Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Requesting comments on move request

I'd like input on a page move request from third parties working in the same project. What's the best way to do that? Jojalozzo 20:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about a Wikiproject? If so, you could just put a message on the talk page of that project. Station1 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot running correctly?

The bot seems to be running erratically today for current RM updates. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some timeout issues, as a result of which the bot is running every 10-15 minutes but some of the updates aren't reaching the wiki. In any case, Current discussions seems to be updated at least every hour at the moment. I'm still looking into solutions, but this frequency should keep things moving for the present. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 17:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notifications of Requested Moves

When a requested move is to move an article to a title at which there is already a dab page (eg the request for Sean Kelly (cyclist) to be moved to Sean Kelly), this is also an implied request to move the dab page (Sean Kelly to Sean Kelly (disambiguation), here). At present there is no notification of the proposed move on the dab page. Is this correct? Someone may well have the dab page on their watchlist, perhaps after doing major work on it, but not be watching all the disambiguated pages. Should the system not flag these move requests up for the benefit of editors who might want to comment? Should a move like this be requested in the first place as a "move of multiple pages"? PamD 08:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be listed as a move of multiple pages. Under "Requesting a single page move", the page used to state: "If your proposal involves moving more than one page—for example, if you will need to move one page to move another page to that title—please use the process for "Requesting multiple page moves" below." This was a specific attempt to address exactly the situation you ask about. But in August 2011, it was changed -- for no apparent reason, and, bizarrely, marked as a minor edit -- to "If your proposal involves moving more than one page please use the process for "Requesting multiple page moves" below." Which does nothing to alert someone who doesn't already realize that this kind of move is a multiple page move (nor does it serve any other purpose -- "If you know that the title of these instructions isn't what you want to do, then don't use these instructions!") I've restored the old text.Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of rationale - not a problem

I've just seen some objections to move requests based on "lack of rationale". I'd like to remind editors here that lack of rationale is not, in itself, an objection. The presumption here is always in favor of moving without question unless someone raises a good reason not to move a page. Our job is not to make sure people are moving pages for the right reasons; our job is to let moves happen when there's no good reason not to let them happen.

If it weren't for the technical restriction against moving pages to titles where there is non-trivial history, we wouldn't need RM at all. Remember that the move button doesn't require approval or permission to use in almost all cases. This page is just to assist with the minority of cases where good-faith moves are blocked. We're not customs agents, trying to sniff out suspicious or inadequately supported moves. It's rooted in AGF. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree entirely and, to be honest, I was a little disappointed to see how several recent (and current) primary topic RMs have been treated. Jenks24 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple move not showing up

The multiple move request at Talk:George VI doesn't seem to be showing up at the other articles' talk pages. Something awry with the bot? Or have I formatted it wrong?--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As a result of the timeouts, it seems some of the multi move notifications are being lost in the tubes. I'll look into this over the weekend. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 15:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

This is getting excessive; several of these are weeks overdue, and discussions are curdling. Would an admin please go through these before somebody calls for Mediation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Meditation would be more helpful :) --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
But, being serious for just a moment, it is not unusual for this list to be backlogged. Some discussions require a lot of reading, policy checking, and thought, and RL has this unfortunate tendency to intrude on wiki time. If there are any particular discussions you think are better closed sooner rather than later, drop a note at WP:AN or list them here. --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not that one class of request is being overlooked; all of the present backlog (except Major Championships) has been left to wither on the vine for weeks. Either one user opposes three or four, and gets correspondingly shrill; or our hardy perennials of no consensus continue to be rancorously no consensus. Would some admin please look through those on which she is neutral? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The move request for Ron Artest has been listed since September 16 and appears to be fully discussed with 29 !votes.—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The current backlog is nothing. We've held backlogs six times this size, for months at a stretch. I call for persistence, but also for patience. Nobody is going hungry or cold because the backlog is large here. If anyone is bothered by it, they should start closing moves. I'm working as hard as my pay rate demands, and usually much, much harder. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the deal here?

So, I thought I'd come across a good solution to the confusing structure problem of this page: I was going to keep everything essentially the same, except swap sections 2 ("Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves") and 3 ("Uncontroversial requests"). The thought being that actually putting the controversial request info directly before the controversial requests would help lessen confusion.

But I go to make the edit, and, oddly, find that the lead and sections 1 and 2 aren't in the text box - those sections are transcluded from another page called Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header. So I can't swap sections 2 and 3. Anybody have a good reason why I shouldn't merge the text from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header into the WP:RMtext box? Is it a technical thing? Thanks in advance, as I'm perplexed at the moment. Dohn joe (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can edit it at that page.
But the reason to transclude massive and virtually fixed headers (like this one) on active pages is to diminish the chance that it gets changed accidentally by somebody who's just putting in a request and then screws up their edit.
It may be worth rethinking this now most of the business of this page is done by bot; on the other hand, any such merger might break the bot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand that I can edit the other page, but the thing is, I still can't do what I intended, which is swap sections 2 and 3 of this page, because section 2 is on the other page, while section 3 is here. Dohn joe (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Edits to the header page should not break the bot, but please leave a quick note on my talk page after any changes just in case. Also happy to answer specific questions about what will/will not break the bot. Thanks! Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 15:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, perhaps the solution is to refactor the 'Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves' section into another subpage and transclude it separately, after what is currently section 3. This should not break the bot either. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 15:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

RM bot update

The bot is now operating reasonably smoothly. For any feature requests, or if there are any issues, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 12:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New users' submissions

I've been removing requested move tags from userspace drafts and telling those who placed them that they should submit their new article to AFC. This was the plan according to this discussion. I've noticed that this is something that a bot should be able to search and execute fairly easily. Does anybody have bot experience? I've posted at bot requests (very backlogged and busy) and got some offers of help.

I've also realized that part of the reason these requests keep coming to RM is because of the wording of the {{userspace draft}} template. It says "Finished? move the page". Autoconfirmed users can move pages, unless the target already exists or is protected, but newer users cannot, and as a result they attempt to move the page, then upon realizing they can't they follow instructions for a move request. This bites because these editors are getting the runaround. We might be able to direct these users to AFC if we change the template. Thoughts? Cliff (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If we're going to direct new users here to move their new articles into the main namespace, then we ought to handle those moves here. If we're not going to do that, then the {{userspace draft}} template should change, and direct them somewhere more appropriate. Letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing is certainly a good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If you might already noticed, Alpha Quadrant and I changed the template on the 6th Oct so that these pages were now submitted to the AFC process by clicking on the new link "Submit the page!" instead of the old "Move"-link. Our Petan-Bot is moving the pages and removed the userspacedraft templates. So (as already noticeable) this should be no longer a problem. WP:SYMUD was a few days before that changed. If somebody has some spare time, we are a bit backlogged, so feel free to help us out ;) mabdul 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

Does anyone else ever get confused by the way the requests are structured on the RM page? We have a section called "Uncontroversial requests", with subsections "Current requests" and "Contested requests", followed by a section called "Current discussions". That wording and structure has always struck me as confusing. "How can something be both uncontroversial and contested?" "What's the difference between current requests and current discussions?" I really doubt that I'm the only person who's asked those questions.

