This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I wonder if we could get the bot to general different colored headers. So right now we'd have:
Submitted today
One day old
Two days old
Three days old
Four days old
Five days old
Six days old
Seven days old
Eight days old or older
This would make it obvious that anything in the 7th day (Jan 16) is subject to closure. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The most refs both show Off-Broadway with a hyphen:
-- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Autism → Classical autism — The new title would be more accurate. Isn't Kanner's syndrome and PDD also a form of autism? So's Asperger's Disease. -- Nmatavka ( talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Since I am on a dynamic IP (please don't tell me to create an account) and I am unable to monitor the situation, I am not sure where to take this. I was going to simply post it at WP:C&P as a c&p move, but it seems to be an ongoing hornet's nest. The two pages in question are Newark Pepper (singular) & Newark Peppers (plural). After looking at it, I'm unsure which is correct; that might need to be settled at WP:BASEBALL. Also, there are 2 categories: Category:Newark Pepper (singular) & Category:Newark Peppers (plural). Users are reverting each other and then redirecting and c&p moving. The c&p move definitely needs to be fixed, but I am unsure which way. Could someone who knows what procedure to use to fix this go ahead and stop the madness please. I am unable to keep an eye on this. Rgrds. 64.85.217.144 ( talk) 10:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Following this discussion at WP:AN, I feel that this question needs an answer as otherwise it's likely to get confusing for all involved here. Current practice seems to be that RMs get closed when they reach the backlog but today an admin closed several that weren't yet in the backlog but were instead in the last day of listing. The closing instructions mention a "normal 7 day listing period" which it would be reasonable to interpret as a full 7 day listing and it would appear that, at least recently, this has been insured by waiting until the moves reach the backlog. I'm not bothered either way but I do think it would be useful if we were consistent hence starting this discussion. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That said, apparently consensus frowns on closing discussions if discussion is still active, even if it's in backlog. A recent closing has been protested partially on the grounds that it was closed too early, even though it had been open eight days prior to closing, because there was a comment made just a few hours prior to closing. See Talk:Ann_Arbor/Archive_3#Requested_move, Talk:Ann_Arbor#Revert_move, and Talk:Ann_Arbor#Previous_closure. But that might just be a sour grapes rationalization applied in just that one case.
I'm all for adding clarity on this point, though I'm not sure about how best to deal with the ongoing discussion factor, though I do think we need make the rules more clear to provide fewer excuses to protest closings, not the other way around. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
7th day has been the day of closure for years. "Backlog" does not mean "day eight or more" but "backlog", quite a big clue I'd have thought. ;) Current practice is that we have a huge backlog and many threads don't get closed for weeks or months on end, but since I cleared the backlog we can get back to normal (assuming there are admins who are prepared to do it). Threads which need more than 7 days should be relisted, not left in the backlog. The backlog needs to be empty, otherwise administrators are alerted that the area needs attention other areas don't. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think it desirable to keep discussions open past seven days unless it is likely that to do so will generate a consensus relativity quickly (Typically to do this some compromise has to have been suggested late on in the discussion and those involved in the discussion have yet had time to respond to it). -- PBS ( talk) 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Provincial highway, it is argued that WP:RM is an appropriate venue to retarget redirects because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You may wish to comment. 184.144.164.14 ( talk) 11:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs |
---|
Possibly not the ideal location for this discussion, but here goes... User talk:Magiciandude is moving a whole bunch of Spanish-language singles and albums without discussion in order to decapitalise certain words, in accordance with a Wikiproject guideline (namely WP:ALBUMCAPS). I'd like some input from the "moving" community on (a) whether this unilateral behaviour is appropriate, (b) whether this guideline supersedes WP:COMMONNAME and (c) whether ALBUMCAPS is actually correct in relation to the way in which we verify our facts. The user also seems content to move the page, leaving references to the old title throughout the articles he moves and in templates that reference the old name. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
First I want to make an apology over this commotion. Yes, I did start by following a guideline, not knowing there was a contradictory policy over it. It started when El Mexicano informed about the incorrect grammatical error on Spanish-language album and song names. Then I saw the guideline about capitalization and thought that's how it's supposed to be done. To be honest, I am indifferent as to whether or not the all foreign names should follow the English standards or not. Again, I apologize for this. Magiciandude ( talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
According to Spanish spelling rules, only the first word of ANY title is written with initial upper case, except for proper names in titles. I have told this several times here, but I was always ignored. I think Royal Spanish Academy knows better than anybody how to write titles in Spanish. English sources are unreliable in this matter. If something is written in a foreing language, you must keep the rules of THAT language and not the English ones. Several Spanish language titles are incorrectly spelled here. So Magiciandude did it the right way when he moved the titles. -- El Mexicano ( talk) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
|
I have copied the text of this Section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs. As it affect that project, it is better that further talk about this takes place there, so that if there is a consensus that the wording of the project contradicts WP:AT policy, then the project wording can be altered to complement the policy. -- PBS ( talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
When a page gets moved and a disambiguation page is placed at the old title, who's expected to clean up the links? For example, Main (river) was just moved to that title from Main, and Main was made into a dab page - whose job is it now to clean up the hundreds(?) of links that are now broken as a result? I'd have thought this was a far more important issue than the repair of double redirects, since those will get done pretty soon by a bot, but the links necessarily require human intervention. Should we put a warning about this in the instructions, perhaps saying that the dab page should not be moved to the base name (i.e. the base name should continue to point to the article which used to be there) until all the links (at least, those in article space) have been repaired?-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A WP:RM nom was raised which gave the wrong namespace for the new page name: it was a template rename, which was mistakenly worded such that the target name was in article space. I fixed the namespace at the original proposal, here, but when I tried to fix the namespace at the WP:RM page, here, I was reverted. How can it be fixed at WP:RM without being reverted again? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why User talk:ChrisCairncross/Speedy Transport is not getting listed? I moved the tag from the page to the talk page and it refuses to list on the RM page. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to modify the move proposal from "Székely → Szekelys" to "Székely → Székelys". Can someone help me? ( Iaaasi ( talk) 09:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC))
I have added the move request template at Talk: Gerber Format to a discussion that had already started (but has stalled). I am hoping this has not breached any etiquette. My apologies in advance if it has and please make any necessary correction for me. SpinningSpark 10:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves → Goa_Konkani_language_agitation_of_1986 — This page was moved to be renamed as "Goa Konkani language agitations of 1986". However, these agitations were part of a movement that began well before 1986 and culminated in 1987. Neighbouring states of Karnataka and Kerala also had a role to play in these agitations. The page was moved by a user having autocontrol rights. please move the article back to it's original title page Konkani language agitation. -- Imperium Caelestis 05:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I want to move one page to a new title and use the old title for a new article. I read the instructions, but still can not figure it out. Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? Can anyone give clearer instructions? Thanks. -- -- -- 00:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Done -- -- -- 23:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Could someone uninvolved take a look at Talk:MoCADA#Requested move. Thanks. Station1 ( talk) 07:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This RfC discussion is likely to be of interest. The RfC states:
Please comment on that page and not here. Dpmuk ( talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with changing the Qing dynasty empresses article titles. It seems a big mess. I would like to change them to Empress Xiao, second character, 3 character as in Empress Xiao Xian Chun. most personal names are unknown of these empresses so they were named by their title. The article titles now are titles which were, are never used for them. ( talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
How do I fix the Price is Right link I messed up. CTJF83 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons#Ammended requested move - I was asked to make a new section for changing the targets. It's the same discussion, so I'd like it to be put on the same date (March 21) of the current discussion. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ Requested move/dated}}
User:Kef253/Shipley & Halmos → Shipley & Halmos — I've created a new page draft in my userspace for the menswear brand Shipley& Halmos. I've included interWikimedia links and external references as they help the page. I plan to expand and edit in the future, but am ready to publish the page as is at the moment. Kef253 ( talk) 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No need for this here, discussion initiated on article talk page
|
---|
Reason: look here: Talk:Marconi_Museum#move page and create disambiguation -- Pava ( talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
This new subsection at Talk:Mexican-American War presents ten summary points for a protracted dispute. Recommended reading: for editors interested in the ways style guidelines at WP:MOS and policy at WP:TITLE are received at talkpages of articles, and for admins who might be looking to close the two relevant contested RMs.
