Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink)
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by Strongwranglers in topic Merge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_burger with Chicken_sandwich
Learn more about this page
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

Requested move from user space

edit
Latest comment: 28 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'd like to request an article be moved from my user space to public space (from User:Logan06767 (User:Logan06767 - Wikipedia) to 'India May'. This article is about an American politician running for state office in Iowa. Logan06767 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now.
Hi Logan06767 and welcome to Wikipedia :)
I recommend you move the page to your WP:SANDBOX while you're working on it.
Also, we will need reliable sources supporting the content before we can move the article into the article space.
I recommend you review some of our WP:Getting started and WP:A primer for newcomers#On building an article to help you familiarize yourself with our guidelines on writing a great article for Wikipedia :) You are also welcome to go to the WP:TEAHOUSE if you should have any further questions. Raladic (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I moved the page to User:Logan06767/sandbox - Wikipedia and added cited sources! Is there anything else that would be needed before moving this article to the public space? Logan06767 (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi,
Thanks for adding some sources to your draft. I took a closer look and if we move the article to the article space right now, it will likely be nominated for deletion as it doesn't have much content and sources in the article yet. I took a closer look at the sources available discussing her and believe that she passes the WP:GNG criteria as there is enough significant coverage beyond the townhall event, but some of that content and the sources should ideally be in the article before its published to the article space.
You could either continue to develop the article yourself in your User:Logan06767/sandbox, or, if you'd like, we could help move it to our WP:DRAFTS space where other editors may also come across the draft and help with improving it to get it ready for the article space.
Since I took a closer look, I also have a list of sources that can help with improving the article and might help out a bit myself when/if I get a moment. I'll drop the sources into the talk page associated with your sandbox draft for now.
I just wanted to ask you first before moving it to the draft space. Let me know what you think. Raladic (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the advice! I added some more sources to the article. Do you think there's anything else that would be needed before moving to the public space? Logan06767 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Request to move draft

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please move User:Decentralizedgirl/sandbox to Alisa Lozhkina.

The article is ready for mainspace, fully sourced and neutral. It includes references from Thames & Hudson, Artnet, Texte zur Kunst, Los Angeles Review of Books, and Harvard. Decentralizedgirl (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Decentralizedgirl:
This is the wrong venue for submitting a draft; you should instead submit your draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (also known as AFC) by clicking the button "Submit for review" or by putting the text {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft in the Source Editor.
Also, I noticed that your draft has Markdown formatting in it (a single asterisk placed around words, *like this*, is one way to italicize text in Markdown; proper wikitext uses two apostrophes), which is a sign of AI-generated content. If your article was AI-generated, it may not be accepted at AFC; if it was AI-generated, please rewrite it in your own (human) words. Thank you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It appears you have created it as a draft at Draft:Alisa Lozhkina now. Please click on the "submit draft for review" button there instead to request review for publishing. Raladic (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Name changed

edit
Latest comment: 30 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An Pongsun should be changed into Ahn Bong-Soon. Please change it. 칼빈500 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:RSPM for the instructions on opening a requested move discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Prohibit RMs from mainspace to draftspace

edit
Latest comment: 26 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Users might request RMs from mainspace to draftspace per WP:DRAFTIFY, but I think these RMs are unnecessary. This is what users should do instead: 

== Please draftify the page [[X]] ==
I am requesting the page to be moved to [[Draft:X]] per [[WP:DRAFTIFY]] because <enter your reason here>. --~~~~

--2600:1700:6180:6290:F81A:8E6B:F671:5152 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite understand what you are trying to achieve here, but I believe the existing processes are fine. Articles are mainly draftified as a result of a premature move/public into main space when the article gets reviewed by WP:NPP, or resulting outcome of an AfD discussion in cases like WP:TOOSOON where someone requests WP:ATD-I and a reasonable case is made for future possibility of the article.
It is rather more rare that someone requests a main space article to move to draft by way of RM and while yes, confirmed users can technically do so (unless an article exists at the draft name already), it does also require additional cleanup such as not leaving a redirect behind, which is why in such cases requesting at WP:RM/TR can be preferred since admins and page movers are a) more familiar with the exact details around page moves and cleanups, and b) can do the move without leaving a redirect, so there is less cleanup required, which is often preferred. Raladic (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wrong venue for arguing for this. You have better luck soliciting ideas/proposals at WP:Village pump rather than here since in this case, the main guidelines you are targeting is WP:DRAFTIFY which the WP:RM venue is just one of the many possible avenues to faciliate dratification per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, i.e. to be used as a discussion tool after the original author objects to draftification. Most would prefer to use AfD as the venue, but the setup for Requested Move may suffice as a 'suitable venue', given that the discussion is held on the talk page of the article and similar notifications and banners are put up as well. – robertsky (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit

Objecting to technical requests

edit
Latest comment: 19 days ago27 comments7 people in discussion

The current instructions state:

  • 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.