I'd like to propose this: 1) Get rid of the "Contested requests" section. If someone objects to an uncontroversial request, why don't we just direct them to relist it in the regular discussion section? 2) Rename the main section "Controversial requests". I'd take "current" out of the title, because all the discussions are current - we don't have a "Dormant discussions" or "Resolved discussions" section. Also, replacing "current" with "controversial" shows that it's the counterpoint to the "Uncontroversial requests" section.

Any thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support for reasons stated. I've requested dozens of moves over the course of the past two weeks, both obvious and debatable ones, and I still feel vaguely disoriented for a few seconds every time I come back here. Noym (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree in spirit, but I don't like the heading "Controversial requests" and would instead suggest "Potentially controversial requests" (or something shorter with the same meaning). A lot of the requests there don't turn out to be controversial, but are posted there because they can't be assumed not to be controversial. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    I had that same thought, but couldn't come up with a better phrase. Part of the problem is that not all "Uncontroversial requests" turn out to be uncontroversial, either. Maybe something totally different, like "Technical requests" and "Substantive requests"...? Dohn joe (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment RM newbie here, I was similarly confused. On heading names, perhaps 'non-trivial requests'? --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 17:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Any other thoughts here? It seems like people are up for some sort of restructuring - what do you all think about "Technical requests" and "Substantive requests"? With the other option being some variation on "Uncontroversial requests" and "Controversial requests". I'd like to get some more feedback before making the change. Dohn joe (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • How about simply making Contested requests a second level section on its own? That would remove the claim that "contested" requests are uncontroversial. If useful, we could add a passage like
    This section is for entries in Uncontroversial requests which turn out to be controversial. Please move the entry from Uncontroversial requests here, with an explanation of why you disagree with it. Anybody who wishes to pursue this move request should do so in Current requests, below. Entries in this section will be removed in not less than [time]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, but see, even that proposal shows the confusion we've got. You suggest moving entries to "Current requests, below" - except "Current requests" refers to uncontroversial requests. "Current discussions" is what we label the controversial entries. The confusion in having two nearby sections both titled "current" is one of the main things I'm trying to address.

    My thought of getting rid of the "Contested requests" section entirely is also more efficient, I think. Rather than using it as a waystation between uncontroversial and controversial requests, why not just direct people who object to simply relist it in the controversial request section (with their objection noted)? If no one pays attention to it after that, well, we have that situation not infrequently already. Dohn joe (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Because most mistaken uses of Uncontroversial requests will - and ought to - be abandoned when the proposer knows that there is opposition, and why. Most are people who don't realize what is uncontroversial; a substantial minority are POV-pushers who realize that the True Version is not consensus, and hope to sneak it by anyway. Simpler to just have controversial requests removed; but then we lose the chance to inform those who haven't gotten it yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

subpages too

When a page is moved through this process, shouldn't all of its subpages also be moved automatically? I just put move requests on a bunch of subpages of a Wikiproject that was moved over a year ago (apparently without the knowledge of any "active" members, but that's another topic). ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, subpages are moved automatically, yes. I'm not sure what happened in the case you're referring to. What's the WikiProject in question? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:MESSIANIC was renamed from “WikiProject Messianic Judaism” to “WikiProject Jewish Christianity” in July 2010. Many of the related categories didn't follow the change until September 2011. Subpages and at least one more category are still not done. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the category that was missed for speedy renaming and it will be done in two days. Had look at the pages in Category:WikiProject Jewish Christianity and its subcats and I'm fairly sure you, ChristTrekker could move them yourself when you get the time (or perhaps a kind passerby will se this and move them). Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe the automatic subpage move option is only available to admins. So if the original move was done by a non-admin (or if the admin unchecked the option - or didn't check it, I don't know whether they get it checked by default) then the subpages won't have got moved.--Kotniski (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RM bot confusion

 Fixed Dualus (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The current request for the Occupy movement move should be:

But RM bot is overwriting it thusly. Please help. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed this. Time will tell. Dualus (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ireland

See Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

The 2 year moratorium on discussing page moves for article such as Republic of Ireland has ended. But the Arbcom decision that such requested moves should be made on the talk page of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration (WT:IECOLL) is still in force. I think this needs to be added into WP:RM for two reasons:

  • so admins are aware that they should speedily close request made on an article's talk page
  • and so they can point to the sentence on WP:RM process page as to why they are doing so.

I may have misunderstood the Arbcom ruling (or there may have been developments since 21 September 2011) so I'll post a request to WT:IECOLL asking an actively interested party to comment here. -- PBS (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure here, I have informally requested that RMs be halted even at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as well. Recent history shows the atmosphere at that page among the most active editors there can be characterized as firmly entrenched, and opposed to page moves. Many who would support moves have become so frustrated with the venue and dialog at IECOLL that they have openly resigned in protest or otherwise refuse to participate. Thus, if as I believe you are correct about Arbcom's position, that is the only allowed venue, then move requests in the current atmosphere are mostly frivolous. I feel that serious discussion may allow some movement among those active editors, but RMs serve the opposite purpose of furthering the entrenchment. The titling problems are unique and have a history nearly as old as en.wikipedia.org, dating to 2002. So, for the record I neither oppose nor support the suggested additions to WP:RM proposed by Philip Baird Shearer. Since they like anything else are reversible, and since Arbcom have expressed their desire to keep discussion at the current venue, it is more or less moot right now. If there is a way to reduce drama and create more open dialog I unequivocally support that. Sswonk (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Then I might suggest that submitting a one-sided view describing editors who disagree with you as introducing a negative atmosphere may not be the best way of reducing drama. @PBS - 'agree with your proposed addition to WP:RM. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that any RM's relating to the articles in question should be speedily shunted back to the appropriate forum. However I'm not sure WP:RM is the place to record that, possibly a hat-note on the article's talk page. One would hope only a newcomer would make such request, and it is on the talk pages that they are most likely to see advise that here be dragonnes. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC).
Two points: one, there already is a very big and pointy note, Template:IECOLL-talk, on the top of not only the article talk pages but Wikiproject and Manual of Style talk pages as well, and it still doesn't stop people from starting title discussions on those pages; and two, a "newcomer" doesn't have to be an IP or newly registered editor, it could be an established and respected editor who has not been aware of the issue but one day notices the article title and decides to jump in with both feet. At any rate, the purpose of Philip's suggestion is not to discourage newbies or oldies from opening RMs, but rather to make sure such RMs are speedily closed, with an appropriate rationale. I agree with the proposal. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As for wording, I suggest:
Note to closers: according to an ArbCom ruling of June 2009, confirmed in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Any RM affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a pointer to the ArbCom ruling.
Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That works. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to closers: according to an ArbCom ruling of June 2009, confirmed in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Any RM affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a pointer to the ArbCom ruling.

