Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Colored headers

I wonder if we could get the bot to general different colored headers. So right now we'd have:

January 23, 2011

Submitted today

January 22, 2011

One day old

January 21, 2011

Two days old

January 20, 2011

Three days old

January 19, 2011

Four days old

January 18, 2011

Five days old

January 17, 2011

Six days old

January 16, 2011

Seven days old

Backlog

Eight days old or older

This would make it obvious that anything in the 7th day (Jan 16) is subject to closure. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No complaints. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
How about we just shuffle things into the backlog after 7 days, instead of 8? harej 07:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah not correct, we have a computer handy so why not move an entry into the backlog after 168 hours? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
By "we," I meant the bot. harej 04:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Off Broadway ----> Off-Broadway

The most refs both show Off-Broadway with a hyphen:

-- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Most are irrelevant because the usage is attributive. But others[1] have the hyphen regardless, so the move was probably good. — kwami (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Autism -> Classical autism

Autism → Classical autism — The new title would be more accurate. Isn't Kanner's syndrome and PDD also a form of autism? So's Asperger's Disease. --Nmatavka (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this

Since I am on a dynamic IP (please don't tell me to create an account) and I am unable to monitor the situation, I am not sure where to take this. I was going to simply post it at WP:C&P as a c&p move, but it seems to be an ongoing hornet's nest. The two pages in question are Newark Pepper (singular) & Newark Peppers (plural). After looking at it, I'm unsure which is correct; that might need to be settled at WP:BASEBALL. Also, there are 2 categories: Category:Newark Pepper (singular) & Category:Newark Peppers (plural). Users are reverting each other and then redirecting and c&p moving. The c&p move definitely needs to be fixed, but I am unsure which way. Could someone who knows what procedure to use to fix this go ahead and stop the madness please. I am unable to keep an eye on this. Rgrds. 64.85.217.144 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed; moved to pl. per claim on discussion page. Post at the WProject if you're dubious about the claim. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. For the record, no major league-level team has carried a singular name since Allegheny of Pittsburgh in the early 1880s; singular names were popular in the early days of "Base Ball", but fell out of use long before the birth of the American League. Some writers go as far as to retroactively change team names of the 1870s from "Mutual of New York" and "Athletic of Philadelphia" into "New York Mutuals" and "Philadelphia Athletics". I've never seen (until now) someone try to go the other way.
The only top-level Negro leagues team that ever used a singular name was Hilldale, and even then people keep trying to write it as "Hilldales" or make them into the "Hilldale Giants" or some other name.
In short, all contemporaneous sources and all published encyclopedias (Turkin-Thompson, McMillan, Total Baseball, all of them) show the Newark Federal League team of 1915 to have been named the Newark Peppers. For some reason that remains unexplained, the web site Baseball-Reference.com wrote the name as "Newark Pepper"; there is no other source for this version of the name, other than web sites that quote the original error from B-R.com.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been little or no reverting going on. I wrote some time ago on one of the Discussion pages that this should be fixed but got absolutely no response, indicating that no one really cared enough about it to bother (not a big surprise, actually). Just recently a user decided to revert a category from "Peppers" to "Pepper", and I decided that perhaps a redirect would be less confusing. Apparently I was incorrect, as IP 64.85.217.144 feels there is madness afoot.  :-) I hope this is resolved now. -- Couillaud (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This is regarding a {{db-move}} I put on 1915_Newark_Peppers_season. Actually, I was defending your moves, but you did it incorrectly. Do not do c&p moves any more as they violate WP copyright regarding page histories. Your pages and categories are at the plurals now, as they should be and as you were intending, but you just did it procedurally incorrect. No worries, it is being fixed now. 64.85.214.196 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

When do we close RMs?

Following this discussion at WP:AN, I feel that this question needs an answer as otherwise it's likely to get confusing for all involved here. Current practice seems to be that RMs get closed when they reach the backlog but today an admin closed several that weren't yet in the backlog but were instead in the last day of listing. The closing instructions mention a "normal 7 day listing period" which it would be reasonable to interpret as a full 7 day listing and it would appear that, at least recently, this has been insured by waiting until the moves reach the backlog. I'm not bothered either way but I do think it would be useful if we were consistent hence starting this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I too have been assuming discussions should be allowed to go until they make it to the backlog, but it appears that by the time they reach the last day, they are over 7 days old and thus ready for closing.

That said, apparently consensus frowns on closing discussions if discussion is still active, even if it's in backlog. A recent closing has been protested partially on the grounds that it was closed too early, even though it had been open eight days prior to closing, because there was a comment made just a few hours prior to closing. See Talk:Ann_Arbor/Archive_3#Requested_move, Talk:Ann_Arbor#Revert_move, and Talk:Ann_Arbor#Previous_closure. But that might just be a sour grapes rationalization applied in just that one case.

I'm all for adding clarity on this point, though I'm not sure about how best to deal with the ongoing discussion factor, though I do think we need make the rules more clear to provide fewer excuses to protest closings, not the other way around. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that an RM should be opened for 14-days. That should be ample time for as many editors as possible to discover it & particpate in it. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Close 'em if there's a clear established consensus, leave 'em open if not. Simple. -- Ϫ 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I like that. Give 'em 7 days and, if there is a clear consensus established, close 'em, otherwise give them up to 7 more days (total of 14), and the close. That is, discussions should not be closed prior to 14 days if there is not consensus established one way or the other. Is that what you mean? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Wether or not that's what he meant, it's an acceptable idea. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I broadly agree with that but I still think we need to decide when 7 days are up and the RM should be closed or relisted. Not because it's particularly confusing from the point of view of making the decision, but because it's likely to be confusing, and possibly cause drama, if we're not consistent. Dpmuk (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Howabout, if there's at least a 2/3 majority for moving, after 7-days from RM's opening, it's ruled consensus to move? GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

7th day has been the day of closure for years. "Backlog" does not mean "day eight or more" but "backlog", quite a big clue I'd have thought. ;) Current practice is that we have a huge backlog and many threads don't get closed for weeks or months on end, but since I cleared the backlog we can get back to normal (assuming there are admins who are prepared to do it). Threads which need more than 7 days should be relisted, not left in the backlog. The backlog needs to be empty, otherwise administrators are alerted that the area needs attention other areas don't. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

14-days should be the maximum for an RM. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That may well have been the practice for years but it's not appeared to have been the practice of admins closing over the last few months - I notice you haven't been very active here in that time. As I say backlog is a clue but equally well it could have just been a bad choice of word especially given what current practice has been (and I'm talking here about the facts that even easy to close ones were generally waiting until they hit the backlog). Closing on the 7th day is fine by me as long as we're consistent. Dpmuk (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it desirable to keep discussions open past seven days unless it is likely that to do so will generate a consensus relativity quickly (Typically to do this some compromise has to have been suggested late on in the discussion and those involved in the discussion have yet had time to respond to it). -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Using WP:RM for redirect retargetting instead of WP:RFD?

