Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Contents 1 Undoing undiscussed moves 2 Please clarify "consensus" 2.1 Possible clarification of consensus 3 "Uncontroversial" move proposals 4 HELP moving an ENTIRE WikiProject 5 Question from anonymous user 6 Gummi bear help please 7 New instructions 7.1 Proposal to move templates 7.1.1 Survey 8 Help with move 9 Question about procedure 10 New template broken 11 How long should this take? 12 Pretty clear consensus on a backlogged move 13 "Like" in titles 14 I could not find this in the page 15 Please review move of Duchy of Pszczyna 16 Plame affair 17 El Superclásico 18 Current page name and the suggested new name 19 Official names 20 Ahmed Arabi 21 Incomplete and contested section - how can we be most efficient? 22 move to RFC style templates 23 Quick section question 24 Umm.... Category:Requested moves 25 Requesting closure of a requested move 26 Request review of "no consensus" decision on English Defense 27 Lakes 28 Please update image FUR's when moving articles 29 Not sure how 30 Template changes 31 Moves that need to be put on hold 32 The three steps 33 A discussion for a proposed new naming standard for Wikipedia aricles on Spratly Islands 34 Atyrau Airport 35 Request review of page move - diacritics and sources 36 Reverting a Move 37 CANVASS question 38 template:move2 39 Persian Mesopotamia → Achaemenid Assyria 40 Calvary baptist school 41 requested move related discussion at wp:con 42 Contradictory instructions 43 Editing redirects after page moving 44 Bringing a move template to the main page instead of just the talk page 45 Request review of no-consensus closure of Karkonosze -> Giant Mountains 46 Tennis moves 47 Edit history "vandalism" to force a formal RM request 48 Polling Time 49 Is there a moves for arbitration or something? 50 Title black list 51 Roman Catholic Diocese of 'Foo' VS Diocese of 'Foo' Redirects

[edit] Undoing undiscussed moves

Italiciz/sed excerpts copied from: Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre:

Why should "consensus" be required to undo a previously undiscussed move. A lower threshold for reversion of contested undiscussed moves should be policy but it's not. Ideally, an undiscussed move that is challenged should require a "consensus" to be upheld. — AjaxSmack 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the move in question is recent and/or caused the opening of the RM, I close it from the perspective that the discussion must show support for the new title, or I will put it back at the old title (if the new title lacks consensus, I close it as "The result of the move was restore..."). It's the easiest way to prevent gaming of the system, although my definition of what is "recent" is sometimes disputed. In other words, a substantial percentage (a quarter? a third? I don't know what percentage I close) of closes are done the way you think they should be. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach. Any chance of this becoming policy? — AjaxSmack 07:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a bit of what happens here is the result of the ad hoc construction of WP:RM. RM exists to fulfill a need, but it doesn't really have a firm backing in policy. There have been complaints in the past about instruction creep on this page, and the reaction has been to reduce the amount of process involved in processing requests. (That vagueness has increased the power of the closers to a certain extent, as you've noted before. On the other hand, disregarding good-faith comments when issuing proclamations of consensus is really likely to get you caught in disputes you don't want to be in, so I don't think anyone here does that on a regular basis.) At any rate, I think we can discuss the matter here among the active contributors without adding any rules to the main page itself. Dekimasuよ! 12:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, my preference is pretty much always for a guideline over a policy, especially on something like moves. We are better off with the admins saying 'This is what we think so you can know where we usually lean' rather than them tying their hands in a way that might result in an admin feeling he has to make a decision that he feels is wrong. Just my 0.97 pence (Man, two cents doesn't even get you a penny sweet anymore.) Narson (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he meant policy as "policy as opposed to guideline", in the Wikipedia sense. The difference is more along the lines you note, rule versus rule of thumb. I wonder what the other closers have to say about this, though. I wouldn't mind placing a sentence or two in the header noting that undiscussed moves may be reverted if they are shown to be controversial. Dekimasuよ! 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AjaxSmack, I don't use any easy-to-state rule in dealing with undiscussed moves. It depends on the whole context of the situation. Some undiscussed moves are reverted without question, because they're absurd. Others would take consensus to reverse, because they're seemingly obvious, in the sense that we would easily move them if they were requested under "Uncontroversial proposals". Just call it a "speedy", and move on. ("Uncontroversial", by the way, is a system which is entirely based on letting a lot of undiscussed moves roll by without question; I like that feature.)

The troublesome ones are in the gray areas. My attitude tends to be that we'll eventually settle on one title or the other, and that there's no point moving it in either direction for any reason until we decide. Thus, I tend not to automatically revert. Often, someone else reverts it, whether as the 'R' step of BRD, or for procedural reasons, or what... I don't know. If that happens, and the article is later moved, then it feels to me like a {{shrubbery}}-type situation. Why move three times, instead of once? Some people prefer it that way, I think.

I feel that part of my job as a move closer is to see the request in the broader context of our naming conventions, which are themselves a living and changing thing. If I don't think a discussion is going in the right direction ("right" as I've observed it), I generally won't close the request, but I might comment in it instead. Or, if it's overwhelmingly supported with reasoned arguments, I'll close it against my preference and take note that my preference was "wrong". If I close one, especially if it seemed controversial, I keep an eye on it. Sometimes, I'm reversed by a later consensus, in which case... wrong again. If I find myself to be wrong about a certain type of move enough times (like, >2ish?), then I make some comment at the relevant naming convention), and I stop closing it wrong. Also, different naming conventions take different amounts of consensus to overrule.

There's plenty of room for error in the process I just described, but I think that's healthy and normal, for a wiki process. As long as there's a collection of good-faith, mindful people all around it, it works pretty well.

In a case where you think a move request was closed incorrectly, I'd recommend a content RFC to see what the community thinks of the way the request was handled. Mentioning it somewhere around the Village pump might also help, and to any WikiProjects that might care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify "consensus"

Another example of how "consensus" seems to be WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre. The nominator (although belatedly) presented copious evidence for a return to the article's previous title. Three other discussants, all long-time users, agreed with the premise of the nomination (notwithstanding other reasons given by myself here). The only opposition to the move consisted solely of "In my experience it is always called..." by an esteemed long-time user but an extremely weak argument nonetheless. (Isn't that WP:OR?) Despite this, "consensus" was not achieved and the closer provided no additional rational for his/her decision (and s/he spelled the title "Chillianwallah Bagh," further weakening the case for indispensability of the the current title).