OK the wording seems agreed where shall we put it. In its own section in another section and (or not) in side {{quote box}}, or as a footnote? -- PBS (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thinking further about it I am going to implement it as a footnote as it is really an aside to the day to day business of this page, but please alter it it if you think there is a better alternative. -- PBS (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Current RM bot discussions

Hi everyone, there are a couple of current RM bot discussions - particularly one regarding talk page notices based on the order of multi move requests. Please see my talk page to pitch in any feedback or suggestions. Thanks, Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 03:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders

I don't think the proper process for listing the RM was followed at Talk:Seattle Sounders, but I do think that there is a clear consensus for moving (my opinion is colored by the fact that I listed the first RM, which was unsuccessful, and still support the move this time around). The discussion has been open for 20 days. Can an admin please take a look and judge appropriately? Sorry if this is not the proper forum for this type of request. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

speedy close

Hi. I'm not familiar with the finer points of the RM process but I'd appreciate it if some admin could consider moving Oscar Grant Plaza before the end of the RM debate. See the talk page for the details but the short version is WP:SNOW and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Done by Steven Walling (talk · contribs). Jenks24 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Backlog and Relisting

I'd like to suggest that anything in backlog for more than a week be relisted.

Than anything that has been relisted thrice be

  • closed as no consensus

or

  • have a RFC posted on it in place of RM, if there's sprightly activity after what would be 6 or 7 weeks of being listed (backlog, relist, waiting in backlog, relist, etc). (allowing another 4 weeks of listed discussion before closure)

65.94.77.11 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing admins: request for "no consensus" decisions

This is a request I make of all RM proposal discussion closing admins... when you close a discussion as "no consensus", please explain why there is no community consensus. The lack of local consensus - lack of consensus among those actually participating in the discussion and !voting - is usually obvious, but the lack of community consensus about what to do when there is no local consensus is not as obvious.

In ENGVAR cases, for example, we're often supposed to go back to the variety of English used by the original contributor when there is no local consensus about which title/variety of English to use. But in many other cases while those participating might not agree, naming policy and guidelines which is presumably supported by community consensus might clearly indicate one particular title.

So, please, don't just say "no consensus". Make sure there is no "community consensus" about what to do as well as no local consensus. Then if you still think it's really "no consensus", explain why there is no default community consensus that applies in that case either. This can ultimately help identify holes in naming policy and guidelines. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting a requested move tag on the article itself.

Is there a template to put a tag on the article page itself saying that a move has been requested? I’m concerned that notices on the article talk page and the Wikipedia:Requested moves page will not generate enough response.
This comes up because there is an editor who has been making dozens of name changes, many of them controversial, based on “no common name”, and several editors have been responded by asking him to request moves first [1][2][3][4][5]. However if his move request is not seen by people who read the article, and therefore generates no discussion, it may give the false impression that the topic is not well known enough to have a common name.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You can add {{movenotice}} to the top of the article. GB fan 23:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC ar Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

There has been a brewing issue at WP:RM over WP:HOCKEY recommendations and how they should be applied over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Basically the hockey recommendation is that Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question. This is in fact a mandate that does not allow consideration of any other policy on naming. I think we need to resolve the issue of which naming convention we use for ice hockey players. Is it the one for the names of everyone else based on existing policy and guidelines, or do we have a blanket exception for one project? Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#RFC_on_hockey_names per Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationsim) [sic] → Historical revisionism (denial)

I tried to fix the misspelling in this RM, but couldn't find how to do it, no matter how I interrogated the source where the "discuss" link led. Can we please have such things sorted out early in the process? They are a distraction from the real work. NoeticaTea? 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Refactor of header

I have boldly refactored the header. I always found it confusing as a newbie, because it suggests that moves should be requested on this page, when in fact the request is placed on the article talk page. So I have edited the text to emphasise WP:RM as a "process" not a "place to request moves". — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I didn't discover the "Technical requests" section until today. I never knew about it before, and I've been here for years. So that shows the header really did need some attention. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Do the instructions for Technical Moves need to be transcluded?

I look at "Technical requests" and I see a request that I want to contest; therefore, I need to move it from "Technical requests" to "Contested technical requests"; therefore, I would like to be able to view both of those sections at the same time, so I can simply cut-and-paste in the same window. Since these are both subsections of "Requesting technical moves", I click "edit" for that section. Except it turns out that when I do that, I'm actually editing the transcluded subpage Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical, which doesn't allow me to see either of the subsections. Apparently the only way I can edit both subsections in the same window, which seems to me to be a pretty natural desire when I'm required to move text from one subsection to another, is to edit the entire page, which is inefficient and doesn't autofill the edit summary to show that I'm editing the technical requests section.

Is there a good reason for the technical move instructions to be transcluded, so that the entire section can't be edited at once? Or, if there is, could the section header be on this page instead of transcluded? Theoldsparkle (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I was told that the headers were transcluded to prevent editors from making mistakes when requesting moves. My solution just now was to make "Contested technical requests" a subsection of "Technical requests", so you can see both when editing. Hopefully I didn't screw anything up! Dohn joe (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks Dohn. (This has been bugging me for a while, but I kept forgetting to bring it up.) Jenks24 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for contesting

Should there be a minimum time allowed before an admin can proceed with a technical move request? Most of them are carried out within a few hours of getting posted, with no trace left on this page. Does this allow enough time for potential objectors to come along and contest the move? Should there be a 24-hour objection window, or something along those lines? Curious to see what you all think.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think so. The majority of requests genuinely are uncontroversial and the admins who carry out the technical requests are generally pretty clued up about naming policies and will object themselves if they think it might not be uncontroversial rather than mindlessly carrying out the move. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reorganize

Is there a formal process for changing the topic of articles without actually moving them? In this particular case I want to propose clarifying that the "Republic of China" article should be focussed on the government, and making the "Taiwan" article about the modern country. This will be controversial because many editors now see the ROC article as being about the "state" (including the people, borders, etc.) and see the Taiwan article as purely a geograhic article. It will also be controversial due to the political situation. For that reason I believe a formal process would be best. Readin (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You could use WP:RFC for that... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Chaos at a nest of RMs

Rather new user Jab7842 has been closing a complex mess of RMs, and moving pages around. It's total chaos. I went to one talk page to have my say and found it was all over! See affected pages (all involving "o'clock" in some way) listed in the user's contributions. Could an admin please step in and restore order? I reverted one move; but I'm afraid it's a job for a specialist. We need a description of the situation for all articles involved, rather than inscrutable scattered fragments at various RMs.