At Talk:Provincial highway, it is argued that WP:RM is an appropriate venue to retarget redirects because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You may wish to comment. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral moves to meet a foreign language music guideline

I have copied the text of this Section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs. As it affect that project, it is better that further talk about this takes place there, so that if there is a consensus that the wording of the project contradicts WP:AT policy, then the project wording can be altered to complement the policy. --PBS (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the procedure when the primary topic changes?

When a page gets moved and a disambiguation page is placed at the old title, who's expected to clean up the links? For example, Main (river) was just moved to that title from Main, and Main was made into a dab page - whose job is it now to clean up the hundreds(?) of links that are now broken as a result? I'd have thought this was a far more important issue than the repair of double redirects, since those will get done pretty soon by a bot, but the links necessarily require human intervention. Should we put a warning about this in the instructions, perhaps saying that the dab page should not be moved to the base name (i.e. the base name should continue to point to the article which used to be there) until all the links (at least, those in article space) have been repaired?--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the links to the Main are now links to a dab page, the WikiProject that specializes in cleaning up links to disambiguation pages will get to them. But the general answer is: this is a volunteer project; whoever feels like doing it - or has followed a link to the wrong place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Not sure what we should do but I definitely think we need to address this somehow. I usually stay away from closing those with many links for just this reason, and when I have closed these I've seen no choice but to hand dab. You proposal still leaves the dabbing itself open. Maybe we need a process for these types of moves, where we have a notice stating to those who are participating that the move will not be carried out unless in their !votes at least X number of participants agree to help hand dab X number of pages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no problem with the first part of the move being carried out (moving "Main" to "Main (river)"); the problem is with the second stage (the moving of the dab page to the base title, or the creation of a new dab page there, or the changing of the redirect to point to a different primary topic). It seems that we ought to make it part of the accepted process that the person who performs this second stage - which might not necessarily be a move as such - ought to hold back doing it until they (or other people) have corrected the links that would otherwise be broken.--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

How should namespace be fixed?

A WP:RM nom was raised which gave the wrong namespace for the new page name: it was a template rename, which was mistakenly worded such that the target name was in article space. I fixed the namespace at the original proposal, here, but when I tried to fix the namespace at the WP:RM page, here, I was reverted. How can it be fixed at WP:RM without being reverted again? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Simply edit the tag on the discussion page as I did with this edit. As the edit notice to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions say a bot will overwrite any edits made to it so it should never be huiman edited. Dpmuk (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Page not listing

Can anyone figure out why User talk:ChrisCairncross/Speedy Transport is not getting listed? I moved the tag from the page to the talk page and it refuses to list on the RM page. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed several times recently that there's sometimes been a long lag between tagging and listing (no idea why) so I suspect it will be listed sometime in the next 24 hours. Seems to be worse for User pages (which anyway RM is normlaly the wrong process for - AFC is where they should go and is generally much quicker) than main space pages. Dpmuk (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Request

I'd like to modify the move proposal from "Székely → Szekelys" to "Székely → Székelys". Can someone help me? (Iaaasi (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

Adding template to existing discussion

I have added the move request template at Talk: Gerber Format to a discussion that had already started (but has stalled). I am hoping this has not breached any etiquette. My apologies in advance if it has and please make any necessary correction for me. SpinningSpark 10:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The bot does not seem to have picked this one up. SpinningSpark 13:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Goa_Konkani_language_agitation_of_1986 — This page was moved to be renamed as "Goa Konkani language agitations of 1986". However, these agitations were part of a movement that began well before 1986 and culminated in 1987. Neighbouring states of Karnataka and Kerala also had a role to play in these agitations. The page was moved by a user having autocontrol rights. please move the article back to it's original title page Konkani language agitation. --Imperium Caelestis 05:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting multiple page moves

I want to move one page to a new title and use the old title for a new article. I read the instructions, but still can not figure it out. Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? Can anyone give clearer instructions? Thanks. -- -- -- 00:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing which articles you're dealing with, we can only be of so much assistance. harej 05:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Vien (Hasidic dynasty) should be renamed Vien (Hasidic community), and Vien (Hasidic dynasty) should be (not a redirect, but rather) a new article which I am preparing. (Please see my talk page). -- -- -- 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- -- -- 23:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

MoCADA

Could someone uninvolved take a look at Talk:MoCADA#Requested move. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move protection and requested moves

This RfC discussion is likely to be of interest. The RfC states:

I propose an addition to the move protection section of this policy. I suggest the following is added after An obvious exception to this rule is when pages are protected due to page-move vandalism.:
When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started.

Please comment on that page and not here. Dpmuk (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Qing dynasty Empresses

Can anyone help me with changing the Qing dynasty empresses article titles. It seems a big mess. I would like to change them to Empress Xiao, second character, 3 character as in Empress Xiao Xian Chun. most personal names are unknown of these empresses so they were named by their title. The article titles now are titles which were, are never used for them. (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

How do I fix the Price is Right link I messed up. CTJF83 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. The closing parentheses needed to be added within the movereq tag, which the bot uses, not just in the section below that shows up on the talk page. Station1 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, CTJF83 21:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons

Talk:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons#Ammended requested move - I was asked to make a new section for changing the targets. It's the same discussion, so I'd like it to be put on the same date (March 21) of the current discussion.陣内Jinnai 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request

{{Requested move/dated}}

User:Kef253/Shipley & Halmos → Shipley & Halmos — I've created a new page draft in my userspace for the menswear brand Shipley& Halmos. I've included interWikimedia links and external references as they help the page. I plan to expand and edit in the future, but am ready to publish the page as is at the moment. Kef253 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the instructions at WP:RM I have added the appropriate template to the draft ({{AFC submission/submit}}. – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Move page "marconi museum" to "Marconi national historic site of canada" ( marconi museum disambiguation becomes)

No need for this here, discussion initiated on article talk page

Reason:

look here: Talk:Marconi_Museum#move page and create disambiguation --Pava (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming wars: the only way out

This new subsection at Talk:Mexican-American War presents ten summary points for a protracted dispute. Recommended reading: for editors interested in the ways style guidelines at WP:MOS and policy at WP:TITLE are received at talkpages of articles, and for admins who might be looking to close the two relevant contested RMs.