Although my previous attempt to get any serious response was unsuccessfull, I will try again. I ask in this case as I have asked before above, what is "consensus" other than fiat of the closing admin? — AjaxSmack 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat suspect you have answered your own question, though I would be curious to hear the answer as well. Quite purplexing (and more than a little frustrating). Narson (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ajax, I would agree with you that the closure in question was incorrect. It seems to me that there was a clear policy-based consensus for moving the page. It's unavoidable that people will sometimes make mistakes closing discussions. I've done it, and I've been reversed. I think we generally end up at the right title.

In regard to your more general complaint, what would you suggest as an alternative to trusting people to use their best judgment in closing discussions? Should we do it as a vote-count? How would you change the move procedures to make them better? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the admin decision was wrong, does that mean we have to go through the whole pollava of relisting again? Though, no idea on alternative systems that arn't a whole cafuffle personally. Best that could happen is a definition of consensus so if it isn't a consensus the admin has to give a reason for their view other than 'no consensus' if it clearly meets some 'threshold' or give a reason other than 'consensus' if it clearly doesn't....and the more I type this the more I realise how bad that idea is too....time to quote Churchill I guess. Narson (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's necessary to go through the whole process again. I'll message the admin who closed it, and I think we'll be able to work it out without much trouble. It is always best when a discussion closer gives clear reasons for their decision, but I'm not aware of any way to legislate that. We'll never make a system that's foolproof; with our current system, it's not that hard to fix errors.

Which Churchill quotation are you thinking of? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely at this case, the closing admin did justify his decision, in terms of disambiguation. I disagree that ambiguity considerations are enough to keep the page at its current title, and I've messaged the closer accordingly, but I don't think it's fair to say that the admin "provided no additional rationale". -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation was a good point (though I can think of arguments against the point) but one that I think should have been brought to discussion perhaps? Oh, and it is the oft quoted 'democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.' as while there are flaws in the current system, it is hard to imagine a system that lacks greater flaws :) Narson (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to comment over there one more time, but also, let's try not to bite less common closers to much. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't bite him. It certainly wasn't my intention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not mine either, though I think I am going to try to step away from the various discussions now. The overwhelming view in this case seems to be that we ended up at the wrong name and it won't be fixed. It is suprisingly frustrating, so rather than become frustrated, I shall get back to working on some anglo saxon stuff. Narson (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your frustration which is why (per WP:BOLD) I no longer post RM requests at WP:RM unless I need an admin assist. It's sad that the arbitrariness of the process drives away well-meaning editors. User:GTBacchus asked for "an alternative to trusting [admins] to use their best judgment" so I will give some thoughts below. — AjaxSmack 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad thing that you're boldly moving more pages. Plenty of pages that go through WP:RM don't need to. This page is a template for one way to establish consensus and move a page. There are many others; you're welcome to use them. As you make observations that other movers might find helpful, I hope you'll share those with us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible clarification of consensus

Although "consensus" is a temporally and geographically biased principle (as is the suggested alternative, democracy) and has its drawbacks (summed up here and here), it is policy so I will proceed from that point. But while consensus is policy, there is no reason it cannot be ascertained partially by quantitative means. The advantage of this is twofold: transparency and a check on the possibility of rule by admin fiat. The following are suggestions of how this could be done:

A.

1. Roughly quantify "consensus" for the purpose of move requests only with a percentage or range of percentages of opinion. (e.g., 3/5, 55-65%).
2. Allow for admin override (or "interpretation") of such numbers but ask that admin should give specific reasons for the override.
   • Justification for the override could rest in policy (e.g. sockpuppet input, canvassing, or that the new title would violate policy) or research (a range of citations of why the new title is inappropriate).
   • Overrides would have the option of being reviewed with a process similar to that of AfDs (i.e., Deletion review).

All of these are sufficiently vague as to allow admin prevention of mob rule. They preserve the current role of the admin and the qualitative aspects of the process but increase clarity. Other unrelated suggestions that would increase participation and transparency include:

B.

1. Extending the period of discussion of RMs.
2. Posting of the RM on the article mainspace (a template already exists here).

— AjaxSmack 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I like part of what you've said here, but I'm uncomfortable with the way you've put some things. "Rule by admin fiat"? We're not talking about "rule"; we're talking about a group of people making decisions about titles on a website. It's easier to get things done on a wiki if you think of it less as a system of "rule".

Now, you seem to want to make the process of reading consensus into something that's defined by statute. I think that what you've described is pretty close to what already happens. Going point by point:

1. Most discussions are closed uncontroversially in line with a consensus or supermajority,
2. Sometimes they're not so simple
   • Most people who close against the numbers will provide their justification, and
   • Overrides can be reviewed by posting here, or to WP:ANI.

All the parts are in place. The fact that this process isn't formalized doesn't make it any less effective, so long as people use it. Here you are, getting a closure reviewed, and you're not stopped by the fact that there isn't a particular form you need to fill out to do it.

I believe that, if you approach the wiki less bureaucratically, you'll find that it's not as capricious as you might think it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points but what you call bureaucracy, I call transparency.

• "Most people who close against the numbers will provide their justification." Why not all and why not with reference to policy or facts?
• "Overrides can be reviewed by posting here, or to WP:ANI." Why not have a specific locations for appeals like with AfDs? Appeals posted here are usually ignored or not dealt with systematically.

I would like to "think of [a wiki] less as a system of 'rule'" but without transparency or recourse, that's what it is.

— AjaxSmack 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Without recourse is not where we are. Recourse exists in the form of communication with other humans. Transparency depends on how well the other person communicates, but if someone is bad enough at it, they're eventually stopped due to disruption. It's possible that we could legislate more process around Requested Moves. I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't think you'll find consensus support for it, but if we were a different kind of institution, that's precisely what we'd do. I'm not convinced that the disadvantages of the current system are enough to warrant the extra overhead that would come with more bureaucratic procedures. What happens, occasionally a page is at the wrong name for a while? There is no deadline, you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One specific point: "Appeals posted here are usually ignored or not dealt with systematically." Then let's deal with that problem, within the current system. Maybe this isn't the best place to appeal move closures. I've posted to ANI before asking to have a move of my own reviewed; I sometimes do this when my closing decision is challenged. That seems to work.

Also, I'm sorry if you've been ignored here. Part of it is down to the fact that a limited number of volunteers keep WP:RM running. We haven't got someone on staff to handle disputes, so it kind of depends on the interest level. New rules won't change this. They might make people less likely to close move discussions, and our backlog could get out of hand again. That doesn't sound too great. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Uncontroversial" move proposals

I recently came across a page move that was listed here as uncontroversial (see this). When making such nominations, please inspect the page histories of the article at the current and new titles.