NoeticaTea? 10:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a mess. A more accurate picture can be seen by looking at Jab7842's logs. I tidied up the move that Noetica reverted (as a side note, Noetica, when reverting a page move remember to move the talk page as well as the article), but an admin will be required to check through Jab7842's deleted contribs to make sure nothing of value was deleted (why Jab7842 was moving articles into his userspace, I still don't know). Jenks24 (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Jenks. I thought I did move the talkpage by default, but I should have checked. I backed out when I realised how knotted things had become.
NoeticaTea? 10:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I just had to revert a move of that article, again. Some more eyes there would be appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for move of "List of pies" article

December 9, 2011 (Discuss) – List of pies → List of pies and tarts. I was not quite sure how you put a new entry here, but I would like to suggest that we rename the article List of pies as "List of pies and tarts". This is because it does not merely include pies, but also tarts, such as the Bakewell tart; it may confuse people if it goes on simply being called "List of pies". Sorry if I was not quite sure how you can enter a new entry here! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because you don't do the request here, you do it on the article's discussion page: Talk:List of pies. If you correctly follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Rm#Requesting_a_single_page_move, you should be ok.--Aervanath (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the move request. The only problem was that you put square brackets inside the curly brackets of the template. You need only the latter. Station1 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably know this. I think I remember seeing somewhere guidelines on how to behave during an RM, such as - don't move the page in advance, don't preempt the discussion with programmatic editing of article, don't 3RR and so on, which I wish to link on a current RM Talk page. But I can't find it and the main RM page itself doesn't appear to have a meaningful link. Help? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Move Protection during RM discussions and immediately after an RM close

Having been diligently fulfilling some of my admin responsibility in the last 90 days working on RM backlogs, I believe there ought to be some additional advice added to these Closing Instructions about the use of Move protection during an RM and immediately after the RM close. Although move protection probably isn’t required in most RM discussions, I believe it can be a useful tool for admins to help stabilize, focus and otherwise make an RM discussion on a contentious move more effective.

What I have learned from participating in RMs is that in contentious RMs (whether there are just two, or dozens of editors involved) emotions run high on both sides of the debate. Many times editors participating in the debate are new or less experienced in the ways of Wikipedia. Also, many times there are editors participating that have had a long history of contentious discussion with other editors in the debate. The consequence of this is that sometimes editors go over the top and unilaterally make a move during the discussion to a new title that may or may not be correct and moves are made improperly (i.e. cut and paste, etc.). When this happens, the RM is derailed, participants become frustrated and generally the outcome is less than civil. In other words, nothing good comes out of a unilateral move made during a contentious RM.

What also happens sometimes, is that when a contentious RM is closed (regardless of outcome), an editor unhappy with the result essentially ignores the close decision and makes or reverts a move anyway. (not always correctly). This again alienates all the RM participants and undermines the whole integrity of the RM process. Generally admins have to step in and clean up the mess, get people to cool off and otherwise restore order. I think these two types of scenarios could be prevented when the probability of them happening during a contentious RM is high by advising admins monitoring RMs with advice something like this:

Using move protection during RMs and immediately after RM closes

See also: WP:Protection

Some RM discussions are contentious and un-discussed, unilateral page moves during a discussion or page moves made immediately after and contrary to an RM close decision are disruptive and hurt the integrity of the RM process. Admins monitoring RM discussions should use their discretion to move protect articles during contentious RM discussions when they believe a premature, un-discussed unilateral move would be disruptive to the discussion. The same discretion should be used to start or continue move protection immediately after the RM close. Generally, such move protection should be limited to no more than 30 days under normal circumstance. The RM closing comment should reference the move protection.

I believe using Move Protection selectively in the RM arena will significantly help reduce a lot of admin burden fixing and mediating this kind of disruptive behavior during the RM process. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Yep, looks good to me. An example of where this could have been used is up at #Chaos at a nest of RMs. One tweak I would make is to encourage admins to make a note at the RM if the move-protect the article while the discussion is ongoing (otherwise if a different admin closes the discussion they may be unaware that the article is move-protected). Jenks24 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I presume that a move protection during an RM would automatically preclude the RM being closed by a non-admin. That might have prevented some past dramas, too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see why (it would preclude the RM being closed by a non-admin) - a non-admin could still easily close it as no move or no consensus, and could also close it as a move, though would have to request admin assistance to make the move happen (as we do at the moment; for example a non-admin might close a discussion as an obvious move and then place {{db-move}} on the redirect that's holding it up). --Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* I would agree with Kotniski here. We encounter move protected articles all the time, and an experience editor knows they have to get an Admin to unprotect it. Move protection during a RM might deter a inexperienced editor from making a non-admin close, but shouldn't deter an experienced one. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As long as it is applied sparingly and with common sense then it makes sense to me. What I would say is that admins should make sure they protect the article at the location it was at when the move request was started so as to limit the disruption. I boldly updated the protection policy to this affect a few months ago after a poorly attended RfC, where I also give my reasons for protecting in this way. Dpmuk (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix error in the request

When requesting a move I accidentally left the name to be moved to as New Name and my request is now listed as "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam → NewName" when it should be Rijksmuseum Amsterdam → Rijksmuseum. Can this be fixed? SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) Jenks24 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! SpeakFree (talk)(contribs)

Instructions not ideal

Hi,

1. The instructions at the top of this page do not seem to directly cater to people who are coming here to request someone else to move a page because they don't have an account. It would be good to work that into the wording.

2. The first mention of "technical moves" says that it is for when "technical reasons prevent a move from succeeding (for instance, if a page already exists with the desired name)". Later, technical moves are said to include "spelling and capitalization" changes. Actually, it is all quite confusing.

There are several things going on here. First, is the move controversial or uncontroversial? Second, does the user have an account? Third, for users with accounts, is there some other technical reason why they can't do the move? It seems to me in the instructions that some of these things have got muddled up. 86.181.170.124 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe! Why don't you draft something up here so other editors can weigh-in on new proposed wording. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the instructions could be clearer, but it seems that the first two bullets describe how the page divides requested moves into two different typed of requests. The third bullet merely points out that all unregistered users and new (non-confirmed) users must use the requested move process to move a page -- regardless of whether the request is an uncontroversial technical request or one that requires discussion. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Guys, I do apologise. For some unaccountable reason I did not see the third bullet point. 81.159.108.69 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


Query about what happens here

I am quite a newcomer to this section of Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I have misunderstood something. In other Wikipedia sections like this, such as Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, if one clicks on an entry, one will see a discussion following the entry. Here, however, one just sees a list of Requested Moves. Should these be followed by a discussion about the requested move, or have I misunderstood something, and are these discussions elsewhere? I shall be grateful if some one could clarify this,please! Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Each entry on the WP:RM page should have a (discuss) link that will take to the article talk page where the move discussion is underway. Example It will generally be in a section entitled Requested Move and highlighted with a set of instructions in a box. You are welcome and encouraged to participate in any move discussion you are interested in. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A problematic move

