![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
I've added an edit request to allow these 3 templates to be automatically substituted to User talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. I've been asked to gain consensus before any changes are added. So, would it be a good idea in the long run to automatically substitute these 3 templates? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
What's the usual practice? If someone wants to move a dab page on the baseline should the template go on the dab page, or go on the article that the editor wants to replace the dab page? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move
| new1 = Foo (disambiguation)
| current2 = Foo (bar)
| new2 = Foo
| affected1 = Foo (baz)
| affected2 = Foo (qux)
| reason = Rationale for the proposed primary topic grab.}}
{{
rmassist}}
template for non-controversial moves to be able to accept multiple items like the regular {{
rm}}
template. It's a rather silly pain the backside to have to list them with separate templates where there are a bunch. It doesn't come up often (usually when some RfC makes a non-trivial MoS change, as happened at
MOS:JR a few months ago), but often enough that the lack of functionality is a hassle. It also generates too much output when substituted, and could surely be made much leaner. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)OK, the new version of the bot now checks the talk pages of each proposed move target. For "?" requests (name to be decided), moves over the current page, when the target has no talk page, or when the target's talk page is a redirect, it does nothing. When the target's talk page has non-redirecting content, the bot now posts a notice. The initial run posted new notices to these 11 pages:
That should cover most of it. Let me know if there are still pages I'm missing that should have cross-post notices, but don't. – wbm1058 ( talk) 02:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instructions include:
- Notifying substantial contributors to the article
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use the Page History tool or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Use:
{{ subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}
The RM instructions currently only suggest notifying WikiProjects:
WikiProjects may subscribe to Article Alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.
Should we add instructions to notify significant contributors? I bring this up because:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict):This actually bit me in the bum recently, with Rwandan genocide, I happened to be somewhat off-wiki the week the move took place, and was surprised to see it suddenly moved. I am not the top contributor there, I'm number 5 on the list, but probably the most active in recent years. I think I'm inclined to agree with Number 57 though, this is likely to create a lot of extra burden on people who open RMs, unless it's automated (and then you have questions like how far down the list does the bot go in determining who to ping). By and large I would expect that if someone is very active on an article, they have it on their watchlist and the move request should be spottable there. Nobody WP:OWNs any particular article, after all. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose any specific invocation that requires RM nominators to notify any specific class of editors (article top contributors in this case). By doing so, the RM nominator may indeed be inadvertently canvassing. The top contributors, whoever they might be, might have an agenda that either favors or disfavors the current title while lessor contributors might have the opposite agenda. Notifying Wikiprojects is usually sufficient to generate enough of a balanced look at the RM from a substantive and policy perspective. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I edit more in the German Wikipedia. And such things there are really simple. It seems to be really complicated. Can anybody fix the problem to move it: Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves%2FCurrent_discussions&type=revision&diff=726942389&oldid=726942115 -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 13:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently User:Ricky81682 boldly moved a heap of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines subpages to DraftSpace. He was asked to stop, he then initiated a formal RM, which failed, for reasons as explained there. He now declines to assist with moving the pages back ( User_talk:Ricky81682#Please_revert_all_bold_moves_from_subpages_of_WP:Wikiproject_outlines_to_Draft_space.) Could someone please help me find and revert these moves? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests say to use "old page name, without brackets" and "requested name, without brackets" in RMassist? It took me a few moments to realise it's presumably saying not to make the names into wikilinks - "brackets" could also be read as referring to disambiguation parentheses. The actual request edit page just asks for "current page name | new page name" in the edit notice. -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The following was a bad move.
(Move log); 08:44 . . CFCF (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion to User:Ricky81682/Proposed draftspace deletion (Not Wikipedia-space ready)
It is a serious project proposal. Promoted or failed, it belongs in project space. I want to revert the move, but cannot because the page mover made a null edit to the redirect. Can someone please revert the move. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
CFCF, just so you're aware, users have been blocked before for making null edits to prevent a revert. Usually I would revert this per SmokeyJoe's request, but considering this is Ricky81682's proposal I'd prefer to hear from him first – he may prefer it in userspace. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I asked on the project page to undo the move of WP:TFM and the related template.
In general, when a template relates to a WikiProject, it is not a good idea to post it as a technical request without informing the WikiProject. Debresser ( talk) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Template:RMnac has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Pppery (
talk)
19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course not, the backlog is hidden by the pointless relisting habit.
So, WP:RM says: "Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input". I continue to see that the premise is very very weak. Shuffling old into the new does nothing to bring in new reviewers, and creating the illusion of no backlog discourages new reviewers.
Could someone who knows how to, create a page that lists every RM that is relisted but still open? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote on the listings for the seventh day (the day before the items enter the backlog, if not relisted). Feel free to suggest any tweaks in the wording of this bot-placed hatnote. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've created a new Elapsed listings section for items which have run a full (24 hours * 7) days. I don't think it's right to declare a backlog on something that just passed the 7-day threshold potentially just minutes earlier, so I'm going to try to expand the window so that listings stay in this "elapsed listings" section for at least a full 24 hours before dropping down to the "backlog" level. It shouldn't be considered so "normal" to have a backlog. I trust this change won't be controversial, but any feedback is welcome. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The new version of the bot with the new Elapsed listings section is now officially live. Items stay in this section for ~24 hours, before dropping into the "backlog" section. I'm thinking about one more tweak to this. As some discussions need more than a week to resolve – legitimately complex situations might take two weeks or more of active discussion to come to a consensus – I'd like to rename this section Elapsed for over 24 hours and keep track of how many items are in this section. Allow a few of these legitimate extended discussions to be considered "normal" and only flip on the "backlog" switch – which is intended to raise alarm bells for additional admin attention – when the count passes a specified limit... say more than five items in this section. Any thoughts on this? wbm1058 ( talk) 13:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058: Would you be able to make an elapsed listings section on Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requested moves too? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 13:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In response to the requests by three sysops above
One thing that would be really useful would be to see a consolidated list of all recently closed moves, so that we could quickly go through and look at the kinds of closes being carried out.
a list of recently closed RMs, that would be really useful
I agree with others above that it would be good to have an easy way to see recently closed discussions so admins can vet them.
I have set up Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts, which lists, in chronological order, both open and recently-closed move requests. No need to re-invent the wheel, as AAlertBot can already do this. Wish this had occurred to me sooner. This report is updated once per day. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Andy M. Wang: Per WP:BRD, I'm taking this to the talk page. I think that the reason should be included in the move summary for multiple reasons:
Pppery ( talk) 01:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
{{{reason}}}
from the edit summary generated automatically for requests at
WP:RMT. As I understand it, RMT has always been operating via attribution... there are no technical move req logs; moves are quickly undoable.