In this case, the KCSS page has existed since late September 2006 as a redirect to King City Secondary School. On October 31, 2007, user Mstie3kmst over-wrote KCSS with an article about the radio station, then created a nearly identical KCSS-FM article, and finally redirected KCSS to the new page. It was then listed here as an uncontroversial move.

The result is two distinct articles have had their page histories merged; luckily, this case involves few edits, and can be unwound relatively easily back to the two original articles, but greater care should be taken when nominating articles for page moves, both by the nominator and the user that moves the page.

The correct action, in my opinion, would have been to change KCSS so that instead of redirecting to the school, it would be a dab page listing both entries. I'll undo this move and unwind the page histories, but please apply more rigorous checks in the future. Mindmatrix 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have since moved the radio station page in question to the proper KCSS (FM). JPG-GR (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP moving an ENTIRE WikiProject

I have come to ask for help and guidance in moving WikiProject Miami to WikiProject South Florida. WP Miami has changed its scope to cover the entire South Florida region. However, the main contributors have been hesitant to move the project because of the complexity involved. So, I am here today to figure out how this can be done as easily as possible. I have a few questions to start: Is this something that should be just listed through normal procedure here? Am I in the right place for this? This seems to be a extremely complex move from my view but I am inexperienced in this area so what will this actually require?

I had the idea that once the project was moved a bot could be tasked with substituting the old template on each article's talk page with a new or modified template. But the template itself seems to be very complex and will require work. So I am looking for guidance and experienced editors in this area who are looking for a challenge. Thanks. KnightLago 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You can do this yourself if the members of the WikiProject agree, since everything involved would be a redlink. As far as changes to the template are concerned, if you feel the need to make sure that those are all direct links, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Hope this helps. Dekimasuよ! 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from anonymous user

Harry S. Truman -> Harry S Truman . His middle name was just "S", it's not an abbreviation. The body of the article about him (Personal Life) says this - so why the period in the title?

Also I don't understand: when I query "Howard K Smith" I get No page with that title exists; I have to query "Howard K. Smith" to get the right page. But for "Eugene V. Debs", I get the same page with or without the period. Why isn't Wikipedia always smart enough to handle lack of a period on a middle initial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.91.14 (talk • contribs)

It has nothing to do with the software. User-created redirects for Eugene V Debs got you there; there is none for Howard K Smith (which I will be fixing in a moment). If there is no redirect, it'll dump you into the search screen. Horologium (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gummi bear help please

Newer editor moved by starting new articles (I believe) so we lost the history. Could someone help us out by getting it all re-attached and any other redirect issues. I had requested under non-controversial moves but the history is still not there. Any help? Should I request somewhere else? Benjiboi 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. –Pomte 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New instructions

Dekimasu: Done. –Pomte 07:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with move

I followed the format and it just creates a mess on the pages

I am trying to propose moving Annamalai Hill to Arunachala given that Arunachala is used in the hindu texts and has many more google hits. ( like 90,000 to 303!)

Any help appreciated.Sethie (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. The instructions were misleading. –Pomte 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sethie (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about procedure

1. A proposed move gets listed at Uncontroversial proposals
2. Somebody challenged it and moves the listing to Incomplete and contested proposals. Correct so far?

What then happens when a debate starts about that move proposal? (Example - see "Racing Club de Avellaneda"). My thinking is that a formal proposal should be opened: the listing should be moved to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Other proposals, a {{move}} tag added to the talk page, and any existing debate cut and paste into the talk page. Is that what happens? If not, how does it work and is my scheme better? --kingboyk (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it is something that should continue with a full discussion, yes, that should happen. A full multimove should be set up and the listing should be moved to "other proposals". On the other hand, if you're not sure you see the need for further discussion, you can move the discussion to the talk page of the article in question and place Template:RMcontested there - if someone else still wants to go through with the move, they can initiate a full request. That's a little harder in this case because there are two pages involved. In either case, we shouldn't be discussing the move on WP:RM, but we often end up doing so. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New template broken

Huh? The

• Old page name → Requested name — Reason for move —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC) method does not work. See the Uncontroversial section. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please subst: by the instructions as you have just done here. –Pomte 13:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long should this take?

Or is my move "controversial" (B. Reeves Eason)? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well? Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty clear consensus on a backlogged move

• Football (soccer) → Association football

There's (finally) a pretty clear consensus for this move. Any uninvolved admin fancy taking it out of the backlog?

If there's a policy on how to handle requests like this, by the way, I'm all ears. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You could be bold, slap on a {{db-housekeeping}} on Association football, put a note on the talkpage about the reason, linking to relevant discussion, and when deleted do the move yourself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's a block on moving it at all right now, so I'd need admin intervention regardless. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What Martijn proposed is faster admin intervention. And RM has been backlogged for a while now. On the other hand, as you've waited a long time for this, what's a few more days? –Pomte 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Like" in titles

Since RM regulars are familiar with naming conventions, I thought I'd clarify something here. When "like" is used as a preposition, it should be uncapitalised per WP:CAPS (e.g. A Girl like Me or A Woman like Me). But when "like" is used as a verb, the "l" is capitalised (e.g. I Like the Way (You Move) or What I Like About You). Is this correct? Spellcast (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I could not find this in the page

What is the overal process for closing a discussion on a rename? For the record, I refer to Talk:List of municipalities in Wallonia#Requested move (2). I know the person I am talking to and who is the sole opponent to the rename (three other have supported it), I know exactly why he is opposed to it, the discussion is doing circles and have reasons to think there is no way he will ever accept the rename. This must not be a first one, but I could not see any clear indication on the way these cases handled. Do you have a policy of closing discussions after a while? Is there anything specific that should be done to have the discussion closed?

A secundary question that I have, and which a bit out of the scope of this page: as the issue is going much farther than that, does this impact the treatment (see here -reverted-, here and here). Is there anything else I should consider such as an WP:RFC or something else? Any advise welcome. Bradipus (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To close any discussion, you can use {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}. It's generally a good idea to have an uninvolved person close it to avoid the controversy of having an involved party make the decision. Usually, it's an admin who frequents WP:RM. There aren't that many of them, so unfortunately this may mean having to wait for more than 5 days.