An editor moved Thai basil to Asian basil because "Asian is more neutral". The vast majority of references to this plant call it Thai basil (1,330,000 ghits as compared to 71,000 for Asian basil). WP:Bold aside, this was not an appropriate move. What's the appropriate action at this point? Waitak (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears this article had a stable title of Thai basil since its creation in 2005. Ask an admin to revert the move and then ask the editor who made the unilateral move to run his suggested move to Asian basil through the RM process. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've lodged it at the help desk. We'll see what happens. Waitak (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done (and it not require being an admin) --Born2cycle (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article currently says, "Any autoconfirmed user can use the [move] tab located at the top of any page to perform most moves (see Wikipedia:Moving a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this." As far as I know, autoconfirmed users have not been able to do this since April of this year. Can this be changed (either the article or the policy)? Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any change in April and I've moved pages recently. Of course, it can't be done if another article already exists at the title you plan to move to, or if the page is move-protected, but otherwise you should be able to move any page. Station1 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, autoconfirmed users still have the move userright, so they should be able to rename pages just fine except in the above-mentioned cases. Jafeluv (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves script

With assistance from PiRSquared17, I recently modified an existing RfD script so that it could close requested moves. How it works:

  • This script adds a "close" button to p-cactions (the area that the edit button is located) when viewing the talk page in edit view.
  • When clicked, the script prompts the user for the discussion result (moved, not moved, no consensus).
  • After the user enters the result, the script prompts for (optional) closure rationale.
  • The script then removes {{Requested move/dated}} and replaces it with {{RMT|<result> <rationale>.}}
  • The script then adds {{RMB}} to the bottom of the page (or section, if using section editing).
If there are sections below the requested move, it will add {{RMB}} below those.
However, if it is just editing one section, it will just add the template to the bottom of that particular section.
  • The script then saves the page.

Currently, the script just assists in closing discussions. It does not perform the move. I have a very limited knowledge in javascript and implementing such a feature is beyond me. The script can be found here. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't RMT and RMB be renamed to RMtop and RMbottom? Particularly, RMB (Renminbi) is the common name for the PRChinese currency. One might expect {{RMB}} to point to Template:Chinese currency and coinage. -- 76.65.128.132 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
RMB redirects to RM bottom. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

Even though the Closing instructions#Non-admin_closure advise non-admins to not close RM discussions except in obvious cases that meet a specific criteria, it is, or at least has been, common practice for non-admins to close RM discussions that don't necessarily meet that criteria. This practice is helpful to keeping the backlog under control.

I suggest we update the instructions to reflect actual practice better, but I think we should be specific about when reverting a non-admin closure is acceptable. I suggest reverting simply because the closer was not an admin is not a good reason to revert a close. There needs to be a reasonable objection to the reasoning given by the closer in order to revert, I think.

So, I propose adding the following wording to Closing instructions#Non-admin_closure, immediately after the listed criteria:

When non-admins boldly close RM discussions that do not meet this criteria, others may object and even revert, if a reasonable objection is specified. Simply noting that the closer is not an admin, or that you disagree with the closer, is not grounds to revert a close. Example reasonable grounds are, but not limited to: noting the closer is non uninvolved, specifying something in the closer's statement that indicates a policy was ignored or misinterpreted, etc.

Thoughts? Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C, I take it that by "actual practice" you mean the right that you have arrogated to yourself to close RMs, against current provisions. You seem also to think it acceptable that provisions be changed in the context of a couple of reversions I have made, when I discovered your recent closures. Better for you to disclose such things, yes? See these histories: [6] and [7]. See also this section of my talkpage: User_talk:Noetica#Oops.
You have a history of long-winded and legalistic disputation (exceeding even my own, as seen by some of my critics). A pity that your energy could not be better spent. You dispute with admins over their closures, you seek changes to WP:MOS to support your own preferred position – the list goes on and on. People are noticing. You take note also, OK?
I have no time for this, as I have said to you at my talkpage. I will have to back away from any typically protracted discussion.
NoeticaTea? 06:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so disruptive, Noetica? What is that on your shoulder? Wow, from 6 months ago??? No, I personally actually only close RM discussions pretty rarely. By "actual practice" I'm talking about all the other non-admins who close RM discussions that don't necessarily meet the non-admin criteria.

Can we please limit comments in this section to the merits or objections to the proposal? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. Sorry, no time to play. Totally tied up with real work. Let's see what others have to say. NoeticaTea? 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Noetica that a policy rewrite in the heat of battle is not a good idea. And I agree that Born2cycle habitually injects way too much drama into the RM process. Things were fairly calm while he was away, and now he's back and causing trouble again. It would be better if he would not take on the RM closing role, given his long history of drama and trouble about RMs. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be very odd to add this language while we still have wording to the effect that non-admins can't close except in cases of "nearly unanimous discussions". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think it's important to consider the message and not the messenger. Whether or not one likes Born2Cycle or suspects s/he has ulterior motivations for making this proposal is not a valid reason in itself to reject it. I think that better clarity is needed because I have noticed instances where a closure is reverted with the sole explanation that the closer was not an admin. I agree that that is not good enough. But I also agree that it's important to be careful of the wording in order to avoid giving editors the impression that non-admins are welcome to close any discussion. But I also think that even when a non-admin has closed a discussion that perhaps some might think they may not have been technically supposed to close, reverting the close solely based on that reason is just getting caught up in a technicality as opposed to what is best for Wikipedia. The fact that someone may have "ignored a rule" does not in and of itself mean that what they did should be undone. If an admin might have have made the same conclusion when closing, why should the close be reverted? Now, if there is a valid reason for reverting a close - and it's not just because it was made by a non-admin - I think that should be clearly explained. MsBatfish (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "I think it's important to consider the message and not the messenger. Whether or not one likes Born2Cycle or suspects s/he has ulterior motivations for making this proposal is not a valid reason in itself to reject it." Exactly. Thank you. I suggest that comments that do not address the specific proposal be ignored.