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What I'd like to see addressed is whether TITLE is intended to mean that we must follow the format and style of the majority of our sources, regardless of the MOS. And if we want the same style/format in the title and text, is the MOS invalidated for the text as well? — kwami (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If the most reliable sources (ie. RSes from within the field of the topic, as opposed to a general encyclopedia or a news source) do not use the format prescribed by the MOS, doesn't that mean it's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:RMB

{{RMB}} usage is under discussion, see Template talk:RMB and WT:CHINA. It should be noted that RMB frequently means the currency of China, the Renminbi, which is abbreviated as "RMB" in most contexts (such as financial news reports, English-language price tags, ...). 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Move request didn't get reason

Anybody know why my move request for ITRAQ (first item on April 16) is missing the reason? It seems formatted correctly at Talk:ITRAQ#Move request. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, just fixed itself... –CWenger (^ • @) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

2 discussions, admin review of closure please

If you consider yourself an uninvolved admin when it comes to abortion related articles, I'd like to draw your attention to two move discussions Talk:Pro-life#Move.3F and Talk:Abortion-rights_movement#move_2011. I'd like for you to comment on two things. Do you think Anthony Appleyard was an uninvolved admin in the matter? And do you agree with the closures (that one discussion had a clear consensus and was within policy, while the other had no clear consensus)? -Andrew c [talk] 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

experienced RM input needed

If you're experienced with WP:RM discussions and reasoning, your input is needed here: Talk:Corvette#Requested_move. The more, the better. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please??? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing Admin review requested

I'm not an admin but closed a controversial discussion due to the backlog and because other admins refused to deal with this particular one. That close has been reverted by a non-admin. I've reverted the revert of the close. If an admin could review it, the sooner the better, I think that would be best. See: Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American_War#Move.3F Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The bot has now removed the listing from WP:RM; this therefore needs an admin closure by hand, if it is ever going to be closed. (Born2cycle does not mention that the reversal was by a participant in the discussion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I restored the template, so it is listed again. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Xiquet and Islamic -> Saracenic

Xiquet (talk · contribs) has moved a pile of pages from "Islamic X" to "Saracenic X" which is obviously not going to fly. I've moved some back, but Saracenic Agricultural Revolution back to Arab Agricultural Revolution doesn't work. Also just notifying people that this little trouble exists William M. Connolley (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

More eyes, advice needed

The move discussion at Talk:Corvette#Requested_move has devolved into a discussion over whether it is necessary, useful, or appropriate for one of the involved parties to produce a summary of the arguments/votes so far. The involved party in this case is Born2cycle (talk · contribs), one of the most vocal participants in the discussion; many disagree with the concept of such a summary, the content of his summary, or both.(see also)

Some experienced hands would be useful to keep this on track. pablo 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

jaanwar

Request that Jaanwar (1983 film) be moved to Jaanwar. just check the talk page for knowing more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jaanwar_(1999_film)Paglakahinka (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added the proper request on that article's talk page. Themeparkgc  Talk  09:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How best to proceed?

Please have a look into the situation at Talk:Quran about the discussion on revert move in response to some editors demand to restore page name to Qur'an. The discussion is several sections long including:

It has been is a almost mess there and a reviewer suggested to ask for advice here. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • This, en.wikipedia.org, is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, and so we should use the Anglicized spelling widely used by English users. We don't say "Nippon", we say "Japan". We don't say "Belge", we say "Belgium". We don't say "Zhong Guo", we say "China" on the ENGLISH Wikipedia, because those are the English usages. It doesn't matter what the native culture uses if it is not English. This isn't the Arabic Wikipedia! English is used here.WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks WIERDGREENMAN for your POV that you could put on better place. It has been asked for "advice on actions about the poll" but "not for Polls" here. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 17:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Garbled request

My request to move "Bruck–Chowla–Ryser theorem" to "Bruck–Ryser–Chowla theorem" gets garbled when it shows up on the "Requested moves" page, although it looks fine on the original talk page. I'm not sure what I did wrong... Will Orrick (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. Apparently the endashes confuse the RMbot. Please see User talk:harej#Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line. There are similar problems with these requests: Talk:F.C. Portland, Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings, Talk:Carbon-carbon bond, Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line. Station1 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and the explanation. Will Orrick (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Three option vote

How can you use the request move tag for this kind of vote, with three options presented simultaneously? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Since one of the options is to keep the page at its current title, you then have only 2 move options. Since there isn't anything specifically for this type of move (that I could find), I think if you try this, where you list the current title at both "current1" and "current2":

== Requested move ==
{{subst:move-multi
| current1 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| new1 = List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent
| current2 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| new2 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines. Do not sign this.

}}
It should at least serve your purpose for now, and if someone knows a better way, it can be corrected. --64.85.220.115 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Move got redirected to itself

The page move of Washington Grays (march) to Washington Grays got the wrong buttons pushed somehow; I think the wrong page was deleted and moved twice by accident. In any case, the article is gone and is now a redirect to a redirect that just redirects back to itself. Can someone take a look at this, the article needs to be undeleted but I don't know which page it is at. --64.85.220.115 (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. —Кузьма討論 07:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How to evaluate WP:RM discussions

Closing admins are free to evaluate consensus in WP:RM discussions any way they want, A common way is to count !votes, or at least estimate the counts and approximate what the percentages are. But these methods tend to give equal or near-equal weight to really strong arguments and to lame mere expressions of personal preference.

So, to avoid rewarding poor WP:JDLI arguments and to encourage good arguments well grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions, I recommend that closing admins immediately start using the following system, or anything similar in spirit.