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 23:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ RMB}} usage is under discussion, see Template talk:RMB and WT:CHINA. It should be noted that RMB frequently means the currency of China, the Renminbi, which is abbreviated as "RMB" in most contexts (such as financial news reports, English-language price tags, ...). 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 09:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Anybody know why my move request for ITRAQ (first item on April 16) is missing the reason? It seems formatted correctly at Talk:ITRAQ#Move request. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you consider yourself an uninvolved admin when it comes to abortion related articles, I'd like to draw your attention to two move discussions Talk:Pro-life#Move.3F and Talk:Abortion-rights_movement#move_2011. I'd like for you to comment on two things. Do you think Anthony Appleyard was an uninvolved admin in the matter? And do you agree with the closures (that one discussion had a clear consensus and was within policy, while the other had no clear consensus)? - Andrew c [talk] 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're experienced with WP:RM discussions and reasoning, your input is needed here: Talk:Corvette#Requested_move. The more, the better. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but closed a controversial discussion due to the backlog and because other admins refused to deal with this particular one. That close has been reverted by a non-admin. I've reverted the revert of the close. If an admin could review it, the sooner the better, I think that would be best. See: Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American_War#Move.3F Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Xiquet ( talk · contribs) has moved a pile of pages from "Islamic X" to "Saracenic X" which is obviously not going to fly. I've moved some back, but Saracenic Agricultural Revolution back to Arab Agricultural Revolution doesn't work. Also just notifying people that this little trouble exists William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The move discussion at Talk:Corvette#Requested_move has devolved into a discussion over whether it is necessary, useful, or appropriate for one of the involved parties to produce a summary of the arguments/votes so far. The involved party in this case is Born2cycle ( talk · contribs), one of the most vocal participants in the discussion; many disagree with the concept of such a summary, the content of his summary, or both. (see also)
Some experienced hands would be useful to keep this on track. pablo 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Request that Jaanwar (1983 film) be moved to Jaanwar. just check the talk page for knowing more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jaanwar_(1999_film) Paglakahinka ( talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look into the situation at Talk:Quran about the discussion on revert move in response to some editors demand to restore page name to Qur'an. The discussion is several sections long including:
It has been is a almost mess there and a reviewer suggested to ask for advice here.
--
নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh
talk |
contribs
15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
My request to move "Bruck–Chowla–Ryser theorem" to "Bruck–Ryser–Chowla theorem" gets garbled when it shows up on the "Requested moves" page, although it looks fine on the original talk page. I'm not sure what I did wrong... Will Orrick ( talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
How can you use the request move tag for this kind of vote, with three options presented simultaneously? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 10:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
== Requested move ==
{{subst:move-multi
| current1 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| new1 = List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent
| current2 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| new2 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines. Do not sign this.
The page move of Washington Grays (march) to Washington Grays got the wrong buttons pushed somehow; I think the wrong page was deleted and moved twice by accident. In any case, the article is gone and is now a redirect to a redirect that just redirects back to itself. Can someone take a look at this, the article needs to be undeleted but I don't know which page it is at. -- 64.85.220.115 ( talk) 06:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Closing admins are free to evaluate consensus in WP:RM discussions any way they want, A common way is to count !votes, or at least estimate the counts and approximate what the percentages are. But these methods tend to give equal or near-equal weight to really strong arguments and to lame mere expressions of personal preference.
So, to avoid rewarding poor WP:JDLI arguments and to encourage good arguments well grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions, I recommend that closing admins immediately start using the following system, or anything similar in spirit.
Just imagine a discussion in which there are 10 participants, 5 one each side, but those in support have well grounded arguments and so accumulate about 20 points while those in opposition accumulate only -5, and thus the admin finds consensus to be clearly favor of the move. I suggest that if closing admins used this system, or a similar one, the quality of the arguments presented, and the discussions in general, would quickly and greatly improve.
Thoughts/comments?