There's definitely nothing wrong with an RfC, or you could consider other steps for dispute resolution. –Pomte 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I certainly want to avoid a renaming war, so I favour strongly that an independant person, whether admin or other, proposes a resolution. I will wait for a while. Thanks for the advice as well, even after this is resolved I may end up with an RfC as the POV pushing of that person is a real issue. Bradipus (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please review move of Duchy of Pszczyna

It was moved with 4 support to 4 oppose to Duchy of Pless, to a version of the name not used in English literature, with the moving admin stating "The argument for using the English-language name is clear. The arguments from the opposers are not clear to me." - when in fact the supposedly English name is not used and is ORish.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was involved in this move as well. Searching just for "Duchy of Pless" as a phrase isn't helpful in determining the English usage. As with the fuller name of any place, a variety of terms incorporating the English form need to be used. For instance, Pless is used in English as a princely title and so on. Pless itself can be seen in a number of books. Pszczyna, not so much. Given also that the Pless in the princely title used in English sources is Pszczyna in Polish, it seems to show that the closing administrator was persuaded by the evidence of English sources (WP:UE, WP:NCGN) using Pless. I don't think votes absolutely determine the outcome of a move if policies, guidelines and sources support one name and the opposing votes did not explain their rationale or provide reasoning. Charles 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash our for and against; the fact is that the outcome was 50/50 and so the article should not have been moved (there was no consensus for it, regardless of what one thinks of either side's arguments).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The results of the vote matter little in working on consensus. WP is not a democracy, as you are no doubt aware. It is what the admin work out is the most cogent arguement and well, any support or oppose not backed up by an argument or by an argument proved to be fallicy is likely to be ignored. Narson (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, if there is no consensus, there should be no move. It's pretty simple.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obvious no consensus. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Move requests are not votes for a good reason. If for example an argumentation is flimsy and depends mainly on the domination of an interest group, then that would have to fail. When I think of an 1-0 (number of sources for that title) move request that still failed, my mind would wander to "Talk:Union of Kraków and Vilna". Anyway - returning to the case at hand, I do think that "Pless" is in the majority of sources for that unit - see "Duke of Pless" and "Duke of Pszczyna". Sciurinæ (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plame affair

The requested move for Plame affair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was first closed as unsuccessful by myself and immediately reopened. This second move request was then closed a week or so later as unsuccessful by User:Andrewa (not an admin) but this was reverted by User:NYScholar. I'd appreciated if and admin with a bit more experience than myself could have a look. --Salix alba (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally would have liked to see it moved to Plame-Gate or PlameGate. Everything is a "<insert subject>Gate" these days. I think, in this case, it would have fit. Oh well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I was still an admin last time I checked! Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

People forget because you barely use your tools and your RfA was so long ago it doesn't have its own page. Dekimasuよ! 07:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the admin tools regularly. Surely it is the responsibility of the user reverting a close to check? Surely, WP:FAITH applies to admins too? I am astounded that there was not more criticism of this revert, but thanks at least for your observation that it should not have been done. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Before weighing in on this controversy, please consult the extensive discussions (both archived and not yet archived) on the various talk pages of the related articles; they have been moved already from "Plamegate" and "CIA leak scandal" and "Plame affair" back and forth many times over (please consult the logs and editing histories, as already linked in Talk:Plame affair discussions). When new users/editors jump in who have not consulted or taken part in past discussions and just re-name the articles or close the discussions about the request move proposals with no reference to the changes over time in the prevalence of the names, it wastes a lot of time. Having looked at the dates of usage of the various names and the usage in major international and national ("mainstream") news sources (as opposed to blogs), I see that there is more weight for "CIA leak scandal" than for "Plame affair" or for "Plamegate"--which are both by now generally obsolete. (See the external links of the articles). --NYScholar (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (added info.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is quite simple: I closed a move request after five days, when there was a rough consensus not to move and certainly no likelihood of consensus to move. My work in doing this was then reverted by NYScholar, who had proposed this move and also an identical move before Christmas which also failed. Yes, there's a lot of previous discussion, but I'm afraid most of it is rather repetitive! Andrewa (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have relisted the move, it seemed the least of four evils, I didn't want to have an edit war over closing the poll, and I didn't want to leave it in the backlog, and I didn't want to leave the poll open while it wasn't listed. In five days we will presumably try to close it again, unless another admin wants to try to speedily close it in the meantime, which I think would be quite justified.

Please also note that here isn't the place to discuss the merits of the move, nor is the project page. Andrewa (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this now. Dekimasuよ! 07:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El Superclásico

I requested that El Superclásico be moved to Superclásico on December 16, as yet nothing has been done. The reason for the request is that IP editors keep cut n paste moving it to Superclásico (which is the proper name). As can be seen from the links above wikipedia is currently supporting 2 identical versions of the page. El Superclásico has the full edit history, perhaps someone could move it to Superclásico properly and then turn it into a redirect. Regards, King of the NorthEast 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cannot locate any request on here for the move which probably explains why it has not been done. Keith D (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes as I need to sort out what has happened here. Keith D (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Keith D (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current page name and the suggested new name

I have added

Once the requested move process is at an end, the only record of the requested move is kept on the talk page of the article. The current page name and the suggested new name must be placed at the top of the section where the move is discussed so that editors who read the talk page in the future can clearly see what the proposed move was.

As people do not have to use the template and the contributors coming to the discussion from WP:RM know what the dispute is it may never be explicitly stated in the roll your own section. This causes real problems when the move discussion is over and the request is removed from the WP:RM page as editors who do not think that the current name is appropriate may not be able to tell what a previous suggested name for the page (or the previous page name) was. Explicitly placing the above in the guideline will cut down confusion and possible edit wars. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the {{Notmoved}} template should have a parameter added to show what the proposed title was so that a record is left of what the move target was meant to be. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official names

Comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:official names regarding a new guideline proposal designed not to change anything, but hoped to reduce the workload at WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And whether or not this proposal becomes a guideline, a few words here to discourage proposals depending solely on "it's the official name" would save everybody time. The present proposal to move Queen Maud Land is an example; it's being snowed, but it should never have been presented without evidence of actual usage. I would suggest:

Usage note: Wikipedia naming conventions provide that we should usually call articles by the most common name for the subject in English; there are some exceptions to deal with disambiguation and consistency within Wikipedia. We do not generally use official names, or funny typography adopted for advertising value. Our titles are not intended to assert or deny any territorial or ethnic claims; it is not our business to do so. Please give evidence on actual English usage, rather than making a move request based on official name alone.

Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the interminable "Kiev to Kyiv" move has come up again. Unless there is objection, I propose to add some version of the text above in 24 hours; we should not have to repeat these things every time some earnest patriot decides we are wrong to not use the official name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed Arabi

This article was moved to this location last month, in a WP:RM discussion still on this page, and its talk page, which was literally unanimous. It has now been moved by a solitary user, first to Ahmed Orabi and then to Ahmed 'Urabi, without discussion. The second move could be undone; but not the first. Please move it back where it was, to begin with, at which point the argument whether we should be pedantic in replacing the form by which he was then (and is still) known by a more recent transliteration will be in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to first reverse the moves in order to have the discussion? If so, then I'll cheerfully do it, but I don't think I see the point, if it's just to allow a discussion to happen. Why not just discuss? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems likely to be undecisive, unless the several old comments for Arabi are counted. That being the case, the former consensus should prevail, in the absence of a new one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless old comments are "counted"? What does that mean? It is not clear how our naming conventions apply, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete and contested section - how can we be most efficient?