Pppery's bold suggestion puts {{{reason}}}
before the consistent part of the summary complete with attribution and description of technical nature. An unpredictable prefix that would hide it if it were very long. Scenario: the "reason" for
Special:Permalink/732888473 is over 200 characters already. Adding the MediaWiki prefix "User X moved page Foo to Bar:" makes the moves even less liekly attributable, i.e. the permalink is likely to be lost and visible only in the title's move log without an apparent character limit (as far as I know).{{{reason}}}
could be added at the end of the summary so that whatever is left can appear in the revision history, while the move log benefits from a cited reason right there.You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Repairing WP:MALPLACED dab pages.
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk)
17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I made some revisions of move how-to pages, explained at Wikipedia talk:Moving a page#Revisions on 16 September 2016. Please follow up there if there are any comments. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
i didn't know any other place to put the request. the seven-day period of this discussion will end tomorrow. will an uninvolved user, preferably an admin, close the discussion and state their decision? -- HamedH94 ( talk) 07:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The Maui Historical Society has changed the name of its museum to Hale Hōʻikeʻike at the Bailey House.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maui Historical Society ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the request on September 26, 2016; 14:35 (UTC) related to VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz imho may have been started for potentially 'trolling' reasons, hence, I kindly ask to close the related topic. thx for taking notice, Roland zh ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I note that a large number of articles dealing with the Roman Catholic Church in various countries have been slated for renaming on Oct. 2, but, each done individually. In fact this seems to fall within a Naming Convention discussion. I'm not completely sure where the discussion should take place given the template has already been applied. -- Erp ( talk) 22:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
So we have this article at WP:Pages needing translation into English#Dubravko Klarić, which wiki-conventionwise seems ok, except for the language. I was wondering if it is possible to move a page to an other-language wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org in this case) with retention of the page history. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 20:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I like to request to move Daulatpur Mohsin High School page, the correct name of the school is "Muhsin" instead of "Mohsin" so this page is requested to move "Daulatpur Mohsin High School" - "Daulatpur Muhsin High School". for better confirmation I am including my school certificate where school correct name is mentioned. ( Abu Sayeem Mahfooz Khan ( talk) 07:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC))
I know, I know, we haven't done this before, but don't let organizational inertia ("tradition") stop you from realizing that moves are the only major Wikipedia article cleanup activity that does not inform the readers that there is something to discuss on the talk page. Renaming of categories does occur through a notice on the category page. Ditto for the rare case of renaming an image. Deletions, splits, mergers, a bazillion of other clean up notices are there to inform people something is going on, but article renamings (moves) discussions are relegated to talk pages only. For no good reason except "this is how we have always done things". Well, let's change this, in the spirit of standardization of cleanup processes, and common good sense (readers are at least as interested in article's name and discussions as in other cleanup issues). I therefore propose we create a relevant template or two, and encourage their use (or perhaps tie them to some form of bot / script, so that using a RM template on the article would trigger addition of a template to the article, as would it removal). But in case someone bemoans that such automation is too technical, a simple cleanup template "It has been suggested that this article may need to be renamed. A relevant discussion may be found on its discussion page" is the primary thing to consider here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, for the next step in development I will be placing {{ User:RMCD bot/subject notice}} tags at the top of some articles. That's just a blank page for now, while I work on the bot's end. Once I have the new bot code working, I'll add the notice to that file. wbm1058 ( talk) 08:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've created the {{ User:RMCD bot/subject notice}} tag, and after testing this on around a dozen move requests, I'm ready to release it into the wild. There may need to be some minor tweaks to handle more rarely occurring special cases, but basically this is done. The bot will be propagating notices to all open move requests momentarily. For this initial implementation, for multiple-move requests, the notice will only be posted to the article page for the talk page which is hosting the discussion. wbm1058 ( talk) 20:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The initial full pass has completed, and all single-move requests should be properly functioning. There's an issue which is causing the notices to be prematurely removed from multi-move requests. Working on the fix now. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, the multi-move issue is fixed, so now Done.
121 of 123 open requests have subject-space notices on them now. The two that don't:
Thanks, everyone. Above I said, there may need to be some minor tweaks to handle more rarely occurring special cases
, and so far I've seen only one glitch. Template move requests
should be sandwiched in <noinclude> ... </noinclude>
tags, and the bot needs to
remove such template-space notices after the discussion has closed. A patch-fix is on my to-do list.
wbm1058 (
talk)
13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I've boldly granted my bot the template editor right, as four other bots already have this privilege, so that it could post a requested move notice on the template-protected Template:R from initialism. Not sure whether asking for full admin rights is worth the trouble. Requested moves of fully-protected pages are relatively rare. I can post such notices myself when I notice such a request.
RMCD bot has also been upgraded to post notices on the talk pages of Lua modules which are part of a requested move discussion. The bot will not post notices in the Module: namespace though, i.e. not on the modules themselves.
And while this scenario shouldn't happen, it did: the bot will not post a notice on pages which are REDIRECTs (which should be discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion). I noticed this situation with the move request at Talk:Mike Meyers (outfielder), where the bot was repeatedly placing and then removing notices on the redirect Mike Meyers (baseball).
I've been developing and testing the enhancement to post notices to all pages where the discussion is hosted on another page as part of a multi-move request. I'll fully release that enhancement shortly. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Full notification to all subject-space pages, with a few exceptions (modules, redirects, fully-protected pages) is now Done.
Current statistics:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A request to move St Matthew Passion is listed as uncontroversial, however the present name was the result of a project discussion in 2010 and should not be moved without checking the current consensus, - see article talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is an interesting twist, and I don't have a clue whether or not it can be "fixed": When page movers (or admins in the instance of substantive page histories at the page-move targets) do round-robin swaps using temp pages (like the one I use at Draft:Move/pet page), something a little strange happens. Per the discussion on my talk page that was begun by zzuuzz, the temp pages are then added to the watchlists of users who were watching the pages that were moved. And after that, all the pages that are moved from the temp pages also go on those users' watchlists. So we appear to be making many watchlists grow longer as a result of our round-robin page moves. I thought I would bring this here to see if anyone has any ideas about it. Paine u/ c 09:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that rather than using a single common page for temporary moves, use a different one for each move.
See Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves, subsection Watchlists and Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Watchlists. Paine u/ c 03:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a category for RM's that are a week old or more? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a procedure to withdraw a move request? Or must it go through the whole seven days? I didn't see any guidance or instructions on that. — Gorthian ( talk) 18:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I made some misstakes. Can someone please
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstree ( talk • contribs)
The official stylization is SKYcable, but MOS:TM does say that CamelCase is allowed if it improves the legibility of the name. I think the move should be reverted. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
MOS:DATERANGE strongly implies that " Papal conclave, 1549–50" (for example) should instead be titled " Papal conclave, 1549–1550" (there is currently a redirect by that title). Is this true, or is there another rule or other consideration involved?— DocWatson42 ( talk) 18:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What's the procedure for requesting moving page A (a disambiguation page) to page B (a redirect) and then deleting page A? In this instance, page A is Live at Birdland (disambiguation) and page B is Live at Birdland, which currently redirects to Coltrane Live at Birdland. (B shouldn't redirect where it does now, as the target is not the dominant one with 'Live in Birdland' in the title.) EddieHugh ( talk) 13:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:Brunswick State Theatre|Staatstheater Braunschweig|reason=The translationese name is seldom (if indeed ever) used in English. This should be a relatively uncontroversial reversion, but some has been messing with the redirect page.}}
May I suggest that they didn't? Specially that requests here usually aren't phrased with that in mind and any user would do a RM if he wish. Half of the admins patrolling here move everything and the other half almost nothing, if you don't want/wish to do a move either take out of the queue or leave it alone. Bertdrunk ( talk) 00:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
|discuss=
to
Template:RMassist, which when set to "no" suppresses the "discuss" link which may be used to convert your request to a discussion on the talk page of the page which is requested to be moved. This makes it harder for admins to do that, but I'm not sure all are on board with this, so can't promise that other admins will honor such implicit requests to simply remove controversial technical requests rather than convert them. I believe the vast majority of editors appreciate these conversions, which save them the trouble of starting their own formal RM. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
14:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Hi all
Just a quick question about use of {{
rmnac}}. In the past, the wording of this page used to say it was optional. Something like "it is recommended that non-admin closers use the template..." I notice that the wording at
WP:RMNAC now says Any non-admin closure must be explicitly declared with template...
Was this an explicit decision that was made by consensus at some point? And if so, should we be using polite messages to non-admin closers if they don't use it, or indeed inserting it ourselves? I notice there are a few who don't use it, for example,
SSTflyer at
Talk:Gladstone (disambiguation), so just wanted to clarify really if this is a big deal for anyone. Thanks —
Amakuru (
talk)
12:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
What's the best process for a "technical" request, which actually turns out to be controversial, and has been implemented precipitously? Should technical requests be carried out "as soon as possible", even to the extent of only being a few hours (and thus no time for any other editor to oppose or raise issues). Or should there be a minimum waiting period to allow for this?
The situation in particular is Welsh narrow gauge slate railways, which was renamed correctly some years ago. A request was made today at Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways#British narrow gauge slate railways and at WP:RM/TR to, "revert a change made by a now-banned user. The article covers railways other than just Welsh ones, so the original title is correct, and is also consistent with the other "British narrow gauge.." articles."
There are a few problems with this: a correct and GF rename made years ago by another user should not be reverted just because they are no longer editing, for whatever reason. Secondly the request is both factually incorrect (the only railways there are Welsh) and editorially incorrect (the only railways that belong there are Welsh).
Most concerning though, this is a request from a new editor, hours old, who is already both familiar with page renaming procedure and its subtleties, "I can't move this back over the redirect created when the original article was moved", yet confused over the terms "blocked" and "banned". No-one has mentioned "banned", the past editor was indef blocked. I do wonder where such a new, new user has come across "banning" as a term before?
So, how best to reverse this?
@ Anthony Appleyard: Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Gnoming about fixing 'politican' I found problems with articles on Indian politicians. I'm looking for suggestions on how to proceed with these.
Prakash Rai (politican) needs a name change. However there is already
Prakash Rai, a redirect to
Prakash Raj (who changed his birth name for professional reasons). So I could move to
Prakash Rai (politician), but then we need a DAB. It is reasonable to take over the redirect and populate that with links to politician, actor, and a couple more people?
Rafiqul Islam (politican) needs a name change.
Rafiqul Islam is a DAB page with 4 names, missing the politician. Okay, just move and add to DAB page.
Abul Kalam Azad (politican) needs a name change for the politician from
Assam. But there is already
Abul Kalam Azad (politician) from
Bangladesh, and rather notable. How should these two pages be renamed? Include a place name?
It is the last one that is beyond my guessing, so I'm bringing all three here for direction.
Shenme (
talk)
22:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to go through all of this to fix the obvious misspelling of the article Rugby League International Calander? Hyperbolick ( talk) 14:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Please move Ginga: Nagareboshi Gin to Ginga Nagareboshi Gin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keznen ( talk • contribs) 18:07, January 16, 2017 (UTC)
Please move these two pages:
Reason for moving: The titles are incorrect. They must be moved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keznen ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If no split were to happen and a disambiguator was retained, it would probably be "(breed)" (cf Brittany (breed), etc.), since "(dog breed)" is presently being used for DAB and set index articles for multiple breeds of a certain class (e.g., Pointer (dog breed), Laika (dog breed)). All of these can probably be reduced to "(breed)" per WP:CONCISE.
As for titles after a split, they'd be American Akita (seemingly the common name now of that breed), and whatever is the WP:COMMONNAME in English sources for the original Japanese breed as distinct from the American one; that might be Akita Inu (I suspect it is, from familiarity), regardless of the origin of the words. Lots of dog breeds have non-English words for 'dog' or 'hound' in their names in English. But it might be Japanese Akita, if usage has shifted. It would take some research, since it would need to exclude sources that do not distinguish the two kinds of Akita (from probably June 1999 and earlier, though not all from after that date make the distinction). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We badly need some kind of searchable archive of this stuff, and for this to be "advertised" prominently on the RM page. It appears to me that about 95% of RMs are rehash of innumerable previous discussions, but the consensus determinations in them are rarely cited, because they're so hard to find. For one topic alone, I've had to hand maintain my own archive of results, which is incomplete, and it's a massive hassle. This appears to be the only major WP process the results of which have no searchable history. I would think that Harej's RMCD bot|RMCD bot could be adjusted to move completed discussions to archive pages instead of just deleting them, so RM works more like everything else. I think this is important because RM is a major drain on both editorial and administrative time, the source of intense amount of heat without light (with dispute spilling over into WT:AT, WT:DAB, WT:MOS, and the talk pages of naming convention guidelines, wikiprojects, and articles topically related to the one being moved, on a basis that it's just regular but constant. RM never actually seems to long-term resolve anything, but simply exists as a long-term tug-of-war at tens of thousands of articles.
The best we have right now (that I know of) is doing WikiBlame ("Revision history search") at at history page of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, but this tool is slow, and is extremely limited, produces very partial results necessitating search after search after search even for one year of data, is counterintuitive, and rarely is very helpful. We need something much more like the archive searches at WP:ANI or WT:MOS.