Cheers! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
So, humor me. Go to a discussion or two you've closed recently, and re-evaluate actually use this point system, just to see how the results compare to how you actually decided it. I'm hypothesizing that it's easier to give equal weight to all !votes regardless of strength than we might realize, and forcing ourselves to use such a system might help with that. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I wish to propose moving Kavana (disambiguation) to Kavana and moving the singer to Kavana (singer). With so many different terms (including one of his albums) having the same name, not to mention the similarly spelled articles mentioned at the disambig page, there's a strong case. Perhaps I should do better with my optimism switch, but I worry about proposing this at the talk page of Kavana: what is a suitably neutral venue for discussion? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Should procedural closes of RMs be allowed? The example that brings me to ask this question is Talk:40th British Columbia general election that was closed as "The move was already conducted. I am simply making a procedural close at this point." This seems an end around process to me as the mover of the page was the person who requested the move so was heavily involved so by them making the move they've effectively forced the issue. In this instance the "consensus" formed at this RM is already being used elsewhere ( 38th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation)). This is not the only example I've seen, and indeed isn't even a particularly bad example, it#s just the most recent. Except in very clear "forgot to close" cases (i.e. where an uninvolved editor moves with an edit log comment referring to the RM) I don't think procedural closes should be allowed as they short-circuit the consensus building process. I'd have no problem with closes along the line "consensus is to move (already been done)" or in the case of something moved quickly after the start of the RM "uncontroversial and already moved by x" but I still think the person closing the RM should evaluate the case. If people agree I'd suggest adding something to the closing instructions. Dpmuk ( talk) 09:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The request to rename this article to
40th British Columbia general election has been carried out.
Be sure to close this discussion using {{
subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{
subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{
Movereq|…}} tag. |
The discussion was extremely old, it needed to be closed. I was getting tired of waiting, see my last comment and edit summary [2], I was just glad that someone was bold and moved it. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Taihu Lake is having my !vote removed by the proposer of the move for my opposing !vote. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is the two-month backlog section not being relisted or closed? It would make sense for the oldest RMs to get dealt with first rather than the other way around. Softlavender ( talk) 01:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
When I come around to close move requests, I go straight to the bottom of the page and work my way up, closing any that I feel I can. Relisted requests are therefore invisible to me, and will not be closed by me, until they reach the backlog again a week later.
I hope I'm not the only person who reads this page from the bottom up. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
My question is regarding what the lag time is for uncontroversial moves. L H M 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just closed a move request at Talk:List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero episodes. That move request took over a month to be completed, when it was completely uncontroversial. I would strongly encourage RM closers to move pages when there is no objection to the move. It is not our job to generate discussion of each request. If nobody objects, we should just move the page, not relist it.
I think re-listing should only be used for pages where there is active discussion, and not in cases where there is no discussion at all. We don't need to judge the merit of the request, based on community discussion; we can just complete it as a good faith edit by an editor who doesn't happen to have a delete button. In a world without technical limitations, any logged-in editor could re-title any page, just as they can when the target is unoccupied.
I think our backlog will shrink if we start carrying out move requests after 7 days, in cases where no solid objection has been raised. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made an edit. Does this seem good? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
They don't follow the syntax and I can't seem to find what they correspond to... Sceptre ( talk) 00:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you get the idea. Sometimes, move requests come through here that are... bigger than other move requests. These tend to be repeat requests, and they've sometimes got a history of bouncing between various titles.
They take more than seven days to figure out. This means they end up at the bottom of the backlog here, a location which makes them seem to cry out for closure. Eventually, some brave soul bites the bullet and closes the request, and in the cases we're talking about, that closure is much more likely than usual to be contested, either at WP:ANI or some other venue.
It seems that it might be useful to identify such move requests, and treat them in some way differently, somehow appropriately to their special status. These are important, high-profile requests, and they tend to be cited as precedents in many, many later move discussions. Therefore, it would seem that we should find a way to handle these "big" move requests in a way that gets them lots of attention, and doesn't make them look like the most tardy and troublesome requests in a list that we're trying to clear at some sane pace.
What do people think? Should there be a way to "graduate" certain requests from RM to RFC, or something like that? Should these requests be treated differently from most other requests, or is the present system the best option?
Thanks in advance to anyone, for any input on this question. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It would just be cool if we could put discussions like the current one at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire somewhere. Letting them stagnate at the bottom of the backlog doesn't really address what's happening with such requests; neither does continually relisting them. These requests have outgrown RM, and deserve wider notice.
Coming from a slightly different angle, it seems there's little point using RM to keep asking the same question, hoping for a different answer. If circumstances have actually changed since and earlier request, then it seems we should have a focused discussion about that, and not just another 12-screen long RM discussion in which the new piece of evidence gets lost in the jumble.
I guess I'm just thinking aloud here, but this is the right page for that. Let's not rush to propose anything formal, until we figure out something informal and see it work for a while. How can we pass the stickiest requests from here to a place where more people will comment on them? - GTBacchus( talk) 14:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to put particularly important/contentious RM discussions under a special light, though I don't see why they should be taken out of the regular RM process, except to avoid involving the bot programmer. I think it's worth adding support for that. The "special light" would mean being moved to a special section underneath "backlog", and being listed as an RFC. I would say such discussions should be kept open until there is consensus, or a week of no activity, or (say) 6 months, whichever comes first. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as identifying candidates for this special attention, I'd say we should at least consider: (A) Any request that is the third (or more) request involving the same two titles, (B) Any request that draws comment from over 20 editors without a clear consensus emerging, and possibly (C) Any request that has been listed at RM for over a month.
This idea, as well as the above suggestion (somewhere on this page) about advertising to relevant WikiProjects when move requests languish in the backlog, have the potential to greatly improve the flow of articles through this page, which is an exciting prospect. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This seems to differ from other areas around the Wiki (see WP:AFD for example) that always ask for new entries at the top. Because some (me included earlier, now contested, I'm not on this talk page because of that) are used to doing that, it means the entire section is completely out of order; the top is from today, the bottom is from today, and in the middle is yesterday.
Can we make the request submission mirror that of other sections like AfD and just ask for new submissions at the top instead of the bottom? CycloneGU ( talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Following the discussion about the Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire closures on ANI, I suggest adding the following language to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interests. To avoid giving the appearance of a conflict of interest, editors should generally avoid closing contentious move requests if they have previously closed move discussions on the same article. -- rgpk ( comment) 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made an edit. I realize it's rather different from the wording proposed above, but I think that whole section was just an egregious run-on sentence, and now it says something that I think is worth saying. Does that cover what we're talking about here? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I made an additional edit, an attempt to clarify that closing an RM discussion counts as participating in a move discussion about an article, and thus makes an editor "involved". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have very strong feelings about how instructions are written around here. If you want the dissertation-length justification for those feelings, just let me know. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm against unnecessary rules - rules that govern behavior that is not problematic. But that's not the case here. Serial closing - if it occurs - is problematic. Worst case is it never occurs, but in that case it's not being governed - so there's no problem. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This encyclopedia is the miracle that it is because we aren't married to a rule-book. That's so important that it's worth remembering with every single decision we make.