In the past couple of days I've seen a technical request moved out of the "undiscussed moves" section and the "requires administrative assistance" section. The instructions call out "uncontroversial technical requests section" as being the only one that one can object to.

I can understand the need for editors to be able to object to "uncontroversial technical requests". I cannot fathom implementing a system for objecting to administrative requests (because surely an administrator would look into a bit more before performing the move, as the only reason to request an administrative move is if the page is move protected), and likewise, why reverting an "undiscussed move" would be something one could object to (after all, you're reverting a move that was not discussed).

Is there a consensus to change this to all technical requests which seems to be the impression editors here are being left with? Or is objection explicitly limited to "uncontroversial technical requests" as the instructions currently state? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove "uncontroversial" from the instructions, per above. The text should read: "If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request ..." 162 etc. (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK, so just to be clear here, if we go down this path, I'm going to ignore WP:RM/TR going forward and simply plead my case directly to any admin I think I can convince for what should be simple technical requests, as this page has devolved into unnecessary bureaucracy instead of something actually useful. Having an administrator revert a recent undiscussed move on a move protected page (administrative moves) or a page mover revert an undiscussed move (recent or not, per WP:SILENTCONSENSUS) should not be fraught with uncertainty as they are (apparently) now.
I can completely understand the ability to object to "uncontroversial technical requests" as it's possible someone sees a request and is aware of WP:NC that would be applicable. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can you cite some examples of "reverting undiscussed moves" which have been unnecessarily burdened down with bureaucracy? I think the vast majority of cases these reverts are handled promptly (such that they are rarely seen on the TR board because they are handled so quickly), leaving just some of the more complex cases left open for discussion. I can think of a small handful of cases where a speedy revert wasn't actually the best course of action for various nuanced reasons -- but I should say those should be the extreme exception. TiggerJay (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can you cite some examples of "reverting undiscussed moves" which have been unnecessarily burdened down with bureaucracy? Yeah, the Draft Avatar 5 move back to it's original ___location, and the high school shooting one that is currently back in "contested" even though these instructions say (currently) only to move discussions that are listed under "uncontroversial technical requests", not "revert undiscussed moves" or "requires administrative assistance". —Locke Cole • t • c 21:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perry High School shooting was correctly contested because the bold move from 18 months and 300 edits ago is stable for purposes of WP:TITLECHANGES policy (particularly "If significant changes have been made after a move, several months may be considered "stable".). Bold moves that have become stable aren't summarily reverted. See also the RM instructions at WP:RMUM ("If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, ..."). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
A couple of things: 1) This move is certainly not controversial. And 2) the "good reason" is to follow the naming convention agreed upon by the community at WP:NCWWW. This is hardly a "bold move" as it's simply restoring the year to the title as it originally had. Regardless of what WP:TITLECHANGES says, WP:LOCALCON is a thing, as is WP:WEAKSILENCE. As I've said at the bureaucratic RM that was unnecessarily opened, I will never use WP:RM/TR ever again. I will plead my case to an admin directly, or utilize {{db-move}} to circumvent this nightmarish hellscape. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Now that User:Locke Cole has finished crashing out, is everyone else in agreement that the text should be changed as proposed above? 162 etc. (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Don't tempt me to run this whole process through WP:MFD. Also, your WP:ILIKEIT !vote above would need to actually have a reason for the change, which it presently lacks. So besides the fact that you guys ignore the process your own instructions set out, why should the text be changed? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I support striking the "uncontroversial" term from the instructions as proposed. However, while we're on the topic, because this comes up every once in a while, just because a question is asked in the "uncontroversial section" does not mean that it is necessarily contested until the request for clarifying information is provided. TiggerJay (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The current text is fine as it is. In general, requests to revert undiscussed moves should not be contested. There are rare cases where requests don't belong in that section, but those can be questioned without moving to another section. However, most requests in that section are legitimate, and we should not be countenancing routine contesting of reversions of undiscussed moves. Station1 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" subsection is now above the "Contested technical requests" subsection. It used to be below that section. I don't know when that changed, but it should probably be put back in that order to avoid people routinely contesting reversion requests. Station1 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Station1 It took a lot of digging (because the main page is edited directly for entries; maybe RM/TR should use sub-pages for the individual types of requests to limit the main page edit history to actual functional changes?), but the positions were rearranged here with an edit summary of Clear requests (none remaining) by Silikonz (talk · contribs). It's unclear if this was discussed anywhere, or if it would have changed anything about my experience, but just putting it out there for anyone curious. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