The ideal result would actually be for closed discussions to be copied to an archive (not theoretically hard; RMCD bot is already smart enough to identify and repost at the RM page any properly formatted RM when triggered by its template; a closure trigger could have it do an archival job, too). I realize that's essentially "tasking" Harej to write a bunch of code, though. I would think that even existing archival bots could just archive the listings, without their resolutions, directly off of WP:Requested moves/Current discussions, and that alone would be a major boon.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
(
←) I think we can probably start helping with this problem by making sure {{
requested move}} when substed provides some sort of HTML comment or something of the sort like <!-- Move request -->
. Just to take the example about dynasties, I was able to make a really plain search regarding dynasty move requests at
[3]. A similar search for insource:'dynasty'
rather than intitle:'dynasty'
would probably be on the same level of response. However, with the template moving every once in a while and having its text changed every once in a while (better now--I can get results in the 2012s timeframe from the above), it would be good to have some sort of static text for which we can search. --
Izno (
talk)
13:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
insource:'Requested move'
as an alternative to "move request". Also insource:'Move discussion in progress'
is a standard header used by the bot on cross-post notifications. Noting that this search syntax is complex and on
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion there are search boxes where one simply enters a search term and clicks a button, so the template with the button automatically does the insource:'move request'
or insource:'Requested move'
or insource:'Move discussion in progress'
part, can we implement a similar button here? {{
archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes}} But the vaunted {{
Search deletion discussions}} isn't working for me:
An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length. (659 > 300) –
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Flying Colors (2015 film) was deleted while an RM was in progress on its talk page, which was then speedy deleted. The RM is now in the backlog.
Does the bot handle this, or is manual cleanup required? Andrewa ( talk) 03:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Among the closing instructions at WP:RMCLOSE § Three possible outcomes there's the following text:
There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen.
This implies that a requested move could discuss several alternative titles and it seems to suggest that it's possible for the outcome to be a title that wasn't explicitly proposed in the nomination. However, one recent close (and the comments made at the ongoing move review) seem to indicate there's a strong trend in current practice to procedurally close as "not moved" discussions in which the title that receives consensus is not listed within the {{ Requested move}} template at the top of the nomination. I disagree with this practice, but if that's what is normally done, then it should somehow be reflected in the closing instructions. Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Want to move the translated article User:USA-Fan/callus shaver to callus shaver. But can´t find any helpful information to do this. -- USA-Fan ( talk) 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved here from project page so discussion can continue. Brad v 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
After Mandruss made his proposal, Bermicourt took to canvassing here, which has so far brought one more to his side on the Saxony RM. Not an acceptable behavior, is it? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, the 9:3 at Talk:Narrow_gauge_railways_in_Saxony was read as no consensus. So what now? Both move review and RFC have been suggested there. Is anyone up for writing a neutral case for one or the other? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
See my draft at User:Dicklyon/rfc#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge. I invite anyone who wants to help make it a neutral question and productive discussion to make tweaks there, or make suggestions, or start your own alternative proposal. Thanks. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed recently (subjective) in move discussions on some articles that there is more participation thank you'd expect - and the penny has dropped that it's because we've added an invitation to participate on the facing side of the article. Which is great. But when in the case of the move affecting many articles including John Lewis (department store) and John Lewis Partnership, when the template is placed on one of the John Lewis articles enjoying a spike that's advertising the RM discussion to 160,000 readers on the spike. That is more significant the normal Alerts imbalance when a discussion is held at only one article rather than on the dab page Talk page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yet again, Dicklyon's insatiable appetite for undiscussed page moves takes him to a whole new and unfamiliar field. Low probability of intercept radar has been moved to Low-probability-of-intercept radar. No prior discussion or notice of this.
As always, this is simple slavish pursuance of a minor styleguide footnote, against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NEOLOGISM. This is an obscure term, even in radar, and I can see no prior use of the hyphenated form whatsoever. This move was inappropriate, obviously controversial in the recent contexts, and should have been discussed at the very least. It should be reverted. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I support someone reverting every single one of Dicklyon's unilateral moves that involve case changes or dashing changes for the following reason: "undiscussed controversial move". -- В²C ☎ 07:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I just boldly removed an endorsement of "Google Books and Google News Archive" from the wording of the page. I don't know when it was added or by whom, but in my experience when there are such poorly thought out and counter-policy statements of "advice" in these pages, they were unilaterally added without proper discussion or consensus, and so I assumed the same was true here. Not everything in Google Books and Google News Archive is a reliable source -- in fact most are not. And explicitly telling users to prioritize these over more reliable searches like adding "site:.edu", "site:.ac.jp", etc. is highly inappropriate. If anyone doesn't like my edit, it should be discussed here and preferably some link to the discussion that led to the previous discussion given. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Fuhghettaboutit who added that text. I've always found it useful in that a Google Books/Scholar search is always more useful than a raw Google search but I can see where you're coming from. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
a Google Books/Scholar search is always more useful than a raw Google searchThat's simply not true. "a raw Google search" can include qualifying parameters like "site:.edu". And Google is not the only search engine. This page is not the place to discuss the nuances of this -- the instructions can not and should not be giving an unnuanced "do X, don't do Y". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:RMassist must be used on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thank you, Scynthian ( talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Huh. It looks to me here that User:Piko 158, a new user and not an admin, deleted a page. How's that possible? Maybe I'm reading this wrong? It was a redirect page, but even if she's a Wikipedia:Page mover, that doesn't allow one to delete redirects, I don't think.
I ask because up to now if I find a redirect blocking a move I have to file a Requested Move (uncontested) which is an extra step. Is there an ability for civilians to delete redirect? Or am I misunderstanding what happened here? Herostratus ( talk) 22:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
When moving over a redirect with no revs, there was a weird hack to delete the old redirect page... without logs, or cleaning up the orphaned revision. WHOOPS Switched it to using the standard deletion, which seems to work. Note this will produce a deletion log entry as well as a move log entry. This may scare people.
I am concerned that user:Domdeparis appears to be systematically moving articles "House of..." to "...Family". I left a message on user:Domdeparis talk page:
I am glad to see that you reverted to edit to the redirect Percy family ( diff).
I think that such a move is controversial so you need to make a WP:RM#CM request on Talk:House of Percy. -- PBS ( talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Since I wrote this I have reverted a move of the House of Arenberg to Arenberg family. user:Domdeparis made the move with the comment 'In English"House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of' ( diff).
I think that user:Domdeparis may have a coherent argument for English and by extension British and Irish Nobility, but it needs to be discussed further to see if the assertion is true. If it is then general moves may be in order—although I suspect that articles such as those on the families of the Princes of Wales prior to conquest and those in Ireland before the introduction of the title King of Ireland may contain exceptions.
There is a further problem moving article from "House of ..." to "... family" causes practical problems with people including links to articles to people of the same name only vaguely related to the Noble Family for example how many Spencers are there? This issue also needs considering if article such as "House of Percy" is to be moved to "Percy family".
While argument for the systematic move of English nobility may (or may not) be accepted. There is no systematic rule for Continental European aristocracy.
For Continental European article on aristocratic families, I think that for most WP:RM#CM are needed, because in most of Europe the rules are more complicated and many of the sources that are used for such articles use "House of ..." (if only because like that for the House of Arenberg rely on Non-British sources and use "House of").
This is because there is a more complex relationship between entities such as the Holy Roman Emperor and other noble families who often held their lands to all intense and purposes as sovereign entities and had legal differentiation from non-aristocratic families (Ie formed a noble class), and the titular head of a state was not necessarily an inherited position (in law if not in practice).