  1. Consider each !vote and give it a weighting, say -5 to 5, where +5 is for support arguments well grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions, -5 is for well grounded arguments in opposition, and 0 is pure WP:JDLI, with the other possible values awarded in accordance with how well grounded the respective arguments are (4/-4 are strong, 1/-1 are very weak).
  2. Add up the points. A significant positive score of more than, say 10, is consensus in favor of the proposal, while any score less than that is "no consensus in favor of the proposal".

Just imagine a discussion in which there are 10 participants, 5 one each side, but those in support have well grounded arguments and so accumulate about 20 points while those in opposition accumulate only -5, and thus the admin finds consensus to be clearly favor of the move. I suggest that if closing admins used this system, or a similar one, the quality of the arguments presented, and the discussions in general, would quickly and greatly improve.

Thoughts/comments?

Cheers! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is essentially what I think anyone closing any discussion should be doing, although I'm not using the -5 to +5 scale. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what everyone says, but I often see decisions that seem like they're really giving each !vote essentially equal weight. I certainly don't see an epidemic of participants trying to make sure their comments are well grounded out of concern that they might not be given much weight otherwise.

So, humor me. Go to a discussion or two you've closed recently, and re-evaluate actually use this point system, just to see how the results compare to how you actually decided it. I'm hypothesizing that it's easier to give equal weight to all !votes regardless of strength than we might realize, and forcing ourselves to use such a system might help with that. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, I take it back. I don't think this is a good methodology. What if there are 7 !votes in favor of a move, but the rationales are all the same and "very weak", so +7. Then there is one "strong" rationale in opposition, so -5. The correct answer is not to move, but your methodology would require a move. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, I think I would have closed this differently had I used your methodology; maybe 6–5 in favor of move. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Best way to do this?

I wish to propose moving Kavana (disambiguation) to Kavana and moving the singer to Kavana (singer). With so many different terms (including one of his albums) having the same name, not to mention the similarly spelled articles mentioned at the disambig page, there's a strong case. Perhaps I should do better with my optimism switch, but I worry about proposing this at the talk page of Kavana: what is a suitably neutral venue for discussion? --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WT:DAB can tell you if this is appropriate according to the guideline, which will then give you arguments to use when you make the move request on the article talk page. It also has the advantage of getting a few users from that talk page to follow you to the article talk page, but you didn't hear that from me. --64.85.220.115 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Procedural closes of RMs

Should procedural closes of RMs be allowed? The example that brings me to ask this question is Talk:40th British Columbia general election that was closed as "The move was already conducted. I am simply making a procedural close at this point." This seems an end around process to me as the mover of the page was the person who requested the move so was heavily involved so by them making the move they've effectively forced the issue. In this instance the "consensus" formed at this RM is already being used elsewhere (38th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation)). This is not the only example I've seen, and indeed isn't even a particularly bad example, it#s just the most recent. Except in very clear "forgot to close" cases (i.e. where an uninvolved editor moves with an edit log comment referring to the RM) I don't think procedural closes should be allowed as they short-circuit the consensus building process. I'd have no problem with closes along the line "consensus is to move (already been done)" or in the case of something moved quickly after the start of the RM "uncontroversial and already moved by x" but I still think the person closing the RM should evaluate the case. If people agree I'd suggest adding something to the closing instructions. Dpmuk (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Following the template's instructions, I closed the discussion. If Dpmuk's proposal is adopted, then the template should be changed, as the {{Movereq}} template automatically changes to the above message once a move is conducted. OCNative (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a very good point and one I'd missed (although was previously aware of). Re-reading what I wrote above I should probably have also made it clearer that I wasn't saying that anyone is wrong to close RMs in this way at the moment (especially given the template suggests it) but rather querying whether it is actually what we want. Dpmuk (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes yes, sometimes no - perhaps we should reword the template to include a condition, like "If this discussion is complete, be sure to close it...." --Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was extremely old, it needed to be closed. I was getting tired of waiting, see my last comment and edit summary[2], I was just glad that someone was bold and moved it. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Taihu Lake

Talk:Taihu Lake is having my !vote removed by the proposer of the move for my opposing !vote. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The votes from the two IPs were, in truth, one vote. Ever heard of WP:DUCK? You two have the same, alarmingly voracious amount of activity, and have both uttered the feeble argument "'hu' is not English". If that is all you can offer to the discussion, you ought to refrain. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
HXL, it's not appropiate to delete other editors talk page posts except under exceptional circumstances, accordingly I have restored this thread. Exxolon (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
How is it one vote, when you delete one, therefore it doesn't exist? Then after a new one is lodged to replace the deleted one, you delete it as well. How is one's vote to be read if you keep deleting them? You even deleted this notice from this talk page. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the two-month backlog not being relisted?

Why is the two-month backlog section not being relisted or closed? It would make sense for the oldest RMs to get dealt with first rather than the other way around. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of how long they have been open, it is more a function of those RMs not having many votes or no clear consensus. Admins don't want to have to make a decision which will more likely result in blame than appreciation, and who can blame them? –CWenger (^ • @) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
My question was and is, why haven't they been relisted??? They are not likely to get any more votes at the bottom of a two-month pile. Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
What's the point? They are probably not going to get any new votes. And for the record, you asked why they are "not being relisted or closed" (my emphasis added). –CWenger (^ • @) 02:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not true -- entries always get new votes when they are bumped to the top, because people read the RMs from the top down. I don't understand why no one has relisted them when they should have been relisted three weeks ago. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
A decent number of RMs don't get any votes the first time around–a minority but not insignificant. So I doubt it's true that relisting always gets new votes. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not true either, and I'm not asking for opinions. I'm asking why the admins have not re-listed the two-month old backlog of RMs. Would you mind letting an admin reply instead of trying to negate the query? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't usually relist discussions, because doing so sort of means that nobody can close them for 7 more days; what is the point? Most of the ones in the backlog could be closed right now, it's just a lot of work. It hadn't occurred to me that people read WP:RM from the top. I suspect it isn't true that most rm participants work this way. But even if it is, it doesn't really matter, since this strategy will just "steal" attention from new move requests, won't it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
How do you think RMs are read, then? And why do you think admins successfully relist RMs and get several more responses? I'm baffled at the logic (or lack thereof) that is going into this thought-process. If one's attitude is "what's the point?", then why be an admin at all? It's much better to get more views and more votes for seven days than to let something languish for two whole months -- that's just obvious. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have either missed or misread just about everything I wrote. In any case, I think the bottom line is that we need more admins to spend more time closing rms. I don't have any strong opinions about relisting; I'm not trying to stop anyone or anything if people think it is useful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

When I come around to close move requests, I go straight to the bottom of the page and work my way up, closing any that I feel I can. Relisted requests are therefore invisible to me, and will not be closed by me, until they reach the backlog again a week later.