      Do you think the suggested wording accomplishes what you think it should say? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I make quite a few non-admin closures and some of them probably aren't in the "nearly unanimous" category, but I disagree with B2C's proposed guideline. When a non-admin closes a discussion, saying something like "I disagree with your reading of the consensus" (without specifying something in the closure) is definitely a reasonable objection. I think the proposed guideline (as currently written) would cause more trouble than it would stop because it would make more edit wars over the close and more being taken to AN and/or ANI (and I can guarantee that the result at ANI will be "controversial non-admin closures should be overturned"). If, as the non-admin closer, you think that the user(s) objecting is only doing so because they 'lost' and the consensus was obviously against them, then just revert your closure anyway, because surely if you have made a correct closure the next passing admin will make the same close. Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • But the spirit if not the letter of WP:BRD and other policies and guidelines discourage reverting a revert. And if the reverter of the non-admin's close does not specify a reason for reverting, other than stating it was a non-admin close, there is no way to know whether the objection is real or just sour grapes talking. I'm not tied to this particular wording, but it just seems like we should be clear that a revert of a close should be based on some specific objection to the close without regard to who made the close. No? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah yeah yeah. Just quickly B2C, you are demonstrating that you do not have the manifest equanimity and judgement needed for closing anything but the most technical and obvious RMs. That's all I ever do, for example to make way for a consensually rewritten RM. We have admins for a reason; they don't all meet high enough standards themselves; but at least there is some check against involvement and immaturity in decision-making.
I advise you to live with more of the provisions you find in place on Wikipedia, rather than rushing to change them when they don't suit your own idiosyncratic approach. Your accusations against me here do not serve your case, if you want to show probity and a developed ability to separate issues from dramatis personae. Yes, you can say similar things about me; you often have, and you probably will again. I have to live with that. Just try to be good, OK?
NoeticaTea? 04:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, no where in the proposed wording change is my username mentioned. Why are you talking about your opinion of me, here, instead of about the merits of the proposed wording? This has no more to do with me than any other non-admin RM closers. Please read and consider what MsBatFish had to say, above. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
To me, given the "nearly unanimous" language, it feels like a prod: if there's any objection, just let the normal process run its course. Like Jenks said, it's nice to avoid arguing over whether the revert of the close was personal or based on sound rationale, or how sound the rationale was, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"To me, given the "nearly unanimous" language, it feels like a prod:" I'm sorry, I'm not following. What is the "it" that feels like a prod? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I mean that it seems to me that the reasons why you can't reinstate a prod are similar to the reasons why you can't reinstate a NAC. Now, if we think it's ok for non-admins to close contentious requests, then this reasoning wouldn't hold. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Luckily I found WP:PROD and WP:NAC so I could finally make sense of what you're saying. Aren't there technical reasons that keep non-admins from reinstating PRODs and NACs? I'm not very familiar with that aspect of WP machinations. In any case, the general principle here is that any objection to anything anyone ever does should be specific to the action taken, not to who did it.

For example, say someone, John D, is restricted from editing, I don't know, articles about clouds because of a history of edit wars on such articles, and, one day he makes a completely uncontroversial edit on such a page (a revert of an obvious vandal, or a spelling or a grammar correction, maybe even an insertion of properly cited material) - something for which nobody would object if a non-restricted editor made that change. I contend that such an edit should not be a violation for him. Now, if he inserts dubiously supported material that would be merely reverted if someone other than John D make the edit, that would be grounds for whatever consequences there are for John D violating the restriction (a block or whatever). So the grounds for that would be not merely that John D edited against the restriction, but he edited in an objectionable way against the restriction.

Similarly, if a non-admin closes a discussion, even a controversial one, in a manner that would not be challenged if it had been an admin who closed it in the exactly same manner, I don't see the point of objecting. Remember, in a given case a proposal itself might be controversial, but closing it as non-consensus is probably not controversial at all. Now, if the non-admin takes a controversial position, that's a different, objectionable, matter. See the difference? So it should always come down to whether there is a real bonafide objection to the non-admin action or not. If there is, then state what the objection is. If there isn't, then don't object!. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are directing this at me because it does not appear to be a reply to anything I said, but since your indentation indicates that you were I'll just reiterate: I am only saying that such a requirement would be pretty silly if we still have the prohibition against NACs of controversial moves. ie, change the "Where there is no contentious debate among participants" clause before adding this. Having them both is inconsistent and weird. That is all I'm saying. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The bit about non-admins having to restrict themselves to "near-unanimous" closures should never have been added to the closing instructions in the first place, imho. Anyone who can reasonably judge consensus should be welcome to close discussions. Jafeluv (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That sure seems more in line with the idea that admins are just users with special tools. I'm all for removing most of that language - the stuff necessitated by technical limitations should stay in, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I also don't know why that text was added - User:JPG-GR effectively ran WP:RM long before he got the bit. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Waaay too many people would just count heads, judging consensus requires more than headcounting, it requires going over the opinions attached to the "!votes". Seeing a field of "support" or "oppose" without opinions attached could be quite swaying, but this occurs sometimes with something canvassed on Facebook or by Stephen Colbert. A proper policy based opinion can counterbalance much of that. And ofcourse, alot of users just ignore anything written by an IP editor (such as myself), which also is not according to policy, regardless of the quality of the opinion given. Some even ignore registered users who agree with IP editors. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What about adding something more along the lines of "When reverting a close it is strongly encouraged that a reason for the revert be stated in the edit summary. Solely stating fact that the close was made by a non-admin is not an adequate explanation to many users. Please make an effort to explain your revert, for example that you disagree with the closer's reading of the discussion." Perhaps something like that might help people not to feel that the proposed addition is implying that non-admins now have carte-blanche permission to close any RMs they want? -MsBatfish (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Example

Okay. So on December 9th I closed the List of books by Jacob Neusner → Jacob Neusner bibliography RM discussion with this comment: "The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. " [8]. Noetica (talk · contribs) reverted this close[9] for apparently no reason at all except that I am not an admin. His edit summary said, "Undid non-admin closure of an RM; please wait for an admin like everyone else". No idea why he thought I was waiting as if I care about the outcome here.

Anyway, I closed again, with more of an explanation: "The result of the move request was: Not moved because there is no consensus to move among those participating, and WP:PRECISION favors the current title. ", and Dicklyon (do these guys work as a team?) reverted that[10] with edit summary: "Given the dispute, wait for an admin; a relisting may be in order." Did these people not read the discussion? Clearly there was no consensus and it was going no where.

The next day, Dec 10, there was one more !vote comment added, in opposition[11].

Then, after five more days of inactivity, admin Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) finally closed it with comment: "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 25 days. ". Wow. Good thing we waited for that sound judgment.

Now how was Wikipedia improved by delaying this close? Since there apparently wasn't actual disagreement with my "no consensus" reading, wouldn't it have been better for WP to keep it closed so that Anthony wouldn't have had to take the time to read the discussion and come up with the same obvious conclusion, so he could use that time for something else? Why the objection to allowing non-admins to help out in cases like this? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The rules are clear and straightforward. Not just any editor can decide whether such a discussion has come to a satisfactory conclusion. What for example is to stop an anon IP, or someone with a COI or with a skewed view of policy closing such discussions? There could be an additional bit, such as a 'RM close' bit, given only to trusted editors. But why re-invent the wheel when the admin bit already serves this purpose? Allowing just any editor to close discussions as they see fit (by e.g. saying they should not be reverted for doing so) is a recipe for far more drama and disruption than there is now.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I note you did not answer my question. Non-admins have always been allowed to close discussions - there is nothing new here, and I know of no evidence indicating that NACs, at least at RMs, are a significant problem. Many RM discussions are regularly closed by non-admins, even contentious ones.

But the point here is that if a non-admin does close a discussion, why revert it if it's a reasonable close? And if it's not a reasonable close, why not encourage the reverter to explain what's unreasonable about the close? That's all I'm asking for... is that really too much?