maybe RM/TR should use sub-pages for the individual types of requests to limit the main page edit history to actual functional changes? - no, clerking on RM/TR regularly requires moving things from one section to another and if it were multiple pages, we would just create a lot more edits than necessary as well as making the tooling a lot harder since it will have to make changes to multiple pages at the same time which can cause more race conditions, which is problematic. Raladic (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That change was made in 2023 two years ago. That very much means silent consensus found the change in section orders not to be a problem. In fact, moving the administrator needed section down to the bottom, and moving the contested section just above it was definitely helpful because most users coming to the page want to either request uncontroversial move or asking for undo of a recent undiscussed move.
Most average users don’t know when an administrator is needed and it’s mostly up to the clerks to determine if that’s the case, by analyzing the page histories when requests are made, and if they determine that a history merge is needed then they move it from the uncontested section to the admin section.
Similarly some users come here asking for an undiscussed move revert, but unless it fits the criteria, it does happen every now and then that such a request can’t be fulfilled because it doesn’t and in such cases clerks, will also move it to the contested section to let the filer know and to recommend a formal RM, or in some cases may just open the RM directly on behalf of the request if that’s the clear thing to do. Raladic (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That change was made in 2023 two years ago. That very much means silent consensus found the change in section orders not to be a problem. It was made two years ago, with an edit summary that gave no indication of the change, and other than WP:WEAKSILENCE, it has no implied consensus that a discussion here or a WP:BOLD change couldn't undo. some users come here asking for an undiscussed move revert, but unless it fits the criteria, it does happen every now and then that such a request can’t be fulfilled because it doesn’t and in such cases clerks, will also move it to the contested section The current instructions do not allow this, and "clerks" who choose to do this are not very good at following instructions. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Locke Cole, adding a comment that I initially indeed made a WP:BOLD change to switch heading placement due to many users placing requests directly in either contested or Administrator required sections in this revision. That edit summary was likely just a side effect of using the Clear requests button, which relies on a static revision.
There was a brief discussion here, but if this seems to be an issue there should be more conversation regarding this for sure. Silikonz💬 17:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It makes more sense for the order to be technical request, contested technical request, requests to revert, admin needed. That's because a request to revert is itself a contesting of a controversial move, the only difference being the contested move is a fait accompli as opposed to a move being caught and challenged before it can be carried out. Of course, someone can purposely or mistakenly put a request in the wrong section, and those can be corrected, but generally requests for reversion should be carried out and then challenged by means of a RM. Station1 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. The point of the page is for editors who cannot execute a move themself to be able to request assistance to do so.
For that, they will (usually) need either:
  1. Uncontroversial technical requests, or
  2. Requests to revert undiscussed moves
A user coming to the page to request assistance will never place a new request directly into the "Contested technical request" section, so it makes sense that it comes below.
In some rare cases, an admin may be needed, but most editors do not know the full details of when an Admin is needed (which is why we have a note there), so I think having that at the end makes sense. I could *maybe see the argument of the admin section being #3, but I don't thing #1 & #2 should logically be anything other than the two sections most likely sought for requests. Raladic (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’ve added the link to WP:RMUM to the request section itself and added a separate bullet to the instructions at the top of WP:RMTR for such cases to make it clear that prior to requesting a technical reversion of an undiscussed move, the filer should review the guidelines (which in turn are based on AT policy). I also added a note that in some cases, clerks may determine that the criteria isn’t satisfied (such as requesting a reversion of a undiscussed move that has been stable and thus may not be uncontroversial anymore and should go through a formal RM).