I hope I'm not the only person who reads this page from the bottom up. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As I hope is clear in my post immediately below this section, I'm opposed to relisting discussions from the backlog except in cases of active discussion. I work on the backlog, and pages that aren't in it, I never see. Therefore, relisting such pages is a good way to guarantee that I'll never close them. We need more admins who attend to the backlog, not to recirculate the backlog into the main flow repeatedly. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question, regarding timing of uncontroversial moves

My question is regarding what the lag time is for uncontroversial moves. LHM 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to be glib, but they get done when they get done. We're all volunteers; while I'd love to be able to do behind-the-scenes maintenance work all day, I'm not being paid to do so. When admins have the time, they check the page for active uncontroversial requests and act accordingly. Seems most requests are answered within 4-6 hrs or so, often much more quickly during peak hours. Also note that, if you're completely sure the move is uncontroversial and that there aren't any histories to merge or other potential complications, you can also utilize criterion G6 of WP:CSD. Doing so may see your request tended to sooner. -- Hadal (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent information, thanks! I didn't mean for my initial question to come off as a complaint. I had just never used this page before, so I wasn't sure what to expect, time-wise. LHM 00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection in 7 days --> Move, not relist

Hi. I just closed a move request at Talk:List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero episodes. That move request took over a month to be completed, when it was completely uncontroversial. I would strongly encourage RM closers to move pages when there is no objection to the move. It is not our job to generate discussion of each request. If nobody objects, we should just move the page, not relist it.

I think re-listing should only be used for pages where there is active discussion, and not in cases where there is no discussion at all. We don't need to judge the merit of the request, based on community discussion; we can just complete it as a good faith edit by an editor who doesn't happen to have a delete button. In a world without technical limitations, any logged-in editor could re-title any page, just as they can when the target is unoccupied.

I think our backlog will shrink if we start carrying out move requests after 7 days, in cases where no solid objection has been raised. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree, except that there are some cases where our experience and common sense tell us that valid objections very likely would be raised if the discussion were noticed by more people (though in this case it's perhaps better to make the objection ourselves, or at least suggest it, rather than simply relist the discussion with no explanation). --Kotniski (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. In cases like that, one thing I sometimes do is leave a note at an appropriate WikiProject or two, informing people about the discussion and inviting input. I'd say we're pretty much in agreement here. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think in the majority of cases this will be acceptable. Though it must be said that your example is an odd one, as the relister did not actually note in the discussion that he/she had relisted it, so every time it came back to the top the RM queue, it looked like a fresh discussion. Personally, I try and at least comment on discussions that I see have been relisted and haven't had any discussion in the first week (although I must admit I often steer clear of the non-autoconfirmed trying to bring their drafts into article space). Perhaps something should be added to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting, strongly recommending that if the closer feels a relist is necessary for a RM with no discussion, then they should contact at least one relevant WikiProject? Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's also a good idea for anyone who relists a discussion to make a note to that effect. If someone updates the closing instructions, that seems fine. I never read instructions anyway, but I know lots of people do, so they should reflect best practices. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion re:Notifying WikiProjects

I've made an edit. Does this seem good? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Two strange moves at the bottom

They don't follow the syntax and I can't seem to find what they correspond to... Sceptre (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a bug from having an RfC and a move request in the same section of the same talk page, namely Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. I think I've fixed it now; we'll find out in 21 minutes when the bot makes its next run. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly contentious moves

Ivory Coast.

Myanmar.

Danzig.

I think you get the idea. Sometimes, move requests come through here that are... bigger than other move requests. These tend to be repeat requests, and they've sometimes got a history of bouncing between various titles.

They take more than seven days to figure out. This means they end up at the bottom of the backlog here, a location which makes them seem to cry out for closure. Eventually, some brave soul bites the bullet and closes the request, and in the cases we're talking about, that closure is much more likely than usual to be contested, either at WP:ANI or some other venue.

It seems that it might be useful to identify such move requests, and treat them in some way differently, somehow appropriately to their special status. These are important, high-profile requests, and they tend to be cited as precedents in many, many later move discussions. Therefore, it would seem that we should find a way to handle these "big" move requests in a way that gets them lots of attention, and doesn't make them look like the most tardy and troublesome requests in a list that we're trying to clear at some sane pace.

What do people think? Should there be a way to "graduate" certain requests from RM to RFC, or something like that? Should these requests be treated differently from most other requests, or is the present system the best option?

Thanks in advance to anyone, for any input on this question. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would be a good idea to have a separate section for move proposals that are the subject of RFCs. I guess we could maintain it manually, as there wouldn't be very many of them. So we wouldn't need to trouble the bot programmer; we would just need some different template to put in place of the standard move request template, informing people that the move request is being dealt with via RfC rather than regular RM, and causing the bot to think that there is no longer an open move discussion. (A downside might be that people who think that their local argument is the Most Important Thing might be encouraged to upgrade relatively minor discussions to the RfC category unnecessarily.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
People can do that now, by just skipping RM and going straight for an RFC. (Of course, lots of people think RM is in some way "required", which probably slows them down.)

It would just be cool if we could put discussions like the current one at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire somewhere. Letting them stagnate at the bottom of the backlog doesn't really address what's happening with such requests; neither does continually relisting them. These requests have outgrown RM, and deserve wider notice.

Coming from a slightly different angle, it seems there's little point using RM to keep asking the same question, hoping for a different answer. If circumstances have actually changed since and earlier request, then it seems we should have a focused discussion about that, and not just another 12-screen long RM discussion in which the new piece of evidence gets lost in the jumble.

