheme is warranted, it should mean the problem simply evaporates in the large majority of cases. CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Page moved to" message?

Under "Other Notes", it says: It is useful to copy the message "Page ... moved to ..." to the new talk page, especially if there has been discussion about the name of the page.

What message does this refer to? CapnZapp (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that it's the auto-generated edit summary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Redrose64. Maybe that could be clarified (since the audience for this article presumably includes non-experts)? Anyway, I asked for a different reason - I hoped there was a ready-made template to use on talk pages to inform editors of page moves (that is, to inform editors of previous names of the current page when that history is non-trivial). For instance, have a look at Template talk:Interlanguage link. First you're informed Template talk:Interlanguage link was merged into Template talk:Interlanguage link multi. Then you're informed "this" template is called Template talk:Interlanguage link multi? What's needed is imho to tell the reader that at this point the talk page you're reading was named Template talk:Interlanguage link multi. I've used a regular notice template since I couldn't find a standardized template along the lines of {{Copied}} or {{Old CfD}} about "old page names" (moves). Any insight welcomed, CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "Page ... moved to ..." has ever been the automatic move summary. The sentence goes back to 2003.[5] At the time the move summary was apparently just "moved to ...".[6] It was before the move log. I guess Patrick referred to the quoted message itself and didn't mean to imply it could be copied from somewhere else. We have {{Old moves}} for move discussions but I don't know any template for moves in general. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk page failed to move

I moved Dizangue reed frog to Hyperolius bopeleti over redirect. For some reason, the talk page failed to follow the main page, and the new page shows up as unassessed, with its talk page redirecting to the old talk page. I am not able to move the talk page separately. What can be done? Micromesistius (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Micromesistius: The redirect at Talk:Hyperolius bopeleti had a non-trivial history, so you couldn't move over the top of it. I've done that for you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

EuroWeek /Global Capital magazine naming issue

This business magazine article needs some attention. An article move may be needed.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

About Moving Video Game Series Name

For example:

• Super Mario to Super Mario Series
• Wii(Series) to Wii Series

--42.98.226.83 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You can propose these moves on the repective talk pages. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Add reference to WP:RMUM to section on Undoing a move

I'd like to suggest adding a reference to WP:RMUM. If someone objects to a page move, it can be unclear how to proceed. Editors may navigate to this page (WP:MOVE) to try to understand what to do. There is discussion here about how there should be a discussion prior to the move (if it's controversial), but there isn't much about what to do after the page has already been moved. There is a section here on undoing a move, and it describes the mechanics of reverting a move. It even includes a link to the essay on move wars, which also doesn't explain what to do. I suggest adding a reference to WP:RMUM or even directly to WP:RMT to clarify how to handle. Coastside (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and added it in the section about undoing moves. Graham87 11:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

Does Extended Confirmed users have the rights to move a page? Or just Autoconfirmed users? — Ctrlwiki (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Extended confirmed users are also autoconfirmed so they automatically have the right. See e.g. Special:UserRights/Ctrlwiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. — Ctrlwiki (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Diacritics

Is it possible to move a page with diacritics to a version without, I have tried but I got an error message. Ale3353 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ale3353: First, this page is not the help desk - it is the page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Moving a page. Second, yes it is possible. Third, you don't say which pages these are, nor what error message you received. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the system message

There is a proposal for an overhaul of the system message that's displayed after a move, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Making the post-move message more concise. – Uanfala (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)