How's the edit? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(od) I clean forgot I had proposed this! I like the wording that is in place now, thanks GTBacchus. -- rgpk ( comment) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that a page move request at the Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi page has been formulated as: A --> B or C. Is this a legitimate page move request? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at the bottom of the backlog, where I just closed the move to Ewelina Hańska, but we're still looking at a Kosovo multi-move request, and our much loved perennial bloom, Côte d'Ivoire, and some thoughts are occurring to me.
First of all, I closed the Hańska move because the discussion had fallen silent for over 5 days (120 hours). That's probably a minimum safe interval to say that a big discussion like that is really inactive.
Secondly, I had participated in the discussion, but only as far as asking questions for a more clear reading. I think this illustrates sane application of that part of the closing guidelines. It's not about participation per se, but about advocacy, or the appearance of advocacy.
Finally, for those last two, which are kind of typical of these difficult moves, I'm thinking of a strategy for getting a correct closure; i.e., one that will stick. A lot of RM regulars aren't good choices for closing such moves, because we tend to have been involved in something that looks a lot like it, somewhere. Maybe I'm thought of as being "for" or "against" diacritics, or WP:UE for example.
So I'm thinking this: Wait until the discussion has fallen silent for 7 days. Then post a note to WP:AN, and ask for an admin who is not an RM regular, and who feels they are neutral on the subject, to make a call and close the thing.
Any thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I know it's not part of the closing instructions, but after I move a page, after fixing double-redirects, I always look to see if any templates use the old name, and update those. This makes the "What links here" page work better, IMO, because it doesn't look like a bunch of articles are using the old name, when it's really just one template. Is this worth adding to the closing instructions, or does anyone have any thoughts about it? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure when a bot would add it to the list, or if I just didn't do it properly. My request at [3] isn't necessary anymore. The page had improper use of a capital letter, so its not a problem. I don't need that spot for my species page. So if it appears on the list, please remove it. Dream Focus 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
requested move}}
to the talk page of the relevant article and the bot will add it to
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions.
Jenks24 (
talk)
02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)This page has recently made its way onto my watchlist. I have noticed that there are many requests for moves from userspace despite these being listed as processes "beyond the scope of this page". I am not an admin, but if it seems helpful, I can remove these requests from the list and inform the respective submitting users of the submit process and tag. Cliff ( talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
About 20 or so of such edits, mostly from quite new editors have been removed and referred to AFC. I'll keep an eye out for these in the future, and welcome the editors and direct them accordingly. Cliff ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We've been talking about different ideas for handling difficult closes, and I've just had something occur to me. It's quite possible that this is just silly, but it may inspire someone to think of something more practical, so I'll toss it out there.
Suppose we add a special section for monsters - big, month-long, novella-length, high-profile, politically-charged, precedent-setting, third-time requests. We've tossed this idea around, of a special pen for those. Now, to close one of them, it takes two uninvolved admins. That means an admin wanting to close one, in addition to making the call and writing a rationale, must convince another admin to sign off on it.
It's true, this would mean it's harder, in a way, to close these requests. However, it might also make be easier in a way, because the admin wouldn't feel overwhelmed by having to stand alone and defend their decision, which sometimes happens in these cases. Moreover, any editor unhappy with the decision can see that it wasn't a lone admin, so it might seem more fair to them. It's like the first level of appeal is already taken care of
Is this a crazy idea, or what? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way to see a list of move request closures, who closed them, rationales, etc? I can imagine implementing a fairly simple external tool that would mostly get this right, so I was wondering if it had already been done. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see would be move templates that allow for variables such as which naming criteria are involved, which policies are appealed to, whether the move was completed or not, etc., etc. That sounds a bit complicated, though. I like the direction in which you're thinking here. Better documentation could only be good for us. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know why RM bot is unable to ascertain the time of the RM at Talk:Austria–Greece relations#Requested move? I assume it would have something to do with either the article being at the requested title already (but the other 25 aren't) or that it is a multi-move involving 26 articles. Anyone know how to fix this? Jenks24 ( talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The bot has not picked up Talk:2011 Hungarian GP2 round. Wondering if there is a problem? -- Falcadore ( talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure where to ask this, but the page China has been the subject of several requested moves (summarized at the top of Talk:China), all of which failed to reach a consensus. There is an RfC currently underway, which is asking only about the primary topic of the term "China". Although the discussion isn't closed, it seems clear that almost everyone agrees the primary topic for "China" is the People's Republic of China. With this in mind, it seems clear that something needs to change. The main options which have been discussed seem to be:
Yet a small group of editors (and two editors in particular) are opposed to any move away from the status quo, due to fears that it would "delegitimize" the
Republic of China (Taiwan).
Do editors here have advice on how to proceed? Would it be wise to open yet another RfC? Previous move requests appear to have suffered from a lot of confusion about what was being proposed - a substantial proportion of people thought the article China is already about the People's Republic of China, and so their votes and rationale were confusing.
Any advice or suggestions would be welcome; thanks. Mlm42 ( talk) 16:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see article CBLT moved to CBLT-DT, as the television station has switched to digital broadcasts, and its call-sign has changed accordingly. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hallo, the name of this elector and bishop was only "Franz Georg von Schönborn", not "von Schönborn-Buchheim". Please look at the discussion of the article. It is right that the family von Schönbon got goods from von Buchheim in 1711, but they did not add "von Buchheim" to their name. Please change the lemma to "Franz Georg von Schönborn". Kindest regards -- Spurzem ( talk) 08:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. There have been a couple of instances lately where a closure has been questioned on the grounds that the discussion was ongoing. I wonder if it would be helpful to institute a standard measure for this. If no new posts have been made to a move discussion in 24 hours, is it safe to close? 48 hours? 96 hours?
There are rare occasions where it's appropriate to close a discussion even though it's ongoing, but those are fairly bold judgment calls that fall well within IAR territory. If we're going to adopt a guideline regarding closing ongoing discussions, it would probably be best to say that in almost all circumstances, an ongoing discussion that reaches the backlog should probably be relisted instead of being closed.
Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess we could also agree to let discussions stay in the backlog while things wind down, and not to mind if the backlog gets big. That feels kind of weird, though. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A bot that will affect the RM process is being discussed for approval, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4. Cliff ( talk) 07:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The page for Water pollution should be name Water Pollution with a capital "P". Due to my OCD, I felt it necessary to bring such a small matter to the attention of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foohy46 ( talk • contribs)
Please see: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Discontinuing all my bots. Discussion there may affect this process. Cliff ( talk) 01:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I wonder if we could get the bot to general different colored headers. So right now we'd have:
Submitted today
One day old
Two days old
Three days old
Four days old
Five days old
Six days old
Seven days old
Eight days old or older
This would make it obvious that anything in the 7th day (Jan 16) is subject to closure. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The most refs both show Off-Broadway with a hyphen:
-- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Autism → Classical autism — The new title would be more accurate. Isn't Kanner's syndrome and PDD also a form of autism? So's Asperger's Disease. -- Nmatavka ( talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Since I am on a dynamic IP (please don't tell me to create an account) and I am unable to monitor the situation, I am not sure where to take this. I was going to simply post it at WP:C&P as a c&p move, but it seems to be an ongoing hornet's nest. The two pages in question are Newark Pepper (singular) & Newark Peppers (plural). After looking at it, I'm unsure which is correct; that might need to be settled at WP:BASEBALL. Also, there are 2 categories: Category:Newark Pepper (singular) & Category:Newark Peppers (plural). Users are reverting each other and then redirecting and c&p moving. The c&p move definitely needs to be fixed, but I am unsure which way. Could someone who knows what procedure to use to fix this go ahead and stop the madness please. I am unable to keep an eye on this. Rgrds. 64.85.217.144 ( talk) 10:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Following this discussion at WP:AN, I feel that this question needs an answer as otherwise it's likely to get confusing for all involved here. Current practice seems to be that RMs get closed when they reach the backlog but today an admin closed several that weren't yet in the backlog but were instead in the last day of listing. The closing instructions mention a "normal 7 day listing period" which it would be reasonable to interpret as a full 7 day listing and it would appear that, at least recently, this has been insured by waiting until the moves reach the backlog. I'm not bothered either way but I do think it would be useful if we were consistent hence starting this discussion. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That said, apparently consensus frowns on closing discussions if discussion is still active, even if it's in backlog. A recent closing has been protested partially on the grounds that it was closed too early, even though it had been open eight days prior to closing, because there was a comment made just a few hours prior to closing. See Talk:Ann_Arbor/Archive_3#Requested_move, Talk:Ann_Arbor#Revert_move, and Talk:Ann_Arbor#Previous_closure. But that might just be a sour grapes rationalization applied in just that one case.
I'm all for adding clarity on this point, though I'm not sure about how best to deal with the ongoing discussion factor, though I do think we need make the rules more clear to provide fewer excuses to protest closings, not the other way around. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
7th day has been the day of closure for years. "Backlog" does not mean "day eight or more" but "backlog", quite a big clue I'd have thought. ;) Current practice is that we have a huge backlog and many threads don't get closed for weeks or months on end, but since I cleared the backlog we can get back to normal (assuming there are admins who are prepared to do it). Threads which need more than 7 days should be relisted, not left in the backlog. The backlog needs to be empty, otherwise administrators are alerted that the area needs attention other areas don't. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think it desirable to keep discussions open past seven days unless it is likely that to do so will generate a consensus relativity quickly (Typically to do this some compromise has to have been suggested late on in the discussion and those involved in the discussion have yet had time to respond to it). -- PBS ( talk) 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Provincial highway, it is argued that WP:RM is an appropriate venue to retarget redirects because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You may wish to comment. 184.144.164.14 ( talk) 11:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs |
---|
Possibly not the ideal location for this discussion, but here goes... User talk:Magiciandude is moving a whole bunch of Spanish-language singles and albums without discussion in order to decapitalise certain words, in accordance with a Wikiproject guideline (namely WP:ALBUMCAPS). I'd like some input from the "moving" community on (a) whether this unilateral behaviour is appropriate, (b) whether this guideline supersedes WP:COMMONNAME and (c) whether ALBUMCAPS is actually correct in relation to the way in which we verify our facts. The user also seems content to move the page, leaving references to the old title throughout the articles he moves and in templates that reference the old name. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
First I want to make an apology over this commotion. Yes, I did start by following a guideline, not knowing there was a contradictory policy over it. It started when El Mexicano informed about the incorrect grammatical error on Spanish-language album and song names. Then I saw the guideline about capitalization and thought that's how it's supposed to be done. To be honest, I am indifferent as to whether or not the all foreign names should follow the English standards or not. Again, I apologize for this. Magiciandude ( talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
According to Spanish spelling rules, only the first word of ANY title is written with initial upper case, except for proper names in titles. I have told this several times here, but I was always ignored. I think Royal Spanish Academy knows better than anybody how to write titles in Spanish. English sources are unreliable in this matter. If something is written in a foreing language, you must keep the rules of THAT language and not the English ones. Several Spanish language titles are incorrectly spelled here. So Magiciandude did it the right way when he moved the titles. -- El Mexicano ( talk) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
|
I have copied the text of this Section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs. As it affect that project, it is better that further talk about this takes place there, so that if there is a consensus that the wording of the project contradicts WP:AT policy, then the project wording can be altered to complement the policy. -- PBS ( talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
When a page gets moved and a disambiguation page is placed at the old title, who's expected to clean up the links? For example, Main (river) was just moved to that title from Main, and Main was made into a dab page - whose job is it now to clean up the hundreds(?) of links that are now broken as a result? I'd have thought this was a far more important issue than the repair of double redirects, since those will get done pretty soon by a bot, but the links necessarily require human intervention. Should we put a warning about this in the instructions, perhaps saying that the dab page should not be moved to the base name (i.e. the base name should continue to point to the article which used to be there) until all the links (at least, those in article space) have been repaired?-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A WP:RM nom was raised which gave the wrong namespace for the new page name: it was a template rename, which was mistakenly worded such that the target name was in article space. I fixed the namespace at the original proposal, here, but when I tried to fix the namespace at the WP:RM page, here, I was reverted. How can it be fixed at WP:RM without being reverted again? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why User talk:ChrisCairncross/Speedy Transport is not getting listed? I moved the tag from the page to the talk page and it refuses to list on the RM page. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to modify the move proposal from "Székely → Szekelys" to "Székely → Székelys". Can someone help me? ( Iaaasi ( talk) 09:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC))
I have added the move request template at Talk: Gerber Format to a discussion that had already started (but has stalled). I am hoping this has not breached any etiquette. My apologies in advance if it has and please make any necessary correction for me. SpinningSpark 10:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves → Goa_Konkani_language_agitation_of_1986 — This page was moved to be renamed as "Goa Konkani language agitations of 1986". However, these agitations were part of a movement that began well before 1986 and culminated in 1987. Neighbouring states of Karnataka and Kerala also had a role to play in these agitations. The page was moved by a user having autocontrol rights. please move the article back to it's original title page Konkani language agitation. -- Imperium Caelestis 05:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I want to move one page to a new title and use the old title for a new article. I read the instructions, but still can not figure it out. Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? Can anyone give clearer instructions? Thanks. -- -- -- 00:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Done -- -- -- 23:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Could someone uninvolved take a look at Talk:MoCADA#Requested move. Thanks. Station1 ( talk) 07:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This RfC discussion is likely to be of interest. The RfC states:
Please comment on that page and not here. Dpmuk ( talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with changing the Qing dynasty empresses article titles. It seems a big mess. I would like to change them to Empress Xiao, second character, 3 character as in Empress Xiao Xian Chun. most personal names are unknown of these empresses so they were named by their title. The article titles now are titles which were, are never used for them. ( talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
How do I fix the Price is Right link I messed up. CTJF83 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons#Ammended requested move - I was asked to make a new section for changing the targets. It's the same discussion, so I'd like it to be put on the same date (March 21) of the current discussion. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ Requested move/dated}}
User:Kef253/Shipley & Halmos → Shipley & Halmos — I've created a new page draft in my userspace for the menswear brand Shipley& Halmos. I've included interWikimedia links and external references as they help the page. I plan to expand and edit in the future, but am ready to publish the page as is at the moment. Kef253 ( talk) 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No need for this here, discussion initiated on article talk page
|
---|
Reason: look here: Talk:Marconi_Museum#move page and create disambiguation -- Pava ( talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
This new subsection at Talk:Mexican-American War presents ten summary points for a protracted dispute. Recommended reading: for editors interested in the ways style guidelines at WP:MOS and policy at WP:TITLE are received at talkpages of articles, and for admins who might be looking to close the two relevant contested RMs.