I guess I'm just thinking aloud here, but this is the right page for that. Let's not rush to propose anything formal, until we figure out something informal and see it work for a while. How can we pass the stickiest requests from here to a place where more people will comment on them? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to put particularly important/contentious RM discussions under a special light, though I don't see why they should be taken out of the regular RM process, except to avoid involving the bot programmer. I think it's worth adding support for that. The "special light" would mean being moved to a special section underneath "backlog", and being listed as an RFC. I would say such discussions should be kept open until there is consensus, or a week of no activity, or (say) 6 months, whichever comes first. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't care if they're "taken out of the regular RM process", or even exactly where the boundaries of "regular process" are deemed to be. Anyway, the special treatment we're talking about is basically adding an RFC to the ongoing move request. I noticed yesterday that the move template and the RFC template don't get along well in the same section together, so obviously we'll have to get those technical details right.

As far as identifying candidates for this special attention, I'd say we should at least consider: (A) Any request that is the third (or more) request involving the same two titles, (B) Any request that draws comment from over 20 editors without a clear consensus emerging, and possibly (C) Any request that has been listed at RM for over a month.

This idea, as well as the above suggestion (somewhere on this page) about advertising to relevant WikiProjects when move requests languish in the backlog, have the potential to greatly improve the flow of articles through this page, which is an exciting prospect. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you GTB on all of this, though I wonder if (B) should not be Any request that is the third (or more) request involving the same article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

New Requests at the Bottom of the Section?

This seems to differ from other areas around the Wiki (see WP:AFD for example) that always ask for new entries at the top. Because some (me included earlier, now contested, I'm not on this talk page because of that) are used to doing that, it means the entire section is completely out of order; the top is from today, the bottom is from today, and in the middle is yesterday.

Can we make the request submission mirror that of other sections like AfD and just ask for new submissions at the top instead of the bottom? CycloneGU (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? New requests go to the top of the section. At the bottom are the oldest requests - those in the backlog. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe he's talking about the Contested Requests section. At the time of writing, there were contested requests from 11 July at top (most recent) and bottom, with one from 10 July between. I've added <!-- Please move contested requests from the previous section to the bottom of this section --> to that section so it matches the previous noncontroversial requests section, but if anyone wants to flip them both I have no objection. Station1 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but yes...for both new uncontroversial requests and contested requests, I think we should follow the same format as many other areas and put new requests at the top. CycloneGU (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Serial closers

Following the discussion about the Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire closures on ANI, I suggest adding the following language to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interests. To avoid giving the appearance of a conflict of interest, editors should generally avoid closing contentious move requests if they have previously closed move discussions on the same article. --rgpk (comment) 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If so, then I would limit it to contentious new move requests - if a request is not contested, or it's clear where consensus lies, then I don't see any point in adding new bureaucratic restrictinos on who can close it.--Kotniski (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Modified. (new replaced by contentious) --rgpk (comment) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't like it. I think it's fine to close another discussion. Closers shouldn't be closing even one discussion where they are "involved", so this is missing the goal, I think. Instead, it facilitates admin shopping (case in point). I might be able to live with the "should generally" language, though, since it will still allow for scenarios where it is obviously ok to close a 2nd discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be missing the main point, but it's a step forward, not back. That is it should help reduce problems without causing any new ones. The elephant in the room is that an uninvolved closing admin might still be biased, and there is simply no way to know this, even for the admin, if the bias is subconscious. So, just in case, it's best to not close another discussion regarding the title of that article again, though I agree this should only apply when the issue is controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Unconscious bias is a problem for first-time closures, too. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but I don't know how to address that problem... do you? At least the problem can be limited to first-time closures by this rule, though of course it doesn't prevent the next closer from being biased also. But at least the next closer, if he is biased, is just as likely to be biased the other way... That's what I meant by this suggesting solving problems without causing new ones... it's a step forward, and not a step backward in any way I can see. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit. I realize it's rather different from the wording proposed above, but I think that whole section was just an egregious run-on sentence, and now it says something that I think is worth saying. Does that cover what we're talking about here? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ok, but it doesn't say anything about "serial closing". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That's true. It does say something about the "appearance of conflict of interest". I think it's good when we trust editors to use their judgment in the details. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 13:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how it addresses the problem with the current wording. It still doesn't discourage serial closing, as closing a previous discussion is not participating in the discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I made an additional edit, an attempt to clarify that closing an RM discussion counts as participating in a move discussion about an article, and thus makes an editor "involved". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh. I don't like that edit. The edit I made did address serial closers; it just did it without holding the reader's hand. Serial closing is a very clear appearance of conflict of interest. Instruction creep, and legalistic thinking, are far worse for Wikipedia than serial closing. Most problems are best addressed via human interaction, not via rules. Grumble. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't we all agree that discouraging serial closing is a good thing? Either way, what's the point in being vague about it? The previous version discourages only those who "participated in a move discussion" (which arguably does not apply to anyone who closed a previous discussion, or even participated in a previous move discussion about the same article) from closing that discussion. The general statement avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest is good, but, again, given the context addressed by the more specific earlier statement, arguably does not expand the scope to serial closings. I don't see how my edit makes anything worse, except to someone who does not want to discourage serial closing. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
How's my edit? I do not see serial closing as a problem that needs a special rule to address it, and I see adding rules as inherently negative. It doesn't mean I don't want to discourage it; it means I don't want to discourage it via instruction creep. I'm conceding a lot in my last edit. How is it?

I have very strong feelings about how instructions are written around here. If you want the dissertation-length justification for those feelings, just let me know. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you name 3 instances of serial closing, Born2cycle? Can you name 2? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a general impression of having seen it before, but can't think/find any specific instances off hand. But we know it has occurred at least once; what's wrong with being clear about it?

I'm against unnecessary rules - rules that govern behavior that is not problematic. But that's not the case here. Serial closing - if it occurs - is problematic. Worst case is it never occurs, but in that case it's not being governed - so there's no problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's already covered by policy. WP:IAR means don't do things that don't work. Serial closing doesn't work, because someone like you calls the person out. That's wonderful; keep up the good work. Let's not enshrine it as law, because writing down more rules is, in itself, harmful to Wikipedia. It creates a more legalistic atmosphere, which gets in the way of the work that needs to be done.

This encyclopedia is the miracle that it is because we aren't married to a rule-book. That's so important that it's worth remembering with every single decision we make.

How's the edit? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with your latest edits. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) I clean forgot I had proposed this! I like the wording that is in place now, thanks GTBacchus. --rgpk (comment) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a page be moved to A or B?