The instructions at the top of the page are written for users that can’t move a page themself due to technical limitations to come and seek help on how to do so. It never mean those help-guide type instructions, which are meant for users seeking help, override the criteria of RM/RMUM reversion which in turn are based on the article titling policy of WP:TITLECHANGES, which is what RMUM is derived from and which the help-instructions at the top of RM/TR are derived from. So I’ve added the clarifying note that should help clear up any future misunderstandings and brings them in line under WP:POLCON. Raladic (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
WP:TITLECHANGES is dealing with controversial titles. If one is reverting an undiscussed move, it was likely not controversial, and likewise, moving it back would not be controversial. Conferring protection to a title simply because it hasn't been undone is flatly against WP:CON and WP:BOLD. Now would boldly moving a page back after a year be subject to WP:BRD? No, I'd think not after such a long time. But that's the process the community has agreed upon, not conferring special privileges to edits simply because nobody has changed them in a long time. See WP:WEAKSILENCE, which is linked from WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. You're basically putting your thumb on the scale here and saying other editors can't edit something if it's been in place for a long time. Last time I checked, WP:RM/TR wasn't a shortcut for Wikipedia:Requested moves/Requests for Controversy. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well your own example above of the high school shooting shows how clearly reverting that undiscussed move is in fact controversial as the Talk:Perry High School shooting#Requested move 3 August 2025 is showing, so the person that moved it to contested was appropriately interpreting the information at hand that it would require more conversation by the community to check if the silent consensus is also supported by explicit consensus or not.
What I summarized above is the practical aspect of experienced editors clerking RMTR are using their good judgement as we are WP:NOTBURO and sometimes what is written isn’t precisely how things work in practice and then we revise and update things so that our guidelines do reflect the community consensus when someone notices. Which just like content also sometimes happens by someone simply updating something that was ambiguous to create more clarity for the future, and sometimes it requires more formal discussions or even project wide RfCs. Raladic (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well your own example above of the high school shooting shows how clearly reverting that undiscussed move is in fact controversial as the Talk:Perry High School shooting#Requested move 3 August 2025 is showing Translation: the drama we started is actually taking shape nicely, if the page had simply been moved, we would have missed out on some quality drama and arguing about guidelines/policies.
Again, a silent consensus has no greater weight nor meaning than someone undoing that silent consensus. But you artificially generated controversy because... y'all are bored? Need something to whittle away the hours? There's certainly no good reason to treat me any differently than someone who did the exact same thing a year ago. Now, had I been trying to RMUM a move that was performed because of an RM or an RFC or because of a larger community discussion? Absolutely, that's something that should be addressed prior to a move. But trying to create controversy where none existed is why I'll never use WP:RM/TR again.
Putting a year in front of an WP:NCWWW article title is not any more controversial than removing the year. If anything, removing the year without the historical perspective WP:NOYEAR talks about is the real issue here. But nobody contested that move and undoing it is apparently something that requires community-wide input. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Putting a year in front of an WP:NCWWW article title is not any more controversial than removing the year. - It may not be any more controversial but, List of school shootings in the United States (2000–present) shows pretty clearly that whether a shooting has a year or not is about 50/50. So really, it probably is that most (or all?) move of school shootings are controversial to begin with.
Also note that WP:SHOOTINGS is linked at the top of NCWWW for the nuance of violence and deaths, so I think you may actually want to create a guideline discussion at VP of whether there should be an actual explicit flow chart guideline for school shootings, given that they are sadly not that uncommon. Raladic (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sigh... not every event listed at that page is a) just a school shooting (some were in a community that included a school), and b) just because the link text doesn't include the year, I found examples where the article was at a name that started with the year.
Again, you lot are assuming controversy and in fact creating controversy when you should be just moving the articles. If someone objects, they can be undone and either an RM can be started or maybe the matter will just stop there. Assuming that every attempt to move an article is controversial is just creating unnecessary drama. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
WP:RMT is for uncontroversial technical requests. Anything that is in any way subject to interpretation (such as the Perry High School shooting article's title, to name one example) should go directly to WP:RSPM per WP:PCM.
Nobody is creating controversy. You're just trying to use WP:RMT for something it's not intended for. 162 etc. (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, which is why I didn't use RMT, I used RMUM. As to the rest, as your premise was flawed so was everything else you said. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Requested move/article name change for Romani People in the United States