See for example the relationship between Sigismund III Vasa and the other families in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. This is also true for other families better known to the British public see for example House of Nassau. Where the article explains in the introduction:
The lords of Nassau were originally titled "Count of Nassau", then elevated to the princely class as "Princely Counts" (in German: gefürstete Grafen, i.e. Counts who are granted all legal and aristocratic privileges of a Prince).
So in summary. I think moving most British "House of ..." articles can probably be decided with one well discussed WP:RM#CM or WP:RFC as an example case to set a president on how to handle all of them. However for articles on European continental aristocracy families, because of the use in sources that are cited and the legal complications of their precise status, any such move should be done through WP:RM#CM, as deciding on the best name for the article is complex and potentially controversial.
-- PBS ( talk) 10:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
“ | The dynastic family or lineage may be known as a " house"; [House of 1] which may be styled " royal", " princely", " comital", etc., depending upon the chief or present title borne by its members. | ” |
“ | 1. A ruler or governor, especially a hereditary ruler or someone who founded or is part of a dynasty. | ” |
“ | Count (male) or countess (female) is a title in European countries for a noble of varying status, but historically deemed to convey an approximate rank intermediate between the highest and lowest titles of nobility. [House of 2] | ” |
“ |
In Italy The title of Conte is very prolific on the peninsula. In the eleventh century, conti like the Count of Savoy or the Norman Count of Apulia, were virtually sovereign lords of broad territories. Even apparently "lower"-sounding titles, like Viscount, could describe powerful dynasts, such as the House of Visconti which ruled a major city such as Milan. |
” |
The only thing that matters is WP:COMMONNAME. There is absolutely no guarantee of consistency in such matters, and especially no obligation for Wikipedia to hew to some ridiculous "only royal houses are deemed "House of" rule. If this means we have House of Percy and Kennedy family, so be it. So... I'd be strongly in favor of cautioning Domdeparis to slow down and file RMs based on that particular family, and not attempt to assert any kind of nonexistent principle about which groups are referred to as "House of" and which are referred to as "family." SnowFire ( talk) 23:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
house (noun) - an old important family, especially a royal one
(especially does not mean exclusively)Could someone help with the mass move of pages here? The discussion was closed but the decider didn't move the pages. MCMLXXXIX 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I always do the moves first and closure second, cleanup third unless particularly urgent (can't offhand think of an example of "urgent" but I know I've found some over the years), figuring that if I get called to glory or otherwise interrupted (I do have some higher priorities than Wikipedia, including but not only wine, women and song) in the middle that leaves the more transparent mess. The bot and macros seem written on this assumption too. Interested in other practices and rationales. Andrewa ( talk) 04:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In the interest of raising the bar on the usefulness of RM commenting, how about bringing attention to some of the best ones you see out there?
Just quote the comment and include a link to it.
I'll start... -- В²C ☎ 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
* Oppose. First, on reading policy, if two names are used just as often, we use the name without the middle initial for reasons of concision (as linked & mentioned above) in addition to the other prongs of the naming criteria (article titles policy). Second, I actually find that the middle initial is used far more often in book and academic paper titles. This said, he is even better known as just "Rothbard" but that doesn't mean we change the title to that. "Murray Rothbard" is sufficient for the article title naming criteria: the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify). czar 02:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [8].
I can't prevent this from happening, but I seriously question the value of it. Each participant will choose comments that tend to align with that participant's views on various situations. What's the benefit to this activity? Omnedon ( talk) 03:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What I liked about the particular example I gave was the methodical reliance on WP:CRITERIA. Anyway, this wasn't mean to showcase opinions we agree with, but well-made useful arguments in RM discussions. -- В²C ☎ 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
My all-time favourite move request was Queen Anne of Romania, shortly after she died, closed by yours truly with this rationale:
The result of the move request was: Not moved. OP and supporters argue that the title is a misnomer because the subject was never legally a queen. Dissenters argue that she was nevertheless called Queen for 60+ years of her life while married to the former king, therefore making this her WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the recent RS covering her death still call her Queen Anne. Our titling policy explicitly assigns stronger weight to dominant names in usage, rather than official names. Wikipedia is also not the place to Right Great Wrongs. The policy debate started by this case, while ongoing, is trending towards supporting the common name rationale. Finally, the policy-supported title happens to be the same as the longstanding article title, so this adds some extra weight to keeping things stable. If the longstanding title were contrary to general policy, things would be more difficult to adjudicate (see the recent discussion about New York). Note that this closure is neutral about the best way to write the subject's names in the lead and to explain her queenship or lack thereof. — JFG talk 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Move supporters argued that she never was a queen, to which opponents said she was always called a queen, with both sides perceived as trying to right great wrongs. One editor raised a delightful parallel with Emperor Norton. Endorsed at move review. — JFG talk 12:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
There is discussion of a possible change of the article title Liancourt Rocks, a disputed island. Discussion here Siuenti ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the section "Wikidata update" could use an update. I don't see leftmost, center and rightmost fields – but rather, top, center, and bottom fields (which are respectively labelled "Label:", "Description:" and "Aliases:"). I believe I figured it out, but perhaps someone could check this and update if necessary. (I apologize if it's my browser displaying the page oddly.) – Reidgreg ( talk) 14:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Per the gap in the bot's repertoire pointed out at Talk:Pence (disambiguation), I have updated RMCD bot to post notices of requested moves where the new page proposed for moving to redirects to a different page that the page that is proposed for moving, and that redirect does not have a talk page. As a result of this enhancement new notices were just posted on the following eight pages:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Can any-body check whether User:Andy M. Wang/closeRM.js is functioning as desired.In my case it prompts me to enter my reason for the close, but only adds an edit summary with the entered reason rather than inserting the close templates etc. Posting it here because the script dev. is highly infrequent on en.wiki.Please ping while replying back.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The backlog is nearly empty. Does this mean RM is working lick clockwork? Or is a backlog problem being hidden by the inane pointless relisting? What is the benefit of relisting old discussions? I like to review only the old discussions, as I prefer to see what the article-interested people have to say first. People who like to review RMs from the top will have already seen the RM listed. Relisting is a near-silent edit to article-watchers, so what is the point? If there is a point to relisting, is there a way to introduce a way to navigate to relisted RMs from Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think no consensus after a full discussion is a better outcome than relisting, which rarely changes things if a substantive discussion has taken place. It takes the concerns of the reader into mind: a RM tag on place for a month because of three relists is not good for a highly visible article, and those are the ones that tend to have long substantive discussions take place within the listing period. A potentially controversial move with limited comments that disagree is a different matter, and I think is a strong case for staying open longer.