Ok, is it just me, or is this section becoming the home of this page's bloat? Do we need a better procedure for how we handle moves that are controversial, but not properly listed? Do we just need to complete more "Uncontroversial" moves as uncontroversial? Any ideas on how this page could be more efficiently run? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but there does need to be a time limit on these things. We've got one that's over a month old. Once the time limit is reached, it either needs to be moved or marked no consensus. Or, possibly even a better idea, closed without prejudice because the request was never made properly.

Also, we've got to look into people posting their discussions HERE rather in the proper location (i.e. article talk page). JPG-GR (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, and it comes from the way "prods" are treated: You see an article you think can be uncontroversially deleted. You prod it. Someone contests it and removes the template. End of story - it wont get deleted unless you come back and nominate it for a proper AFD. So take the same approach with the "contested" section if it is becoming too bloated: if a request gets moved from uncontroversial to contested then it simply doesnt get moved, unless the editor who originally submitted it comes back and provides a full move request. We dont need controversial moves AND full moves listed separately.

I will add that I find the biggest barrier to contributing to page move discussions (especially contested ones) is that there is often no section where debate can occur. I know its lazy but I like a blue (Discuss) link I can click on that takes me to the correct place right away. This Requested Move page contains all the helpful templates and they can be copy/pasted easily. Ive done it myself and even as a new user it was not difficult. It doesnt need admin tools to do, so make it the responsibility of the editor. You dont need to be process Nazis, you just need to be a bit more strict. Callmederek (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that the presumption is against moving unless the person fills out all the forms properly. That seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. I think we need to move pages more easily, not less easily. If it's improperly listed, why not just move is as uncontroversial and then see if anybody objects? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stemonitis used to pull the discussion off the page and put it on the talk in question, labeled with a {{RMcontested}}. Pulling those off after five days kept clutter down for the ones that were controversial and improperly filed, and it had the added bonus that none of the old discussion was lost. Dekimasuよ! 07:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the sound of that solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] move to RFC style templates

Many people who do not use this process very often get confused over the steps that have to be taken to construct a WP:RM request. I suggest that we move over the the template system used in WP:RFC (see Request comment on articles, templates, or categories) that seems to have simplified the process. What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes the process harder to watch, if I follow RFC correctly. Now I just need to come here and read up the page to see what's new. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How? the list would still exist (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography) and can be watched in the usual way. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While this process may be unfamiliar to users unfamiliar with it, it's pretty user-friendly and self-explanatory once you look it over. JPG-GR (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The how do you explain the number of entries in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Incomplete and contested proposals? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just made my first ever request and it wasn't hard - certainly not as cumbersome as an AFD request or a 3RR request. The "multimove" could use a few words more explanation but that took just a few attempts with Show preview before I got it right. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick section question

If a requested move is setup in one of the dated sections, but is in fact incomplete (most likely, due to the lack of a discussion area being setup), is that to be left where it is and allowed to backlog/expire/rot or be moved to the incomplete section (and allowed to expire/rot)? JPG-GR (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The best thing would probably be to make a judgement call, and either complete the request, or copy it to the talk page of the article in question, and start the discussion by saying you challenge the move. Otherwise, I think incomplete is the official rotting section.

Alternatively, we could kill the incomplete section, contest "uncontroversial" requests by adding notes to them, and let incompletes drift into the backlog if nobody rescues them. Then, anything reaching the backlog without having a discussion set up can either be relisted, with a discussion, or else cut-and-pasted to the article's talk page with a note that nobody seemed willing to relist it, but that they're welcome to try discussing the move (with or without RM formalities), if they want it to happen. We could probably whip up a template for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I asked is this one:

[[:Liu's family tree of the Han Dynasty]]→ Liu's family tree of the Han Dynasty -Move article with quotes (it has non trivial edit history) to the other title (history has only moves) and then delete file with the quotes.

No discussion area is setup... heck, the article isn't even located at EITHER of these locations anymore. It's been slowly working it's way toward the backlog, with no clear fix available. JPG-GR (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Starting with those listed for February 16, I'm gonna keep an eye on the incomplete ones and try to complete them myself. I'll keep doing it until we determine something else or it gets tiring (i.e. incomplete > complete). JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Umm.... Category:Requested moves

Something tells me no one is a big fan of this category. I just spent over 90 minutes cleaning up left behind versions of {{move}} and the like from pages that had been moved, had not been moved, and had not even been proposed at WP:RM. I'm probably 2/3 through and taking a break.

I've been keeping up with the move requests, so it's very very very unlikely I untagged anything currently up for a requested move, but if I did, I'll apologize here in advance. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting closure of a requested move

I wonder if this should go in the Wikipedia record books. A move that was forgotton to be closed a long time ago and now has lasted nearly a year and a half ago. Or perhaps this should be relisted. I don't know. Talk:Letchworth#requested move. Simply south (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I closed this as outdated; anyone who wants to can make a new listing. Dekimasuよ! 07:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request review of "no consensus" decision on English Defense

I request an independent review of the "no consensus" decision on the requested move of English Defense to English Defence. Discussion can be found at Talk:English Defense#Requested move (2nd). I believe the no consensus decision was in error:

1. The move received 8 supports and only 2 opposes. This is a clear consensus.
2. All of the active members of Wikiproject Chess who tendered an opinion supported the move, and they are subject matter experts.
3. The claim that "strong national ties" was in dispute is not supported by the 8 to 2 support/oppose on the page. Also note the opinions of the subject matter experts who are better equipped to determine whether the subject has strong national ties.
4. The stated goal to "reduce the time spent arguing over article titles" will not be achieved by an improper "no consensus" close. In fact it will ensure the opposite: the subject will come up again. If the page were moved the issue would be closed for good. Quale (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with having this close reviewed. I know that some of our helpers here are bothered when closes go against the majority (numbers are not really relevant). The frequent commenters at requested moves - the ones who come at the discussion from the perspective of the naming conventions - expressed their doubts about this change, as did participants in a previous request which mentioned sources using the "Defense" spelling. I think that my close conforms to the spirit of WP:ENGVAR (as well as the "retain the existing variety" rule-of-thumb). If we encourage move requests that focus on regional spelling by performing contested moves, those types of move requests are more likely to appear on this page in the future. I will reiterate that time we spend arguing over the degree of national ties to a certain spelling of a chess opening is time we are not spending improving its article. As far as I can see, there is not a consensus that chess has strong national ties to a particular English-speaking nation. Dekimasuよ! 06:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dekimasu, Your above is NOT correct. No one is saying that chess has strong national ties to a particular English-speaking nation'. What is being said is this article(this chess opening) has strong national ties.