I just realized that a page move request at the Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi page has been formulated as: A --> B or C. Is this a legitimate page move request? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Anything that starts a directed discussion is legitimate. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what what you mean by a "directed discussion," but my concern is the voting. The editors who support a change give their preference between B and C, but those who oppose are not asked (nor provide themselves) what their second preference is between A, B, and C. (But maybe you are saying that the discussion is more important than the voting.) Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, voting is of basically zero importance. I don't close requests by counting "votes", and hopefully no one else does either. There's a discussion, people make arguments, and we weigh those and make a decision. I've seen requests where there are 2, 3 or 0 suggestions for the new title going into the discussion, and it's just no problem. People say what they want, and we make some kind of decision based on what people said. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Contentious moves, take 2

I'm looking at the bottom of the backlog, where I just closed the move to Ewelina Hańska, but we're still looking at a Kosovo multi-move request, and our much loved perennial bloom, Côte d'Ivoire, and some thoughts are occurring to me.

First of all, I closed the Hańska move because the discussion had fallen silent for over 5 days (120 hours). That's probably a minimum safe interval to say that a big discussion like that is really inactive.

Secondly, I had participated in the discussion, but only as far as asking questions for a more clear reading. I think this illustrates sane application of that part of the closing guidelines. It's not about participation per se, but about advocacy, or the appearance of advocacy.

Finally, for those last two, which are kind of typical of these difficult moves, I'm thinking of a strategy for getting a correct closure; i.e., one that will stick. A lot of RM regulars aren't good choices for closing such moves, because we tend to have been involved in something that looks a lot like it, somewhere. Maybe I'm thought of as being "for" or "against" diacritics, or WP:UE for example.

So I'm thinking this: Wait until the discussion has fallen silent for 7 days. Then post a note to WP:AN, and ask for an admin who is not an RM regular, and who feels they are neutral on the subject, to make a call and close the thing.

Any thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments: (a) nice close of Ewelina Hańska; I think your getting involved was critical to a consensus being developed, (b) good idea to get a non-regular to close those big RMs, but (c) I have seen a few requests for RM closures at AN over the last few months (the Corvette one springs to mind) and rarely have they been acted on. Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching for another big one to fall quiet for 7 ideas, and I'll try this. I'm not sure how often that happens. Thanks for the vote of confidence on the Hańska move, by the way. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else do this?

I know it's not part of the closing instructions, but after I move a page, after fixing double-redirects, I always look to see if any templates use the old name, and update those. This makes the "What links here" page work better, IMO, because it doesn't look like a bunch of articles are using the old name, when it's really just one template. Is this worth adding to the closing instructions, or does anyone have any thoughts about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I don't close discussions, but I certainly do what you do, whenever I move a page, or otherwise come across a moved page that is linked to in a template. It's great to know that I'm not alone. Yes, updating the instructions seems to be a good idea. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

page move request no longer necessary

Not sure when a bot would add it to the list, or if I just didn't do it properly. My request at [3] isn't necessary anymore. The page had improper use of a capital letter, so its not a problem. I don't need that spot for my species page. So if it appears on the list, please remove it. Dream Focus 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot has already removed it from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, as it was incorrectly formatted. For future reference, please add {{requested move}} to the talk page of the relevant article and the bot will add it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin help

This page has recently made its way onto my watchlist. I have noticed that there are many requests for moves from userspace despite these being listed as processes "beyond the scope of this page". I am not an admin, but if it seems helpful, I can remove these requests from the list and inform the respective submitting users of the submit process and tag. Cliff (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I've just been carrying those moves out, if they reach the backlog without objections. Should we be turning them away instead? Where would we send them? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
We could probably send them to WP:AfC instead. Jenks24 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sending these requests to AfC promptly might be helpful for the creators of these articles too, because AfC has links and information available about notability etc... What does everyone think, should we continue doing these here if they seem appropriate, and remove that sentence from the front page? Or start sending these requests to AfC right away? Cliff (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I think sending them to AfC probably makes more sense. That page is more equipped to handle the needs of those articles than we are. I'd say that, while RM can be used in that way, AfC is a better venue for it, so let's start sending them there. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm on it. Cliff (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

About 20 or so of such edits, mostly from quite new editors have been removed and referred to AFC. I'll keep an eye out for these in the future, and welcome the editors and direct them accordingly. Cliff (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Cliff. Jenks24 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing and seconding?

We've been talking about different ideas for handling difficult closes, and I've just had something occur to me. It's quite possible that this is just silly, but it may inspire someone to think of something more practical, so I'll toss it out there.

Suppose we add a special section for monsters - big, month-long, novella-length, high-profile, politically-charged, precedent-setting, third-time requests. We've tossed this idea around, of a special pen for those. Now, to close one of them, it takes two uninvolved admins. That means an admin wanting to close one, in addition to making the call and writing a rationale, must convince another admin to sign off on it.

It's true, this would mean it's harder, in a way, to close these requests. However, it might also make be easier in a way, because the admin wouldn't feel overwhelmed by having to stand alone and defend their decision, which sometimes happens in these cases. Moreover, any editor unhappy with the decision can see that it wasn't a lone admin, so it might seem more fair to them. It's like the first level of appeal is already taken care of

Is this a crazy idea, or what? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed you closed the monster at Gandhi recently. I can see how two consulting admins might make that a bit nicer. Seems like a good idea to me, though my opinion isn't worth much since I wouldn't be closing anything, nor having to find someone else to confer with. Cliff (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

List of closures

Is there any way to see a list of move request closures, who closed them, rationales, etc? I can imagine implementing a fairly simple external tool that would mostly get this right, so I was wondering if it had already been done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen a list of closures anywhere. If one doesn't exist, I think it would be great if you could implement a tool to do this. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I once spent a lot of time putting together the page: User:GTBacchus/RM closings, with all the requests I closed over a fairly lengthy period. Of course, that page is not automatically updated, so it's kind of archaic now.