I think a page listing all relisted discussions would be good. It would allow the regulars who want to comment on those listings find them easier than CTRL+F. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
--'''''Relisting.'''''
embedded in the rationales, to distinguish actual relists from someone who happened to use the word "relist" in describing their rationale. So any relisting that does not conform to this syntax will be considered malformed so that item won't sort correctly in any reports I may produce that are sorted by the original request date. As long as everyone uses {{
Relisting}} for that, and doesn't override its default, and nobody changes that template without checking with the bot operator first, we'll be fine. I'm open to suggestions for tweaking this.
wbm1058 (
talk)
18:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:RM has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin please replace the text of the redirect with the following?
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from shortcut}} {{R to project namespace}} }}
The Redr template alias is to be replaced with Redirect category shell. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments."
Could I get clarification on this? What is the thinking behind this statement?
Does this mean I should not say "Support" or "Oppose" unless I can add further argument? (What if I agree with previous arguments made and simply want to concur?) Or is this policy just there to tell editors that their opinions are not sufficient justification for a recommendation?
— A L T E R C A R I ✍ 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:RMUM ("Undiscussed moves" section) says:
which strongly indicates that WP:BOLD applies to moves. But below at WP:RM#CM (the "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" section) it says:
Well so which is it? I can see the argument for not generally encouraging bold moves of pages, since they're harder to undo than regular edits. I can see the other way too.
But can we we can get clear guidance one way or the other?
There is a big brouhaha at ANI right now over disagreement over this very matter, and I have seen others. Herostratus ( talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
(It doesn't help that
WP:RMUM is poorly stated and a bit confusing. "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial... you may revert the move" means "if someone makes a move and even if you agree with it but you suspect other people might not ("if you consider such a move to be controversial") you "may" roll it back, which is distinctly odd advice.) (Nevermind, this issue fixed with what I believe is a simple correction.)
Herostratus (
talk)
19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first", no. This is not right. Nobody should be bold and move Hillary Clinton or New York without discussing it first. We need to fix this. wbm1058 ( talk) 19:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's how I would interpret it too Blueboar, but it could be clearer. I propose adding the following highlighted clause to RMUM for clarity: "Anyone who has no reason to believe a particular title change might be controversial can be bold and move a page without discussing it first..." -- В²C ☎ 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need to write new guidance, per se. It's all there, but just not in the right place. If you didn't notice what I did, I just lifted the three bullet items from the guidance given lower on the page, and changed them from positive to negative statements by adding nots and changing "someone" to "noone". So by the time the reader gets to the lower section, they should already know they're in the right place, so the three bullet items may not be needed there, if we want to keep it concise. Though a bit of redundancy there is OK too I think. wbm1058 ( talk) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
No not necessarily. I mean, it sounds reasonable, but it's not necessarily too helpful, in that it depends on the use of "reasonable" which people tend to interpret as meaning "what I think, as opposed to what that other fellow thinks". There's no hurry. Maybe actually we should restrict page moves more strictly.
Anyway it's not matter of interpretation. It really does say "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page [but] if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again". It's uses the word "bold" and so is implicitly referencing WP:BOLD. ( WP:BOLD, which is a guideline, opens with "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it'. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia" (emphasis in the original) and then continues in that vein. It does say later "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care" and "more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces". They talk about a lot of places where you want to maybe be not-so-bold, but moving pages isn't one of them.)
And it's been there since 2014, so you can't wish it away. It's a major change of both theory and practice, so there's no hurry.
But the Hillary Clinton example is worth pursuing. Yes it does feel wrong if someone BOLDly moved that to "Hillary Rodham Clinton". I think that's because its a substantial change. In the same vein, if someone BOLDly went into the article and rewrote whole swaths of it on their own dime, that also would not feel right, because it's a substantial change. It partly depends on how visible the article is TBH.
So if it's a substantial change change, maybe it should me more restricted altogether.
I dunno if "No one could reasonably disagree with the move" is very helpful. My recent experience is that there are very few titles that a reasonable person couldn't reasonably claim would be better under a different title, as User:Blueboar notes. And I mean, even if you expanded it to "No one could reasonably disagree with the move, e.g. misspelled title", people are going to be like "Moved Mumbai to Bombay to correct spelling error".
"Reasonably disagree" is vague enough to be useless when titling is involved. Give me a list of ten random titles and I bet I can come up with reasonable cases for different titles for nine of them at least.
One solution would be simple: "Never move a page (unless you are closing an RM). Instead request a technical RM so an administrator may approve, or initiate an RM discussion. If there is an emergency or other good reason and a page must be moved immediately, contact an administrator." That might be too constricting, I don't know. It would slow down title changes maybe, which I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.
Absent that, we might want to expand on what "reasonable objection" covers, with details and examples. This would be difficult work though, and possibly impossible to get agreement on.
Before making major substantial changes in whether and how people can move we should probably have an RfC and bring in outside eyes. It may be that we're not seeing the whole picture and that there are specific or general benefits to allowing WP:BOLD page moves. (And anyway any changes here should have a commensurate change there.) Herostratus ( talk) 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I withdrew my objection to User:Born2cycle edit for now, and restored it. If I'm the only objector I don't want to stand in the way of what others seem to feel is an improvement. I don't consider the change to be stable yet, and I may propose other refinements in the next few days. But if everyone else is fine with it no other page watcher wants to roll it back... it's reasonable, so fine. Herostratus ( talk) 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can be bold and move a page if:
→ Anyone may move a page if:
Well, first, there is a possibility that the new titles (and dab pages etc) may actually be better ... so we can not start off with an assumption that the moves are disruptive. Now, there is also the possibility that another editor will disagree with the moves, and revert. So far, neither editor is being disruptive... It's just a routine disagreement - to be settled through discussion. Things only become disruptive if the first editor does not respect the revert, and refuses to shift to "discuss". when the first editor crosses the line into edit warring... that is disruptive. Blueboar ( talk) 18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we can probably hat this discussion -- I haven't found one person (including myself), here or at the small side-discussion at the pump, who believes that WP:BOLD applies to page moves in the sense of "this might well be controversial, but you never know, so here goes". Even the editor who originally inserted "Anyone can be bold and move a page..." I think meant "Anyone can be bold and move a page" as a description of fact without necessarily endorsing it. And the change has been made. So nothing more to do here I don't think. Herostratus ( talk) 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal to add a sentence about page moves. -- В²C ☎ 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few people at that discussion indicating that BOLD should apply to moves just like it applies to edits. Well, if that's the case, then we need to update WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:RM accordingly so the guidance is consistent. -- В²C ☎ 21:57, 23 May 2017 (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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
I've added an edit request to allow these 3 templates to be automatically substituted to User talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. I've been asked to gain consensus before any changes are added. So, would it be a good idea in the long run to automatically substitute these 3 templates? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
What's the usual practice? If someone wants to move a dab page on the baseline should the template go on the dab page, or go on the article that the editor wants to replace the dab page? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move
| new1 = Foo (disambiguation)
| current2 = Foo (bar)
| new2 = Foo
| affected1 = Foo (baz)
| affected2 = Foo (qux)
| reason = Rationale for the proposed primary topic grab.}}
{{
rmassist}}
template for non-controversial moves to be able to accept multiple items like the regular {{
rm}}
template. It's a rather silly pain the backside to have to list them with separate templates where there are a bunch. It doesn't come up often (usually when some RfC makes a non-trivial MoS change, as happened at
MOS:JR a few months ago), but often enough that the lack of functionality is a hassle. It also generates too much output when substituted, and could surely be made much leaner. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)OK, the new version of the bot now checks the talk pages of each proposed move target. For "?" requests (name to be decided), moves over the current page, when the target has no talk page, or when the target's talk page is a redirect, it does nothing. When the target's talk page has non-redirecting content, the bot now posts a notice. The initial run posted new notices to these 11 pages:
That should cover most of it. Let me know if there are still pages I'm missing that should have cross-post notices, but don't. – wbm1058 ( talk) 02:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instructions include:
- Notifying substantial contributors to the article
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use the Page History tool or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Use:
{{ subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}
The RM instructions currently only suggest notifying WikiProjects:
WikiProjects may subscribe to Article Alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.