Secondly it's existing as an article with incorrect spelling ensures more arguing will continue. ChessCreator (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The spelling is not incorrect. I do not intend to argue about this more here. I hope that another common closer will take a look. Dekimasuよ! 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that your closing rational is horrible, for the reasons I listed above. Your explanation here is even worse. First you say "not a consensus that chess has strong national ties" which was never part of anyone's argument and simply makes no sense at all. I hope that was a typo/thinko, because it is reason enough alone to reverse your mistake. The article is not about chess, it's about a specific chess opening, that is named for the country England for particular reasons having to do with the opening's ties to that country. You might have profitably considered why it might be called the English Defence rather than the Yankee Doodle Defense. (The article explains this, did you read it?) Second, you talk about "frequent commenters", editors whose names you recognized, as the only ones whose opinions you paid any attention to at all. Unless we're one of your cronies, our opinion doesn't count. The two "frequent commenters" are not subject matter experts as were many of eight move supporters. Why bother with a discussion at all if you are going to ignore what we have to say? Quale (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point on frequent commenters (there were three, not two) is taken. That said, decisions to move pages are based on our naming conventions, not the subject matter involved, so comments that refer to those aspects of the problem must be given proper weight. I did not discount the opinions of the majority out of hand; I simply stated that there wasn't a consensus in favor of the move. In these discussions, the burden of proof tends to lie on the side that wants to change things. I hope that someone will be inclined to review this. I have read the article. I don't want to speculate as to whether a few English players would have named their own strategy after England, or whether American observers would have done so, et cetera. Dekimasuよ! 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention here that I recently added to the article (from a reliable source) that the inventor of the opening was an Englishman (a P.N. Wallis of Leicester) and that it was developed by by English grandmasters. I should have mentioned this in the discussion but did not-- perhaps it went unnoticed. I don't think there's any doubt that in this case there are strong national ties. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lakes

Based on my understanding of events, on 22 February Rarelibra (talk · contribs) moved numerous articles about lakes, many of which are lesser-known, in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Kyrgyzstan, and the Netherlands from native names to English titles which include the word "Lake". On 25 February and 26 February, Yaan (talk · contribs) moved some of them back, arguing that the new titles were pleonasms. Rarelibra listed several German and Dutch move requests at "Other proposals". Neil (talk · contribs) moved several articles by citing WP:UE and Rarelibra's move requests (which were listed at WP:RM but not at article talk pages). Neil then removed the German requests from WP:RM, which were restored by Yaan. The current RM page now has requests for English phrasing to native usage (Lake Chiem to Chiemsee) and native usage to English phrasing (Lauwersmeer to Lauwers Lake). The Dutch lakes requested for movement have already been moved from the native titles, but are still listed as requests. "Lake (of) Plau(er) See" is listed multiple times.

In my opinion, the articles should be moved back to the titles before Rarelibra's moves. There has not been any consensus yet on how WP:UE and WP:CN apply to each article. It seems rather odd to have to request a move back to an older title shortly after a title change without consensus; the WP:RM process clearly states that there should be discussion before a controversial move is made. That was not followed in this situation. Olessi (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. There was no evidence of actual usage given on any of the talk pages, apart from in the case of Gruyère. This has led to pages being located at titles English people barely use (see Talk:Chiemsee for a particularly notable example), but which are allegedly "more English" than the words they actually use. The discussion and evidence should have come first, and if it had many of these requests would have been seen to be groundless when the usage was examined. A return to the status quo ante is the most fair route, with no prejudice on reopening move requests to these supposedly more English titles. Knepflerle (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please update image FUR's when moving articles

Please remember when moving pages around to update the Fair Use Rationale's for the related images (if any). I'm seeing more and more in Category:All disputed non-free images that the bot has picked up purely due to this. Cheers, Nanonic (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the bot be updated to check the article history for a move, which would appear in the history of both names and the move log of the old name? Humans should not have to do mechanical tasks for the ease of bots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to the extent that this would mean a big increase in workload, while recognizing that invalidating fair use rationales is a problem. The issue had never even crossed my mind until seeing this thread - a real lapse on my part. Dekimasuよ! 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me. With all the {{move}} templates still on articles LONG since moved or whose requests (if even formally made) long expired, it appears that when articles get moved, they get moved, and then the cleanup is left for someone else months down the line. JPG-GR (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit of a misrepresentation, I think. Although I wasn't involved in cleaning up the category, so I'm not sure what some of the examples were, it's just as likely that those pages were templated but never listed on the page here. I always remove those templates, and can't think of anyone who doesn't. To a certain extent, yes, when I move pages I am trying to help people who couldn't move the pages themselves, and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect those editors to perform a certain amount of cleanup after their preferred changes are made. I usually note it in my closing statement if there are things that need to be done. If we expect the administrators here to do all of the cleanup work on the article as well, the backlog will keep getting bigger. Dekimasuよ! 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure how

I'm not sure how to request a move for an article that was moved incorrectly before. The article is Charles Burnett (Officer of Arms) which should be lower case between the brackets. Can anyone help me make a request?--Eva ^bd 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made the move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template changes

Why does the RM substitution template ({{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}}) now create a move "button" that doesn't work? Why is there a need for one, even if it does work? I thought the purpose of WP:RM was to build consensus for controversial moves that often require admin involvement, not to ease the grueling process of clicking on the move button at the top of the article.