Rejecting and reverting a close on no grounds other than it was closed by a non-admin does not improve the encyclopedia. It's disruptive and time wasting, as is exemplified here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"What for example is to stop an anon IP, or someone with a COI or with a skewed view of policy closing such discussions?". By the way, the answer to this question is... nothing. We have no way to stop a person like that from closing an RM discussion. Our only recourse remains... revert. But even if the close is made by an anon IP or someone with a COI, I wouldn't revert it unless I found the decision to be problematic, and I would explain what that problem was (most likely a misreading of consensus or lack thereof). I don't think it's helpful to the encyclopedia to revert a close simply because it was an anon IP that did it. If it's a reasonable close, leave well enough alone. If it ain't broke... --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The admin bit is not meant as an indication of being able to judge consensus, and not having the admin bit is certainly not an indication of the opposite. I was closing discussions long before I became an admin, and this page has at times been practically run by non-admins. If a user makes a bad closure, you can ask for uninvolved review and give your reasoning why you think the discussion was closed wrongly. No reason to treat people differently based on whether or not they have passed RFA here, when for the most part no actual admin tools even need to be used (apart from uncontroversial G6 deletions that can be handled with {{db-move}} without problems). Jafeluv (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If an admin can't judge consensus, should they even be an admin? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Probably not, but there's no way to remove someone's admin bit unless they engage in some serious abuse of their tools. Meanwhile there are plenty of trustworthy non-admins who are perfectly capable of judging consensus and they should be allowed and welcomed to do so. We have enough admin backlogs without adding another "admin-only" area where admin tools are for the most part not even required. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over "proper nouns" (at RMs especially): changing the lead at WP:MOSCAPS

Colleagues, please take note of this new section at WT:MOSCAPS:

"Proper nouns", "proper names", and other concerns: amending the lead

Your contributions to discussion would be appreciated.

NoeticaTea? 00:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice on etiquette after administrator's move

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask. If an administrator undertakes a controversial move precipitously in the middle of an RM discussion before consensus is reached, and several editors (non-administrators) want to move it back to its stable, long-established name, would submitting a new "Request to move" only hours after the administrator's move be considered wp:pointy with deleterious consequences for the editors involved? Or would it be an admissable step to resume discussion on what is still an unresolved issue? Unfortunately, this has to be addressed immediately, since many other long-standing article titles depend on this and are being move-warred as a consequence of that administrator's decision on this page. Walrasiad (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, ask the closer—either on the closer's talk page or on the article talk and leave a note on the closer's page, the closer is not necessarily watching the article—and ask to revert the close if discussion was ongoing. Be sure and be polite, since confrontational notes like "There was no consensus! For crying out loud!" engender a combative response, which is obviously not what you want, it would be quite foolish to use language like that, I hope we can all agree. If the closer is recalcitrant, then an RFC is probably the best way forward, although sometimes a new RM is successful—see here. I *think* those are the best ways to "appeal" an RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Too late, ErikHaugen. --Lecen (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Alas, in the heat of the surprise, I was less than courteous. Thanks for the advice. I'll make one more appeal to the closer, before moving on to the next step. Walrasiad (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

João V of Portugal

Would somebody please move that article back to John V of Portugal? I'm asking here, because the Bot keeps deleting my request. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You know quite well that this is controversial, so you need to file a proper WP:RM request. Could you please elaborate on the alleged bot deletions? I don't see any such requests in your contribution list. Favonian (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I assume GoodDay is referring to edits like this. Please note, GoodDay, that this is not the correct way to list RMs and the bot will continue to remove it. The correct way is to start a new section at the article's talk page and use {{subst:requested move|NewName}}. Full explanation is at WP:RM#Requesting a single page move. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:MOSTM apply to ALL phrases that happen to be trademarks, in ALL uses?

That question is put here. I draw it to editors' attention as relevant in a few recent requested moves (RMs), and potentially in many more to come.

NoeticaTea? 06:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a bit of direction...

Hi all,

So I've ended up here from Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2011_December_26#Help_with_disambig and I'm looking for some help - so AAC redirects to Advanced_Audio_Coding, and I think it would be an improvement for AAC to redirect to the disambig page AAC_(disambiguation) - I understand there is a process for this, but I'm not sure which post's talk page I would add the message to... also - is this something I can do boldy? or is there a particular process to follow? Failedwizard (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is something you can do boldly, if you think it won't be too uncontroversial. (Note: I suspect some editors will disagree with you; I have no opinion on the matter.) There isn't actually a "standard process" for this sort of discussion, beyond the normal bold, revert, discuss cycle, since it doesn't involve a page move, just an alternate redirection. If it does prove controversial, the correct place for the discussion would be on Talk:AAC as to what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of AAC is. Notes would be placed at Talk:Advanced Audio Coding and Talk:AAC (disambiguation) referring people to that discussion. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thank you very much for you help - I'll give it a bold go :) Failedwizard (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Foo should never redirect to Foo (disambiguation). Per the guideline WP:DABNAME, if there is no primary topic for AAC, the disambiguation page should be located at AAC. So if you think that Advanced Audio Coding is not the primary topic, you should create a move discussion to move AAC (disambiguation) to AAC. (Incidentally, two other things that should be done are to remove the redirect hatnote from Advanced Audio Coding and to change the aac redirect accordingly, unless Advanced Audio Coding is still the primary topic for aac but not AAC.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
See also WP:MALPLACED, where that alternate redirection would end up (and probably be reverted with pointers to WP:RM). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Okaaay... right. Thank you both for your comments - and also for not doing a straight revert :) I'll open a requested move discussion now (quite new to this aspect for wikipedia so your gentle touch is greatly appreciated, thank you both) - would it be sensible to remove the hatnote from Advanced Audio Coding after the requested move discussion has been completed? Failedwizard (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Once the hatnote is no longer telling the truth, it should be axed. Sorry for the gentle touch; too many other heated discussions going on to spread the rancor here. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion opened :) This is, so far, quite a pleasant board to hang around in...