Should we add instructions to notify significant contributors? I bring this up because:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict):This actually bit me in the bum recently, with Rwandan genocide, I happened to be somewhat off-wiki the week the move took place, and was surprised to see it suddenly moved. I am not the top contributor there, I'm number 5 on the list, but probably the most active in recent years. I think I'm inclined to agree with Number 57 though, this is likely to create a lot of extra burden on people who open RMs, unless it's automated (and then you have questions like how far down the list does the bot go in determining who to ping). By and large I would expect that if someone is very active on an article, they have it on their watchlist and the move request should be spottable there. Nobody WP:OWNs any particular article, after all. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose any specific invocation that requires RM nominators to notify any specific class of editors (article top contributors in this case). By doing so, the RM nominator may indeed be inadvertently canvassing. The top contributors, whoever they might be, might have an agenda that either favors or disfavors the current title while lessor contributors might have the opposite agenda. Notifying Wikiprojects is usually sufficient to generate enough of a balanced look at the RM from a substantive and policy perspective. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I edit more in the German Wikipedia. And such things there are really simple. It seems to be really complicated. Can anybody fix the problem to move it: Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves%2FCurrent_discussions&type=revision&diff=726942389&oldid=726942115 -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 13:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently User:Ricky81682 boldly moved a heap of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines subpages to DraftSpace. He was asked to stop, he then initiated a formal RM, which failed, for reasons as explained there. He now declines to assist with moving the pages back ( User_talk:Ricky81682#Please_revert_all_bold_moves_from_subpages_of_WP:Wikiproject_outlines_to_Draft_space.) Could someone please help me find and revert these moves? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests say to use "old page name, without brackets" and "requested name, without brackets" in RMassist? It took me a few moments to realise it's presumably saying not to make the names into wikilinks - "brackets" could also be read as referring to disambiguation parentheses. The actual request edit page just asks for "current page name | new page name" in the edit notice. -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The following was a bad move.
(Move log); 08:44 . . CFCF (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion to User:Ricky81682/Proposed draftspace deletion (Not Wikipedia-space ready)
It is a serious project proposal. Promoted or failed, it belongs in project space. I want to revert the move, but cannot because the page mover made a null edit to the redirect. Can someone please revert the move. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
CFCF, just so you're aware, users have been blocked before for making null edits to prevent a revert. Usually I would revert this per SmokeyJoe's request, but considering this is Ricky81682's proposal I'd prefer to hear from him first – he may prefer it in userspace. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I asked on the project page to undo the move of WP:TFM and the related template.
In general, when a template relates to a WikiProject, it is not a good idea to post it as a technical request without informing the WikiProject. Debresser ( talk) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Template:RMnac has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Pppery (
talk)
19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course not, the backlog is hidden by the pointless relisting habit.
So, WP:RM says: "Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input". I continue to see that the premise is very very weak. Shuffling old into the new does nothing to bring in new reviewers, and creating the illusion of no backlog discourages new reviewers.
Could someone who knows how to, create a page that lists every RM that is relisted but still open? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote on the listings for the seventh day (the day before the items enter the backlog, if not relisted). Feel free to suggest any tweaks in the wording of this bot-placed hatnote. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've created a new Elapsed listings section for items which have run a full (24 hours * 7) days. I don't think it's right to declare a backlog on something that just passed the 7-day threshold potentially just minutes earlier, so I'm going to try to expand the window so that listings stay in this "elapsed listings" section for at least a full 24 hours before dropping down to the "backlog" level. It shouldn't be considered so "normal" to have a backlog. I trust this change won't be controversial, but any feedback is welcome. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The new version of the bot with the new Elapsed listings section is now officially live. Items stay in this section for ~24 hours, before dropping into the "backlog" section. I'm thinking about one more tweak to this. As some discussions need more than a week to resolve – legitimately complex situations might take two weeks or more of active discussion to come to a consensus – I'd like to rename this section Elapsed for over 24 hours and keep track of how many items are in this section. Allow a few of these legitimate extended discussions to be considered "normal" and only flip on the "backlog" switch – which is intended to raise alarm bells for additional admin attention – when the count passes a specified limit... say more than five items in this section. Any thoughts on this? wbm1058 ( talk) 13:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058: Would you be able to make an elapsed listings section on Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requested moves too? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 13:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In response to the requests by three sysops above
One thing that would be really useful would be to see a consolidated list of all recently closed moves, so that we could quickly go through and look at the kinds of closes being carried out.
a list of recently closed RMs, that would be really useful
I agree with others above that it would be good to have an easy way to see recently closed discussions so admins can vet them.
I have set up Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts, which lists, in chronological order, both open and recently-closed move requests. No need to re-invent the wheel, as AAlertBot can already do this. Wish this had occurred to me sooner. This report is updated once per day. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Andy M. Wang: Per WP:BRD, I'm taking this to the talk page. I think that the reason should be included in the move summary for multiple reasons:
Pppery ( talk) 01:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
{{{reason}}}
from the edit summary generated automatically for requests at
WP:RMT. As I understand it, RMT has always been operating via attribution... there are no technical move req logs; moves are quickly undoable.
Pppery's bold suggestion puts {{{reason}}}
before the consistent part of the summary complete with attribution and description of technical nature. An unpredictable prefix that would hide it if it were very long. Scenario: the "reason" for
Special:Permalink/732888473 is over 200 characters already. Adding the MediaWiki prefix "User X moved page Foo to Bar:" makes the moves even less liekly attributable, i.e. the permalink is likely to be lost and visible only in the title's move log without an apparent character limit (as far as I know).{{{reason}}}
could be added at the end of the summary so that whatever is left can appear in the revision history, while the move log benefits from a cited reason right there.You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Repairing WP:MALPLACED dab pages.