What I'd really like to see would be move templates that allow for variables such as which naming criteria are involved, which policies are appealed to, whether the move was completed or not, etc., etc. That sounds a bit complicated, though. I like the direction in which you're thinking here. Better documentation could only be good for us. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Time could not be ascertained"

Anyone know why RM bot is unable to ascertain the time of the RM at Talk:Austria–Greece relations#Requested move? I assume it would have something to do with either the article being at the requested title already (but the other 25 aren't) or that it is a multi-move involving 26 articles. Anyone know how to fix this? Jenks24 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that it might be because the page was moved after you placed the movereq. Since no one has commented there yet, you could try just deleting the whole section and then putting it back with the corrected dashes, possibly on a different article if Austria-Greece is now at the right title. Station1 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about doing that, but the problem is that it wasn't me would made the movereq, it was Delusion23 (talk · contribs) and I thought it would be inappropriate to close someone else's movereq just because the bot wasn't picking up the time. I'll leave a note on Delusion23's talk pointing him here. Jenks24 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice it wasn't you. I sometimes correct purely non-substantive errors, like people putting movereq tags on article pages or forgetting to sign (the most common reason for "time cannot be ascertained"), but judging by the user's talk page, a whole lot appears to be in flux at the moment, so notifying is definitely the best course. Station1 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I made a request for all 26 articles as they all needed changing for the same reason. Then an admin moved the page that the request was on but left the other 25 unchanged. This seems to have caused a problem with the date reading. Would it work if I cut and pasted the request to the 2nd article and removed the Austria one? Delusion23 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I think that would work (that was Station1's suggestion as well). Jenks24 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Hungarian GP2 round

The bot has not picked up Talk:2011 Hungarian GP2 round. Wondering if there is a problem? --Falcadore (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by Vegaswikian. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice: China

Hi, I'm not sure where to ask this, but the page China has been the subject of several requested moves (summarized at the top of Talk:China), all of which failed to reach a consensus. There is an RfC currently underway, which is asking only about the primary topic of the term "China". Although the discussion isn't closed, it seems clear that almost everyone agrees the primary topic for "China" is the People's Republic of China. With this in mind, it seems clear that something needs to change. The main options which have been discussed seem to be:

  1. Make China a disambiguation page (like China (disambiguation))
  2. Redirect China to the PRC article, and
  3. Rename the PRC article to China.

Yet a small group of editors (and two editors in particular) are opposed to any move away from the status quo, due to fears that it would "delegitimize" the Republic of China (Taiwan).

Do editors here have advice on how to proceed? Would it be wise to open yet another RfC? Previous move requests appear to have suffered from a lot of confusion about what was being proposed - a substantial proportion of people thought the article China is already about the People's Republic of China, and so their votes and rationale were confusing.

Any advice or suggestions would be welcome; thanks. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the face of my support for the first option, you still sort me into that "small group". If that is not dishonesty, what is? —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd forgotten your exact position, so I've struck part of my comment. My apologies. But my point still stands. Mlm42 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Please at least be honest. The last discussion from 2008 was 20 oppose vs. 16 support. T-1000 (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

CBLT

I'd like to see article CBLT moved to CBLT-DT, as the television station has switched to digital broadcasts, and its call-sign has changed accordingly. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This talk page isn't the place to post a move request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move to request a page move. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Franz Georg von Schönborn-Buchheim

Hallo, the name of this elector and bishop was only "Franz Georg von Schönborn", not "von Schönborn-Buchheim". Please look at the discussion of the article. It is right that the family von Schönbon got goods from von Buchheim in 1711, but they did not add "von Buchheim" to their name. Please change the lemma to "Franz Georg von Schönborn". Kindest regards -- Spurzem (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This talk page isn't the place to post a move request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move to request a page move. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
My English is not so good that I could understand the instructions. Sometimes it is difficult to understand it in German. Therefore I ask you to do it for me. Thank you very much. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's done. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

When is a discussion "ongoing"?

Hi. There have been a couple of instances lately where a closure has been questioned on the grounds that the discussion was ongoing. I wonder if it would be helpful to institute a standard measure for this. If no new posts have been made to a move discussion in 24 hours, is it safe to close? 48 hours? 96 hours?

There are rare occasions where it's appropriate to close a discussion even though it's ongoing, but those are fairly bold judgment calls that fall well within IAR territory. If we're going to adopt a guideline regarding closing ongoing discussions, it would probably be best to say that in almost all circumstances, an ongoing discussion that reaches the backlog should probably be relisted instead of being closed.

Thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • RMs can sometimes be a bit slow, and I get the feeling not that many people are really interested in RMs or know what page to watch for these. I'm inclined to go for 48 hours. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer not to bring in a standard measure. I often comment on RMs in the backlog in the hope helping the closing admins see a consensus (and I don't think I'm the only one). If that makes the RM last a further 24 or 48 hours, that would kind of defeat the point. Perhaps if there was a distinction made between and actual threaded discussion and simply support/oppose with no follow up comments by any other participants. But even in those cases, I think common sense would serve better than having some hard-and-fast rule. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the point of relisting these so that closers don't "waste time" looking at them? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not 100% clear, I admit. I think of the backlog as a list of discussions that need closing. If a discussion isn't ready for that, it's nice to move it out of the backlog, and I think this makes it easier for closers to go straight to discussions where they're needed. It can sometimes create heat and static if ongoing discussions are closed by an over-eager closer, and bumping them up to the top of the list makes that much less likely.

I guess we could also agree to let discussions stay in the backlog while things wind down, and not to mind if the backlog gets big. That feels kind of weird, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot requests.

A bot that will affect the RM process is being discussed for approval, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4. Cliff (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Water pollution

The page for Water pollution should be name Water Pollution with a capital "P". Due to my OCD, I felt it necessary to bring such a small matter to the attention of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foohy46 (talk • contribs)

I disagree. "Water pollution" is not a proper noun. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

RM bot notice.

Please see: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Discontinuing all my bots. Discussion there may affect this process. Cliff (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have found a new owner for the bot. User:HardBoiledEggs shall serve you all from now on. Peace! hare j 06:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of getting the bot up and running. I hope to have this ready today, but it may take me a little while to set everything up. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 07:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It's now running every 15 minutes. Please let me know if it's not operating as expected. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 08:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I requested a move on the Cannabis corpse article hours ago, but the bot doesn't appear to have added my request to the project page. Brian Reading (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It does seem to be acting sporadically at the moment; I think there are timeout issues in connecting to the API. Everything looks like it's being brought up to date within an hour or so at the moment, and I'll try to get it back to the usual 15 minute cycle. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 04:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on. Cliff (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_20&oldid=1160938944"