Contested technical requests

I added a line to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical to clarify what editors should do if their "technical" request is contested by another editor. If anyone thinks different wording, or a different method, would be better, feel free to change it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Displacing edit histories

Recently, an editor asked to displace existing edit history of a page, by moving a user sandbox into its space, as an uncontested technical move. This seems almost the same as a deletion of the article followed by a creation anew, like what is done with copyright violations. Should these really be considered as technical uncontroversial moves? It certainly makes it hard to apply WP:BRD to revert back to the old article, since it no longer appears in the edit history of the page, and makes pages look new, when they've existed for years. I do not believe this is in the spirit of WP:EDIT to use requested moves in this manner. It certainly doesn't match what Help:Edit considers how a major edit is to be done. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are concerned about. Any move that takes place using the Move this page function will preserve the edit history of the page being moved. It doesn't matter where the page is moved from or to. On the other hand, Cut and Paste moves do not. If the target page already exists, then there is a possibility that a History merge is required. Are you talking about a Cut and Paste move? A specific example would be useful. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Canadian comics was moved to Canadian comics/version 1, and a new article (from a user sandbox) was moved into its place. This makes the old version of the page disjoint with the new version, thus being unable to see previous versions of the page in its page history. (I've requested a splice at WP:SPLICE so that the old article shows up in the edit history, since it was not deleted for cause) -- the original article was created in 2006, the new one in 2012, so six years of user contributions have disappeared. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who requested the move, so I'll give the specific example. I requested to have User:Curly Turkey/Canadian comics moved to Canadian comics as an uncontested move. Anthony Appleyard did the move for me, and moved the original page (and its history) to Canadian comics/version 1. Since he had done this, I just assumed that's the way these things are done. Now I want to replace the content of Quebec comics with User:Curly Turkey/Quebec comics, so I've made a request in the same manner as for Canadian comics. I'm not pushing for anything, I just thought this is how it was done.
I placed it under uncontested moves since both original pages were thin, messy and devoid of references, and were full up with long lists of redlinks (take a look). I would be shocked if anyone contested the new content (in relation to the old, I mean). But if this wasn't the right procedure, I just want to know what is, and why what Anthony Appleyard did was the wrong thing. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Curly FWIW - Here's my advice. Since the content coming from your user space has only one editor, you, instead of using the Move function, just edit the target article with the new content. Do that on a section by section basis and you won't be accused of a cut and paste move that is destroying an edit history. The history of your edits in your user space aren't that relevant, unless you are moving a new article into the mainspace. Your userspace article gets deleted in the end anyway. A lot of us write our articles in WORD and in one fell swope, create a new article in the mainspace or replace major chunks of existing articles. No one cares about how many edits I made in word or how long it set around while I was working on it. Your updated articles look good. just edit the target article with the new content --Mike Cline (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, I don't understand why Anthony would have performed such a move. Sometimes as a result of a deletion discussion, a user may request that the page be moved to their user space rather than simply deleting the article entirely. The use may then continue to edit and improve the article and and some point request that it be moved back into article space. But that doesn't appear to be the situation here. It appears you want to supplant an article and it's edit history with your own. It doesn't seem right to essentially lose the original edit history by moving it off to an obscure sub page. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, then I'll just replace the contents. The guidelines don't really make this clear. I was under the impression the edit history needed to be moved. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
As the WP:SPLICE request was rejected, Canadian Comics still needs to be fixed. The edit history of the existing article is in an obscure subpage. IMHO, it should be restored to the primary position, and Curly should just add his version on top of the existing one. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can the procedures be clarified to rule out this kind of move as being uncontroversial? I wonder how many obscure subpages are floating out there because of requests similar to the one that occurred at Canadian comics. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Speakers' Corner, Singapore/version 1 and Speakers' Corner, Singapore -- in 2010 a new article displaced an old article (created in 2006) -- but there's almost nothing overlapping ... (there wouldn't be any overlap, except that the sandboxed version was created and not edited for months) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to this situation, I have amended the instructions, hopefully uncontroversially, to state that if an article (even a bad one) exists at the target title, a move should be treated as controversial. I don't know if something should be added to specifically address what happened here, i.e. if you want to replace a bad article with one that you've worked on in your userspace, and you're the only editor of the userspace version. Canadian comics still needs to be fixed. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Through the gracious actions of Curly, the new version of the article has been integrated into the page "version 1", so I've requested that "version 1" be returned to the primary position, so the complete article history will once more appear with the article. The current version that displaced the old history would be returned to a sandbox. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Displacing edit histories: part 2

  • A history merge is possible, though a little messy and I'm not sure there is much value. The main value to this discussion I think is in avoiding similar situations in the future. But as to the merge, there were no substantive edits to Canadian comics/version 1 after 10:24, 3 January 2012‎. The earliest edit at Canadian comics was 10:21, 3 January 2012‎ and there were only two other edits timestamped earlier than 10:24, 3 January 2012‎. So apart from those first three edits at Canadian comics there is no substantive overlapping history. older ≠ wiser 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is relevant, or helpful, but almost none of the original article ended up in the new article. What did was edits that I had made myself, the most significant being the "Further reading" section. Nothing was copy & pasted from the original article aside from non-text portions (like the categories, navboxes, infobox) except for the "Further reading" section. The reason I edited it in my sandbox in the first place, rather than just adding things on top of the original article, was that I found it unsalvageable, and that starting from scratch would be much easier than trying to fix what was there. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
And that is perfectly fine, but it's no reason to displace the edit history of the original article. I'd suggest that once your "private" version reaches a point that you are satisfied with releasing into the wild, you can copy and paste over the original with a summary indicating that it is essentially a complete rewrite. If you want to keep the edit history of your private version around, you could also link to that in your edit summary. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "you can copy and paste over the original": That is, make a cut-and-paste; but cut-and-pastes are a Bad Thing. Better put a history note in its talk page saying that the article has been moved aside and replaced by a new rewrite. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Generally, cut-and-pastes are a Bad Thing, because they do not show attribution for GFDL or other licensing purposes. I think there can be an exception, though, for cut-and-paste edits from Userspace to Mainspace where there has been only one editor in Userspace. As mentioned, this is because there is no difference between the one editor working on an article off-line and then overwriting an existing article, making major changes to an article directly in one or more edits, or working in a sandbox or their own Userspace and then overwriting the article. It wouldn't apply if more than one editor has made any substantial contribution, even in Userspace, because then the attribution history is still necessary. Station1 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Station1. Having once had what I had writen for WP threatened with removal as a potential copy-vio, I understand why copy and paste editing is disapproved of. I would suggest placing a note on the talk page explianing the source, whether in a sandbox or a text file on your own computer, and that it is not copied from a copyright source, and then pasting your new text over the poorer older one, probably section by section unless your new version has a radically different structure. For the future, it is better to edit your improvements into the article by stages. If this is likely to take some time, consider puttign an {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} tag on the article to discourage others from editing while your are in the midst of doing so. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I did want to replace it in one swoop was that (a) it did have an entirely different structure, and (b) it wold take some time to work up, during which time the article would have been weaker than the original. I built it up to the point where it wasn't finished, but was clearly more substantial than the original, before having the original replaced. I thought it would've been best to have left the content that was there up until my replacement was worthy of replacing the original.
What I think is most important is to have guidelines that are clear and explicit enough to deal with these situations, whatever the outcome of this discussion is. It doesn't do anyone any good if the only way to find out how to do it is to scour archived talk pages. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. The issue that there is really no reason to displace the edit history of the original. So long as you are the only editor of the new version created in your user space, there is no problem with copying a pasting the new version over the old (with an appropriate edit summary, of course). older ≠ wiser 03:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_21&oldid=1083654752"