edit
Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Moved to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical § Uncontroversial technical requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose moving Romani People in the United States to Romani people in the United States. The current title is that the word "people" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. The proposed title is more appropriate because the word "people" is a common noun and has no intentions of being capitalized.

DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to Draft space request

edit
Latest comment: 16 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  Moved from Special:Permalink/1305811249 § Move to Draft space request
 – Raladic (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Article was moved to Draft space as requested. Raladic (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please move Francis Okoro to Draft:Francis Okoro (basketball). I am the subject of the article and would like it reviewed under Articles for Creation before being in mainspace. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibestfrank88 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2025

  FYI
 – @Chibestfrank88: There is no Francis Okoro on English Wikipedia
According to the Wikidata record, Francis Okoro (Q100893646), there is an article on Italian Wikipedia: it:Francis Okoro. Perhaps you can ask for assistance at the Italian Helpdesk at Aiuto:Sportello informazioni. Peaceray (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It was moved from the users sandbox to the draft by @Destinyokhiria: at Draft:Francis Okoro. Raladic (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the current configuration of TenshiBot acceptable?

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

At the moment at RM/TR, I see a lot of removals before the bot gets to them, either for being contested (around 1-2 days before the bot would remove it) or a RM being opened for that move. Should the timing for removing contested requests be changed, or a change made to remove requests with open RMs? As a reminder, the bot will only remove contested requests after 3 days of inactivity. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I never knew the bot existed, excellent work -- is it documented in any of the WP:RM docs/instruction pages? I think the removing completed closes is something the closing editor should normally handle themselves in real time to avoid other editors from looking into an already completed request -- but it's good to have a bot there just in case, or for situations where it is moved outside of the knowledge of the RMTR volunteers. However, as for the removing stale conversations, I've always viewed it as (1) 48 hours of inactivity, so would support a decrease of your bot thresholds to that number; (2) if the nom replies in a way that indicates there is no further discussion to be had (withdrawn or BITS, etc) then those can close even sooner, but I would not expect a bot to understand that nuance. With regards to the frequency at which it runs, I'm not familiar with the implications of running more frequently, but I would support a more frequent (hourly) mop -- again with no understanding of the technical or procedural implications of such a suggestion. TiggerJay (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC) (ce: added the word "not" to the phrase "would not expect a bot to understand". Not sure why I omited that word, but I hope everyone likely figured out the meaning already, added for clarity and reduce confusion. TiggerJay (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC))Reply
I don't think it is documented anywhere in the RM pages, I'll try and update that. On frequency, I changed it from hourly to 12 hour intervals because of a suggestion in the BRFA by Robertsky. I don't think RM/TR is active enough where the bot would be required hourly (currently it edits the page once every 2-7 days since it didn't need to do anything on its runs, though that could be to the issues above). Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the bot being at 3 days is fine. It means it’s not overly aggressive and gives users a bit of time to respond or one of the clerks deciding between opening an RM and n their behalf or just removing it as contested or leaving it alone, in which case the bot will do its magic a bit thereafter.
A good recent example I can think of was the this request regarding Laser boats. I waited for about two days, but sans response then opened a Talk:Laser (dinghy)#Requested move 6 August 2025 on the editors behalf for all 4 RMTR requests since their question of the move was reasonable, but required more consensus.
While knowing that the RM would probably be a no for the time being due to COMMONNAME, but that was for the community to argue with more time/input in a formal RM, whereas for us clerking RMTR we decide on the merit of a request being uncontroversial and if so, execute it for the users and doing the necessary cleanups, or if we have a hunch its controversial due to the various policy reasons, we move it to contested, explaining to the user why their request doesn’t fit as an uncontroversial request.
If the bot was more aggressive, then it would likely remove such cases prematurely. So I think the 3 day inactivity setup is just about right, I don’t think it should be any less than that. Raladic (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For reference, TenshiBot's configuration is based on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 35#Bot to clerk RM/TR from Q1 2024. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Good information, it does sound like 72 was consensus at that time and don't oppose it. TiggerJay (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration case result

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 has now been closed and includes the authorization of contentious topic restrictions (when needed) related to move requests and move reviews. For editors active in move requests, it may be helpful to review the case. Dekimasuよ! 06:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_burger with Chicken_sandwich

edit
Latest comment: 2 hours ago4 comments1 person in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chicken_burger#c-PeerlessBlue-20250215020400-merge_with_chicken_sandwich?