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 23:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ RMB}} usage is under discussion, see Template talk:RMB and WT:CHINA. It should be noted that RMB frequently means the currency of China, the Renminbi, which is abbreviated as "RMB" in most contexts (such as financial news reports, English-language price tags, ...). 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 09:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Anybody know why my move request for ITRAQ (first item on April 16) is missing the reason? It seems formatted correctly at Talk:ITRAQ#Move request. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you consider yourself an uninvolved admin when it comes to abortion related articles, I'd like to draw your attention to two move discussions Talk:Pro-life#Move.3F and Talk:Abortion-rights_movement#move_2011. I'd like for you to comment on two things. Do you think Anthony Appleyard was an uninvolved admin in the matter? And do you agree with the closures (that one discussion had a clear consensus and was within policy, while the other had no clear consensus)? - Andrew c [talk] 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're experienced with WP:RM discussions and reasoning, your input is needed here: Talk:Corvette#Requested_move. The more, the better. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but closed a controversial discussion due to the backlog and because other admins refused to deal with this particular one. That close has been reverted by a non-admin. I've reverted the revert of the close. If an admin could review it, the sooner the better, I think that would be best. See: Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American_War#Move.3F Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Xiquet ( talk · contribs) has moved a pile of pages from "Islamic X" to "Saracenic X" which is obviously not going to fly. I've moved some back, but Saracenic Agricultural Revolution back to Arab Agricultural Revolution doesn't work. Also just notifying people that this little trouble exists William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The move discussion at Talk:Corvette#Requested_move has devolved into a discussion over whether it is necessary, useful, or appropriate for one of the involved parties to produce a summary of the arguments/votes so far. The involved party in this case is Born2cycle ( talk · contribs), one of the most vocal participants in the discussion; many disagree with the concept of such a summary, the content of his summary, or both. (see also)
Some experienced hands would be useful to keep this on track. pablo 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Request that Jaanwar (1983 film) be moved to Jaanwar. just check the talk page for knowing more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jaanwar_(1999_film) Paglakahinka ( talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look into the situation at Talk:Quran about the discussion on revert move in response to some editors demand to restore page name to Qur'an. The discussion is several sections long including:
It has been is a almost mess there and a reviewer suggested to ask for advice here.
--
নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh
talk |
contribs
15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
My request to move "Bruck–Chowla–Ryser theorem" to "Bruck–Ryser–Chowla theorem" gets garbled when it shows up on the "Requested moves" page, although it looks fine on the original talk page. I'm not sure what I did wrong... Will Orrick ( talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
How can you use the request move tag for this kind of vote, with three options presented simultaneously? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 10:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
== Requested move ==
{{subst:move-multi
| current1 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| new1 = List of inventions and discoveries in the Indian subcontinent
| current2 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| new2 = List of Indian inventions and discoveries
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines. Do not sign this.
The page move of Washington Grays (march) to Washington Grays got the wrong buttons pushed somehow; I think the wrong page was deleted and moved twice by accident. In any case, the article is gone and is now a redirect to a redirect that just redirects back to itself. Can someone take a look at this, the article needs to be undeleted but I don't know which page it is at. -- 64.85.220.115 ( talk) 06:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Closing admins are free to evaluate consensus in WP:RM discussions any way they want, A common way is to count !votes, or at least estimate the counts and approximate what the percentages are. But these methods tend to give equal or near-equal weight to really strong arguments and to lame mere expressions of personal preference.
So, to avoid rewarding poor WP:JDLI arguments and to encourage good arguments well grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions, I recommend that closing admins immediately start using the following system, or anything similar in spirit.
Just imagine a discussion in which there are 10 participants, 5 one each side, but those in support have well grounded arguments and so accumulate about 20 points while those in opposition accumulate only -5, and thus the admin finds consensus to be clearly favor of the move. I suggest that if closing admins used this system, or a similar one, the quality of the arguments presented, and the discussions in general, would quickly and greatly improve.
Thoughts/comments?