And what does this addition to {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} do?: {{#if:|<br><small>Discussion area setup by {{{completer}}}. Unless otherwise noted below, {{{completer}}} has no position one way or the other on this discussion.</small>}} — AjaxSmack 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see no reason for the move link as it does not work, and you are normally on the talk page to read the discussion of the move rather than the WP:RM page. Keith D (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moves that need to be put on hold

Some of the RMs on the backlog section are clearly in need of more time, with more feedback necessary or little useful feedback forthcoming. I get the feeling that's why some get left in the backlog area for ages (well, I certainly left many because of that). Can I get community permission to grant extensions on some of these discussions? The listing can be placed under a new section, either above or below the backlog section. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've observed, while not common, requests have been relisted under the current day's header and given another five days - just be sure to comment as such so they don't get resorted to the bottom. :) JPG-GR (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The three steps

I was bold and added a (just created) alternative template to step 3 plus the alternative reasoning. This is for those who are uncertain on the new name. Plus i made them into titles. I hope this was okay. New template under {{RMlink?}} Simply south (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A discussion for a proposed new naming standard for Wikipedia aricles on Spratly Islands

I want to have a discussion about my proposal for a new naming standard for Wikipedia aticles on Spratly Islands. Click here to see my draft on what I want to post. The problem is I don't know where can I post the such a discussion. As much as possible I want it to be a general discussion, not requiring individual discussions per article proposed to be moved. Please guide me on a clear step-by-step process on what I can do to start such a discussion. -- eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided to give up the proposal. I still think I have a point. But I realized it is actually a trivial thing to pursue. Well, the draft is still available in my user subpage. I'll just leave it there, forever. Thanks! eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atyrau Airport

Can I request that the IATA code GUW be re-directed to Atyrau Airport in Kazakhstan? Thanks RossBaku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossbaku (talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request review of page move - diacritics and sources

Hi. I recently closed the move request at Talk:Novak Djokovic. I moved the page from Novak Đoković, and although the numbers weren't overwhelmingly in favor of the move, the arguments for the move were source- and policy-based, and the arguments on the other side were not, in my estimation. I'm posting here to see what others think: was that an appropriate close? How is community support for following sources on matters of diacritics? It's my impression that that's been the community standard for a while; am I mistaken? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add. Exactly the same discussion is on move request for Talk:Franjo Tuđman. All arguments are the same. However, discussion got closed with "not to move".--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting a Move

How do you revert a page-move that is obviously vandalism? --neonwhite user page talk 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Easiest way would be just move it back to the original title over the redirect. If this is not possible then list on the project page under uncontroversial proposals. Keith D (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CANVASS question

A recent opposer at the move proposal for Talk:CFL (disambiguation)#New Move Proposal, posted messages about this at both the Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board‎ and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football‎. The messages are neutral and, so far, this doesn't appear to have had any effect (i.e. no one new votes have come in during the last few hours), but in my mind it smacks of selective canvassing since Canadian Football League is only one meaning for "CFL" and ignores communities that would be associated with other uses like compact fluorescents. I created the move proposal, so I don't want to personally go around notifying projects about it at this late date, but I am wondering if others would consider if those messages were appropriate. And if this is the sort of thing that would justify reaching out to other communities (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment) for balance? Dragons flight (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the move request is closed now. Dragons flight (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] template:move2

Is {{move2}} still used? I see it's a subst template, but {{RMlink}} does the same thing, much better. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone uses it (it would look odd here amongst the usages of {{RMlink}}), so unless there are objections it would be a good idea to redirect to {{RMlink}}. –Pomte 06:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Mesopotamia → Achaemenid Assyria

It has been agreed apon in the talk page, can we please have an admin move the page. Chaldean (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calvary baptist school

Please officially move this article to Calvary Baptist School. I already copy and pasted the article to the new site, but I guess I wasn't supposed to do that - sorry. Manutdglory (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Keith D (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] requested move related discussion at wp:con

See Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WP:CON Gnevin (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory instructions

At Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals it tells you to add new proposals at the BOTTOM of the list, but when you edit, there is hidden text saying add it at the TOP. I don't really care which is adopted, but it is not helpful to editors to be faced with such impossible to follow instructions (unless perhaps we are meant to add a new proposal at BOTH the top and the bottom?) DuncanHill (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done JPG-GR (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing redirects after page moving

I am not sure if this is the best place to ask, but if it isnt, can someone point me in the correct direction? I have come across a user who moves pages a lot. Normally they move them without problems, but occasionally, after moving he makes a minor edit to the redirect page and then immediately reverts the edit. The effect is to stop other users moving the page back without the assistance of a sysop, which is significant because in every one of the 10 cases he has done this, there has been a previous page move of the article. It is like a systematic tactic to "win" a move war. This seems disruptive to me - it takes away the option of page-moving from other users, and has the same effect as a non-admin move-protecting a page. I cant find a specific guideline about this though, and would like to know what would editors recommend as the best way to proceed? Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's called "salting the earth" (example), and Wiki policy seems not to have adressed it yet. Better informed users surely have an advantage over others here. Sometimes its combined with a taunting try WP:RM. -- Matthead  Discuß   05:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is the ArbCom ruling Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves, now incorporated in Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators#Reversal_of_irreversible_page_moves. You can request deletion of such links with {{db-g6}}. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I did so at Teutonic takeover of Danzig which was victim of move warriors who ignore the vote. I'd rather have an admin moved the page (currently at Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk, after some intermediate double named versions) back to is original and proper name, and then move protect it. BTW: why does WP:MOVE not cover controversial moves? Some users just move pages as they please, and get away with it (and not only that). -- Matthead  Discuß   20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing a move template to the main page instead of just the talk page

This has probably been discussed before but i think this has more chance of gaining people's eye on this proposal that is going on. Simply south (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request review of no-consensus closure of Karkonosze -> Giant Mountains

As the header states, I'm requesting a review of the closure as no-consensus of the proposal to move Karkonosze to Giant Mountains. The move proposal had 10 supports and 9 opposes, however, the majority of opposers made arguments analogous to WP:IDONTLIKEIT as their sole reason to oppose, not anything based in policy or naming conventions. The proponents of the move provided several sources demonstrating English usage of Giant Mountains, including Britannica and Opera Corcontica, a Czech-Polish scientific journal whose sole focus is this mountain range (they use GM in English-language editions). The opposition to the move provided no sources demonstrating usage in English, and instead relied solely on Google counts, which are unreliable. Thanks in advance for your time. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Karkonosze for an overview. See also these edits to WP:RM where a false statement was made in an attempt to start a competing move request as distraction. Anyway, of three or four possible names, the current (Polish) name Karkonosze is the worst, less significant compared to the much older Czech one (Krkonose), with Czech Republic having a larger share of the mountains, too. Yet, scholars of these neigbhoring countries use Giant Mountains in English, as does Britannica with Giant Mountains. There is consensus to Use English. The few who oppose have not presented any valid argument, thus the article should have been moved. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The above proposed name proved to be too generic to be established how many times it is used for Karkonosze and not for any other mountain range or metaphor. Karkonosze was proven to be always used for those mountains since it wasn't a generic name. Results for the generic one included such topics as Mars, Fiji, Himalayas and so on. Attempts to change the name included claims that German names like Schneekopfe or Risenberge should be used just to avoid using "Slavic ones", and 'evidence' presented included search results where the term 'gian' and 'mountains' were together and thus weren't reliable.--Molobo (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