Common convention dictates this is merely a type of chicken sandwich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_sandwich_wars

Sources: https://ia803207.us.archive.org/6/items/uptodatesandwich00full/uptodatesandwich00full.pdf https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75893 ("THE UP-TO-DATE SANDWICH BOOK 400 Ways to Make a Sandwich" By EVA GREENE FULLER, 1909, The Caslon Press, Chicago)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0570178314000074 ("Suggested treatments for processing high nutritive value chicken burger" by W.Z.A. Mikhail a, H.M. Sobhy a, M.F. Khallaf b, Hala M.Z. Ali c, Samia A. El-askalany c, Manal M. Ezz El-Din, Annals of Agricultural Sciences Volume 59, Issue 1, June 2014, Pages 41-45)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6792075/ "Type of Sandwich Consumption Within a US Dietary Pattern Can Be Associated with Better Nutrient Intakes and Overall Diet Quality: A Modeling Study Using Data from NHANES 2013–2014" "grilled chicken/cheese/vegetable sandwiches"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4283357/ "Sodium, Saturated Fat, and Trans Fat Content Per 1,000 Kilocalories: Temporal Trends in Fast-Food Restaurants, United States, 2000–2013" "We analyzed the nutrient content of frequently ordered items from 3 US national fast-food chains: fried potatoes (large French fries), cheeseburgers (2-oz and 4-oz), and a grilled chicken sandwich." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongwranglers (talk • contribs) 05:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/14/dining/field-guide-to-the-sandwich.html "A Field Guide to the American Sandwich" APRIL 14, 2015 By SAM SIFTON "" Grilled Chicken Boneless chicken breast is grilled and served on a bun, often with lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise. According to the culinary historian Andrew F. Smith, the grilled chicken sandwich took off in the 1960s as it became associated with salads and dieting. "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongwranglers (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://archive.org/details/bestofbestfromvi0000mcke/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Best of the Best From Virginia: Selected Recipes From Virginia's Favorite Cookbooks" by McKee, Gwen, Moseley, Barbara, Publication date:1991, Publisher: Quail Ridge Press, Brandon, MS)

https://archive.org/details/eatingforlife00phil/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Eating for Life" by Bill Phillips, Publication date: 2003, Publisher: High Point Media)

https://archive.org/details/food00powt/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Food" by Powter, Susan, Publication date: 1995, Publisher: Simon & Schuster)

https://archive.org/details/200chickenrecipe0000lewi/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("200 Chicken Recipes" by Lewis, Sara, Publication date: 2009, Publisher: Hamlyn, London, UK)

https://archive.org/details/southernliving1900leis/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Southern Living 1995 Annual Recipes" by Southern Living, Publication date: 1995, Publisher:Oxmoor House, Birmingham, AL)

If convention goes back over 100 years then these should be merged. I see no major issue in merging the two and simply dropping Chicken_Burger to a redirect. Chicken Burger has become an incorrect reference similar to how "Literally" has become to be used in the same vein as "Figuratively".

Ultimately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_burger should be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_sandwich, with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_burger becoming a subtype or variant similar to how different barbecue sandwiches are denoted by convention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_sandwich

Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_chips, it can be noted as "Chicken Burger (British English and Hiberno-English)", where essentially it's an incorrect reference but commonly used in that local area enough to warrant inclusion on the article as to clear up confusion.

This is further supported by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries "French fries,[a] or simply fries, also known as chips,[b] and finger chips (Indian English)" Strongwranglers (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please see the convention used at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_sandwich; "Regional variations" are listed. It's reasonable to conform to the same convention in this case, along with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_chips
Which also do not use a local variant or reference to refer to the item.
crisps (British English and Hiberno-English)
finger chips (Indian English)
"Fried Chicken Breast Sandwich, also known as a Chicken Burger (British English and Hiberno-English)"
would be the correct way to denote the regional dialect variance of an existing item by all previous convention Strongwranglers (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&oldid=1308586728"