Cheers! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
So, humor me. Go to a discussion or two you've closed recently, and re-evaluate actually use this point system, just to see how the results compare to how you actually decided it. I'm hypothesizing that it's easier to give equal weight to all !votes regardless of strength than we might realize, and forcing ourselves to use such a system might help with that. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I wish to propose moving Kavana (disambiguation) to Kavana and moving the singer to Kavana (singer). With so many different terms (including one of his albums) having the same name, not to mention the similarly spelled articles mentioned at the disambig page, there's a strong case. Perhaps I should do better with my optimism switch, but I worry about proposing this at the talk page of Kavana: what is a suitably neutral venue for discussion? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Should procedural closes of RMs be allowed? The example that brings me to ask this question is Talk:40th British Columbia general election that was closed as "The move was already conducted. I am simply making a procedural close at this point." This seems an end around process to me as the mover of the page was the person who requested the move so was heavily involved so by them making the move they've effectively forced the issue. In this instance the "consensus" formed at this RM is already being used elsewhere ( 38th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation)). This is not the only example I've seen, and indeed isn't even a particularly bad example, it#s just the most recent. Except in very clear "forgot to close" cases (i.e. where an uninvolved editor moves with an edit log comment referring to the RM) I don't think procedural closes should be allowed as they short-circuit the consensus building process. I'd have no problem with closes along the line "consensus is to move (already been done)" or in the case of something moved quickly after the start of the RM "uncontroversial and already moved by x" but I still think the person closing the RM should evaluate the case. If people agree I'd suggest adding something to the closing instructions. Dpmuk ( talk) 09:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The request to rename this article to
40th British Columbia general election has been carried out.
Be sure to close this discussion using {{
subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{
subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{
Movereq|…}} tag. |
The discussion was extremely old, it needed to be closed. I was getting tired of waiting, see my last comment and edit summary [2], I was just glad that someone was bold and moved it. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Taihu Lake is having my !vote removed by the proposer of the move for my opposing !vote. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is the two-month backlog section not being relisted or closed? It would make sense for the oldest RMs to get dealt with first rather than the other way around. Softlavender ( talk) 01:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
When I come around to close move requests, I go straight to the bottom of the page and work my way up, closing any that I feel I can. Relisted requests are therefore invisible to me, and will not be closed by me, until they reach the backlog again a week later.
I hope I'm not the only person who reads this page from the bottom up. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
My question is regarding what the lag time is for uncontroversial moves. L H M 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just closed a move request at Talk:List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero episodes. That move request took over a month to be completed, when it was completely uncontroversial. I would strongly encourage RM closers to move pages when there is no objection to the move. It is not our job to generate discussion of each request. If nobody objects, we should just move the page, not relist it.
I think re-listing should only be used for pages where there is active discussion, and not in cases where there is no discussion at all. We don't need to judge the merit of the request, based on community discussion; we can just complete it as a good faith edit by an editor who doesn't happen to have a delete button. In a world without technical limitations, any logged-in editor could re-title any page, just as they can when the target is unoccupied.
I think our backlog will shrink if we start carrying out move requests after 7 days, in cases where no solid objection has been raised. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made an edit. Does this seem good? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
They don't follow the syntax and I can't seem to find what they correspond to... Sceptre ( talk) 00:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you get the idea. Sometimes, move requests come through here that are... bigger than other move requests. These tend to be repeat requests, and they've sometimes got a history of bouncing between various titles.
They take more than seven days to figure out. This means they end up at the bottom of the backlog here, a location which makes them seem to cry out for closure. Eventually, some brave soul bites the bullet and closes the request, and in the cases we're talking about, that closure is much more likely than usual to be contested, either at WP:ANI or some other venue.
It seems that it might be useful to identify such move requests, and treat them in some way differently, somehow appropriately to their special status. These are important, high-profile requests, and they tend to be cited as precedents in many, many later move discussions. Therefore, it would seem that we should find a way to handle these "big" move requests in a way that gets them lots of attention, and doesn't make them look like the most tardy and troublesome requests in a list that we're trying to clear at some sane pace.
What do people think? Should there be a way to "graduate" certain requests from RM to RFC, or something like that? Should these requests be treated differently from most other requests, or is the present system the best option?
Thanks in advance to anyone, for any input on this question. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It would just be cool if we could put discussions like the current one at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire somewhere. Letting them stagnate at the bottom of the backlog doesn't really address what's happening with such requests; neither does continually relisting them. These requests have outgrown RM, and deserve wider notice.
Coming from a slightly different angle, it seems there's little point using RM to keep asking the same question, hoping for a different answer. If circumstances have actually changed since and earlier request, then it seems we should have a focused discussion about that, and not just another 12-screen long RM discussion in which the new piece of evidence gets lost in the jumble.
I guess I'm just thinking aloud here, but this is the right page for that. Let's not rush to propose anything formal, until we figure out something informal and see it work for a while. How can we pass the stickiest requests from here to a place where more people will comment on them? - GTBacchus( talk) 14:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to put particularly important/contentious RM discussions under a special light, though I don't see why they should be taken out of the regular RM process, except to avoid involving the bot programmer. I think it's worth adding support for that. The "special light" would mean being moved to a special section underneath "backlog", and being listed as an RFC. I would say such discussions should be kept open until there is consensus, or a week of no activity, or (say) 6 months, whichever comes first. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as identifying candidates for this special attention, I'd say we should at least consider: (A) Any request that is the third (or more) request involving the same two titles, (B) Any request that draws comment from over 20 editors without a clear consensus emerging, and possibly (C) Any request that has been listed at RM for over a month.
This idea, as well as the above suggestion (somewhere on this page) about advertising to relevant WikiProjects when move requests languish in the backlog, have the potential to greatly improve the flow of articles through this page, which is an exciting prospect. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This seems to differ from other areas around the Wiki (see WP:AFD for example) that always ask for new entries at the top. Because some (me included earlier, now contested, I'm not on this talk page because of that) are used to doing that, it means the entire section is completely out of order; the top is from today, the bottom is from today, and in the middle is yesterday.
Can we make the request submission mirror that of other sections like AfD and just ask for new submissions at the top instead of the bottom? CycloneGU ( talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Following the discussion about the Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire closures on ANI, I suggest adding the following language to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interests. To avoid giving the appearance of a conflict of interest, editors should generally avoid closing contentious move requests if they have previously closed move discussions on the same article. -- rgpk ( comment) 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made an edit. I realize it's rather different from the wording proposed above, but I think that whole section was just an egregious run-on sentence, and now it says something that I think is worth saying. Does that cover what we're talking about here? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I made an additional edit, an attempt to clarify that closing an RM discussion counts as participating in a move discussion about an article, and thus makes an editor "involved". -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have very strong feelings about how instructions are written around here. If you want the dissertation-length justification for those feelings, just let me know. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm against unnecessary rules - rules that govern behavior that is not problematic. But that's not the case here. Serial closing - if it occurs - is problematic. Worst case is it never occurs, but in that case it's not being governed - so there's no problem. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This encyclopedia is the miracle that it is because we aren't married to a rule-book. That's so important that it's worth remembering with every single decision we make.