These filibustering claims are as wrong as the (once again mangled) spellings of Schneekoppe and Riesengebirge, names which have a 200+ year tradition of use in English. International scholars who study the very mountain range call it Giant Mountains in English, that is a fact, as evident by the Czech scientific journal Opera Corcontica's list of recent Articles in English or Czech/Polish with English Abstract, and Encyclopedia Britannica's online article at Giant Mountains. While many mountain(s) may be described as tall, high, giant, rocky, stony, snowy, bald etc., Giant Mountains, Rocky Mountains, Stony Mountain, Snowy Mountains, Bald Mountain are valid English names for very specific places (note the Capital letters which indicate a proper name). -- Matthead  Discuß   10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Google counts don't change the fact that the editors who favored moving the page to Giant Mountains provided several reliable sources, and in the case of OC, an expert source, that use the English-language name instead of the Polish or Czech names. The point here, should be best summed up as this: we as editors of Wikipedia don't get to vote on English usage, we follow it by examining scholarly sources; all of the oppose voters, save Molobo, used some formulation of "I don't like it" or "I oppose attempts to Germanize Wikipedia". These are not valid reasons to oppose a move, and the closing admin should have ignored them. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The vote was not on if the generic name is sometimes used to describe Karkonosze as giant mountains but to determine the more accepted name(nobody denied that). As to your english language name, sometimes what sounds more english isn't more widespread-as was presented to you with the case of Cracow versus Krakow, which IIRC you ignored.Also voters reminded of the fact that they were previous attempts to rename the article where discussions took place and since then nothing changed.--Molobo (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, and since those who favored Giant Mountains provided sources demonstrating usage in English, the result should have been a no-brainer. I ignored the issue of the spelling of Cracow/Krakow because it's mostly irrelevant; article names should be decided on a case by case basis, not based on how other specific articles are named (i.e., Krakow may be decidedly favored in English language sources; that doesn't by definition mean that all Polish names are favored in English sources, and it shouldn't be treated to imply as much). The outcomes of the previous attempts to move the page are irrelevant, as consensus can change, and given that the last proposal was in 2006, a fair amount of time has clearly passed, and therefore, changes in naming conventions and so forth have also changed. Parsecboy (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Right, and since those who favored Giant Mountains provided sources demonstrating usage in English"

This was not a vote on usage, many terms exst in English, it was a vote on its suitability compared to other choice that appear in English language. As per consuse can change-it didn't, and no changes have been demonstrated to support name change.--Molobo (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) There's a lot of mentions of the "vote" that took place - we don't vote on Wikipedia. JPG-GR (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is most certainly correct, which is even more reason to review the move closure. Reasons for supporting or opposing much of anything on Wikipedia needs to be based in relevant policies/guidelines/conventions and reliable sources, not personal feelings one way or the other about a specific issue. Judging whether consensus has formed shouldn't be a straight up or down vote, but whether those expressing their opinions are in line with existing policies/sources/etc. or just their personal views on the issue. Parsecboy (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis moves

I have restored the discussion to the RM page, while recognising that the point (if not the action) taken by the person who moved it to a dozen separate locations is correct. There will be 68 of these - fragmenting the discussion actually hinders any process or any input as it has to be given at all 68 locations. A centralised discussion needs to be set up and linked from each of the affected pages plus this one - but for the fact that so many people opposed the move on the page to be removed from it isn't conducive to revealing the full situation to those wishing to express a view. So in summary - where should this single discussion be? Orderinchaos 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit history "vandalism" to force a formal RM request

I have revived a discussion at WT:VAN related to the festering question of consensus on reverting previously undiscussed moves. Specifically, after moving an article, creating a multi-entry edit history preventing non-admin moves and forcing editors who want to return the article to its orginal to post it at WP:RM and get wide "consensus" to move it back to its orginal title. Please discuss it there if interested. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polling Time

How long usually should a poll last on a requested move? Emperor001 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests are generally completed after five days, but backlogs are common, especially if an involved discussion has taken place. JPG-GR (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask because I proposed a move for William II, German Emperor to Wilhelm II, German Emperor on June 3, but I didn't start a poll until June 11. Right now, the poll is at about 10:5 in favor of my move. Should I go ahead and move it? Emperor001 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll started June 10, this is the beginning for the 5-days time. And in any case, you cannot implement the move, if there is a consensus finally. It is up to a non-involved sysop to close the discussion, and, if there is a consensus, to make the move.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a moves for arbitration or something?

The page Battle of Brezalauspurc is on my watchlist, and as far as I can tell, was moved without any discussion a little while ago. Now the name is being discussed on the talk page. Is there any precedent for moving it back for the sake of having some discussion about it before the move is made? The only rationale given in the edit summary was that the new name is "better". --DerRichter (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title black list

There are certain characters, mainly non-Latin characters, on the mediawiki title blacklist. This list makes it impossible to move a page or create a page with these characters in them. Admins however can override this blacklist. So we might want to include a bit here that if Mediawiki stops you from making a move, you can request an admin make the move. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, yes. It seems MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-move in fact already points users here. I've added a brief mention if this to the header. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this page just for pages move only for moving over an existing page. Because establish user can move over a non-existing page only.--Freewayguy ^{Discussions Show all changes} 02:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Diocese of 'Foo' VS Diocese of 'Foo' Redirects

May we get some consensus on this topic, please?

Personally, I think that for claritys sake, the articles should be titled 'Roman Catholic Diocese of ...' rather than simply 'Diocese of ...' in the case that one is discussing a Latin-Rite diocese. There are too many other churches out there (Anglican, Old Catholic, other Catholic Rites, etc) that may have dioceses with the same names, and this may create confusion.

Considering the quantity of redirects by Malleus Haereticorum (talk · contribs) it would be quite a thankless task to try to put things back as they were, and there is no guarantee that Malleus would leave things be. This user doesn't seem to want to communicate with anyone regarding this, and all the re-directs were done unilaterally, sans input from others, so its at least possible that he/she may revert all of the re-directs. Then, of course, we would end up with a kind of edit war on our hands. Input, please.--Lyricmac (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

With more than 1000 edits in two months, he does not appear to have added any content. Besides the moves, all he has done is change internal links from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, which is a redirect itself, or made similar changes. He stopped using edit summaries after his first few edits and does not respond to comments. It looks like there are now at least two articles on the Diocese in Leon, Mexico; strangely, neither they or their associated redirects have any content on their talk pages. Given his refusal to discuss his actions and the meaning of the user name he chose, I suspect that after establishing a consensus and getting a specific convention added to at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, that you are going to have to end this with progressive vandal warnings and a ban.--Hjal (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had to go after several cases where their is an Anglican diocese or bishop f the name in question. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Heading over to WP:AN/I. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)