How's the edit? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(od) I clean forgot I had proposed this! I like the wording that is in place now, thanks GTBacchus. -- rgpk ( comment) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that a page move request at the Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi page has been formulated as: A --> B or C. Is this a legitimate page move request? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at the bottom of the backlog, where I just closed the move to Ewelina Hańska, but we're still looking at a Kosovo multi-move request, and our much loved perennial bloom, Côte d'Ivoire, and some thoughts are occurring to me.
First of all, I closed the Hańska move because the discussion had fallen silent for over 5 days (120 hours). That's probably a minimum safe interval to say that a big discussion like that is really inactive.
Secondly, I had participated in the discussion, but only as far as asking questions for a more clear reading. I think this illustrates sane application of that part of the closing guidelines. It's not about participation per se, but about advocacy, or the appearance of advocacy.
Finally, for those last two, which are kind of typical of these difficult moves, I'm thinking of a strategy for getting a correct closure; i.e., one that will stick. A lot of RM regulars aren't good choices for closing such moves, because we tend to have been involved in something that looks a lot like it, somewhere. Maybe I'm thought of as being "for" or "against" diacritics, or WP:UE for example.
So I'm thinking this: Wait until the discussion has fallen silent for 7 days. Then post a note to WP:AN, and ask for an admin who is not an RM regular, and who feels they are neutral on the subject, to make a call and close the thing.
Any thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I know it's not part of the closing instructions, but after I move a page, after fixing double-redirects, I always look to see if any templates use the old name, and update those. This makes the "What links here" page work better, IMO, because it doesn't look like a bunch of articles are using the old name, when it's really just one template. Is this worth adding to the closing instructions, or does anyone have any thoughts about it? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure when a bot would add it to the list, or if I just didn't do it properly. My request at [3] isn't necessary anymore. The page had improper use of a capital letter, so its not a problem. I don't need that spot for my species page. So if it appears on the list, please remove it. Dream Focus 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
requested move}}
to the talk page of the relevant article and the bot will add it to
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions.
Jenks24 (
talk)
02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)This page has recently made its way onto my watchlist. I have noticed that there are many requests for moves from userspace despite these being listed as processes "beyond the scope of this page". I am not an admin, but if it seems helpful, I can remove these requests from the list and inform the respective submitting users of the submit process and tag. Cliff ( talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
About 20 or so of such edits, mostly from quite new editors have been removed and referred to AFC. I'll keep an eye out for these in the future, and welcome the editors and direct them accordingly. Cliff ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We've been talking about different ideas for handling difficult closes, and I've just had something occur to me. It's quite possible that this is just silly, but it may inspire someone to think of something more practical, so I'll toss it out there.
Suppose we add a special section for monsters - big, month-long, novella-length, high-profile, politically-charged, precedent-setting, third-time requests. We've tossed this idea around, of a special pen for those. Now, to close one of them, it takes two uninvolved admins. That means an admin wanting to close one, in addition to making the call and writing a rationale, must convince another admin to sign off on it.
It's true, this would mean it's harder, in a way, to close these requests. However, it might also make be easier in a way, because the admin wouldn't feel overwhelmed by having to stand alone and defend their decision, which sometimes happens in these cases. Moreover, any editor unhappy with the decision can see that it wasn't a lone admin, so it might seem more fair to them. It's like the first level of appeal is already taken care of
Is this a crazy idea, or what? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way to see a list of move request closures, who closed them, rationales, etc? I can imagine implementing a fairly simple external tool that would mostly get this right, so I was wondering if it had already been done. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see would be move templates that allow for variables such as which naming criteria are involved, which policies are appealed to, whether the move was completed or not, etc., etc. That sounds a bit complicated, though. I like the direction in which you're thinking here. Better documentation could only be good for us. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know why RM bot is unable to ascertain the time of the RM at Talk:Austria–Greece relations#Requested move? I assume it would have something to do with either the article being at the requested title already (but the other 25 aren't) or that it is a multi-move involving 26 articles. Anyone know how to fix this? Jenks24 ( talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The bot has not picked up Talk:2011 Hungarian GP2 round. Wondering if there is a problem? -- Falcadore ( talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure where to ask this, but the page China has been the subject of several requested moves (summarized at the top of Talk:China), all of which failed to reach a consensus. There is an RfC currently underway, which is asking only about the primary topic of the term "China". Although the discussion isn't closed, it seems clear that almost everyone agrees the primary topic for "China" is the People's Republic of China. With this in mind, it seems clear that something needs to change. The main options which have been discussed seem to be:
Yet a small group of editors (and two editors in particular) are opposed to any move away from the status quo, due to fears that it would "delegitimize" the
Republic of China (Taiwan).
Do editors here have advice on how to proceed? Would it be wise to open yet another RfC? Previous move requests appear to have suffered from a lot of confusion about what was being proposed - a substantial proportion of people thought the article China is already about the People's Republic of China, and so their votes and rationale were confusing.
Any advice or suggestions would be welcome; thanks. Mlm42 ( talk) 16:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see article CBLT moved to CBLT-DT, as the television station has switched to digital broadcasts, and its call-sign has changed accordingly. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hallo, the name of this elector and bishop was only "Franz Georg von Schönborn", not "von Schönborn-Buchheim". Please look at the discussion of the article. It is right that the family von Schönbon got goods from von Buchheim in 1711, but they did not add "von Buchheim" to their name. Please change the lemma to "Franz Georg von Schönborn". Kindest regards -- Spurzem ( talk) 08:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. There have been a couple of instances lately where a closure has been questioned on the grounds that the discussion was ongoing. I wonder if it would be helpful to institute a standard measure for this. If no new posts have been made to a move discussion in 24 hours, is it safe to close? 48 hours? 96 hours?
There are rare occasions where it's appropriate to close a discussion even though it's ongoing, but those are fairly bold judgment calls that fall well within IAR territory. If we're going to adopt a guideline regarding closing ongoing discussions, it would probably be best to say that in almost all circumstances, an ongoing discussion that reaches the backlog should probably be relisted instead of being closed.
Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess we could also agree to let discussions stay in the backlog while things wind down, and not to mind if the backlog gets big. That feels kind of weird, though. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A bot that will affect the RM process is being discussed for approval, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4. Cliff ( talk) 07:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The page for Water pollution should be name Water Pollution with a capital "P". Due to my OCD, I felt it necessary to bring such a small matter to the attention of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foohy46 ( talk • contribs)
Please see: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Discontinuing all my bots. Discussion there may affect this process. Cliff ( talk) 01:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)