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk)
17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I made some revisions of move how-to pages, explained at Wikipedia talk:Moving a page#Revisions on 16 September 2016. Please follow up there if there are any comments. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
i didn't know any other place to put the request. the seven-day period of this discussion will end tomorrow. will an uninvolved user, preferably an admin, close the discussion and state their decision? -- HamedH94 ( talk) 07:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The Maui Historical Society has changed the name of its museum to Hale Hōʻikeʻike at the Bailey House.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maui Historical Society ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the request on September 26, 2016; 14:35 (UTC) related to VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz imho may have been started for potentially 'trolling' reasons, hence, I kindly ask to close the related topic. thx for taking notice, Roland zh ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I note that a large number of articles dealing with the Roman Catholic Church in various countries have been slated for renaming on Oct. 2, but, each done individually. In fact this seems to fall within a Naming Convention discussion. I'm not completely sure where the discussion should take place given the template has already been applied. -- Erp ( talk) 22:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
So we have this article at WP:Pages needing translation into English#Dubravko Klarić, which wiki-conventionwise seems ok, except for the language. I was wondering if it is possible to move a page to an other-language wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org in this case) with retention of the page history. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 20:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I like to request to move Daulatpur Mohsin High School page, the correct name of the school is "Muhsin" instead of "Mohsin" so this page is requested to move "Daulatpur Mohsin High School" - "Daulatpur Muhsin High School". for better confirmation I am including my school certificate where school correct name is mentioned. ( Abu Sayeem Mahfooz Khan ( talk) 07:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC))
I know, I know, we haven't done this before, but don't let organizational inertia ("tradition") stop you from realizing that moves are the only major Wikipedia article cleanup activity that does not inform the readers that there is something to discuss on the talk page. Renaming of categories does occur through a notice on the category page. Ditto for the rare case of renaming an image. Deletions, splits, mergers, a bazillion of other clean up notices are there to inform people something is going on, but article renamings (moves) discussions are relegated to talk pages only. For no good reason except "this is how we have always done things". Well, let's change this, in the spirit of standardization of cleanup processes, and common good sense (readers are at least as interested in article's name and discussions as in other cleanup issues). I therefore propose we create a relevant template or two, and encourage their use (or perhaps tie them to some form of bot / script, so that using a RM template on the article would trigger addition of a template to the article, as would it removal). But in case someone bemoans that such automation is too technical, a simple cleanup template "It has been suggested that this article may need to be renamed. A relevant discussion may be found on its discussion page" is the primary thing to consider here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, for the next step in development I will be placing {{ User:RMCD bot/subject notice}} tags at the top of some articles. That's just a blank page for now, while I work on the bot's end. Once I have the new bot code working, I'll add the notice to that file. wbm1058 ( talk) 08:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've created the {{ User:RMCD bot/subject notice}} tag, and after testing this on around a dozen move requests, I'm ready to release it into the wild. There may need to be some minor tweaks to handle more rarely occurring special cases, but basically this is done. The bot will be propagating notices to all open move requests momentarily. For this initial implementation, for multiple-move requests, the notice will only be posted to the article page for the talk page which is hosting the discussion. wbm1058 ( talk) 20:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The initial full pass has completed, and all single-move requests should be properly functioning. There's an issue which is causing the notices to be prematurely removed from multi-move requests. Working on the fix now. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, the multi-move issue is fixed, so now Done.
121 of 123 open requests have subject-space notices on them now. The two that don't:
Thanks, everyone. Above I said, there may need to be some minor tweaks to handle more rarely occurring special cases
, and so far I've seen only one glitch. Template move requests
should be sandwiched in <noinclude> ... </noinclude>
tags, and the bot needs to
remove such template-space notices after the discussion has closed. A patch-fix is on my to-do list.
wbm1058 (
talk)
13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I've boldly granted my bot the template editor right, as four other bots already have this privilege, so that it could post a requested move notice on the template-protected Template:R from initialism. Not sure whether asking for full admin rights is worth the trouble. Requested moves of fully-protected pages are relatively rare. I can post such notices myself when I notice such a request.
RMCD bot has also been upgraded to post notices on the talk pages of Lua modules which are part of a requested move discussion. The bot will not post notices in the Module: namespace though, i.e. not on the modules themselves.
And while this scenario shouldn't happen, it did: the bot will not post a notice on pages which are REDIRECTs (which should be discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion). I noticed this situation with the move request at Talk:Mike Meyers (outfielder), where the bot was repeatedly placing and then removing notices on the redirect Mike Meyers (baseball).
I've been developing and testing the enhancement to post notices to all pages where the discussion is hosted on another page as part of a multi-move request. I'll fully release that enhancement shortly. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Full notification to all subject-space pages, with a few exceptions (modules, redirects, fully-protected pages) is now Done.
Current statistics:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A request to move St Matthew Passion is listed as uncontroversial, however the present name was the result of a project discussion in 2010 and should not be moved without checking the current consensus, - see article talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is an interesting twist, and I don't have a clue whether or not it can be "fixed": When page movers (or admins in the instance of substantive page histories at the page-move targets) do round-robin swaps using temp pages (like the one I use at Draft:Move/pet page), something a little strange happens. Per the discussion on my talk page that was begun by zzuuzz, the temp pages are then added to the watchlists of users who were watching the pages that were moved. And after that, all the pages that are moved from the temp pages also go on those users' watchlists. So we appear to be making many watchlists grow longer as a result of our round-robin page moves. I thought I would bring this here to see if anyone has any ideas about it. Paine u/ c 09:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that rather than using a single common page for temporary moves, use a different one for each move.
See Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves, subsection Watchlists and Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Watchlists. Paine u/ c 03:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a category for RM's that are a week old or more? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a procedure to withdraw a move request? Or must it go through the whole seven days? I didn't see any guidance or instructions on that. — Gorthian ( talk) 18:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I made some misstakes. Can someone please
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstree ( talk • contribs)
The official stylization is SKYcable, but MOS:TM does say that CamelCase is allowed if it improves the legibility of the name. I think the move should be reverted. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
MOS:DATERANGE strongly implies that " Papal conclave, 1549–50" (for example) should instead be titled " Papal conclave, 1549–1550" (there is currently a redirect by that title). Is this true, or is there another rule or other consideration involved?— DocWatson42 ( talk) 18:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What's the procedure for requesting moving page A (a disambiguation page) to page B (a redirect) and then deleting page A? In this instance, page A is Live at Birdland (disambiguation) and page B is Live at Birdland, which currently redirects to Coltrane Live at Birdland. (B shouldn't redirect where it does now, as the target is not the dominant one with 'Live in Birdland' in the title.) EddieHugh ( talk) 13:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:Brunswick State Theatre|Staatstheater Braunschweig|reason=The translationese name is seldom (if indeed ever) used in English. This should be a relatively uncontroversial reversion, but some has been messing with the redirect page.}}
May I suggest that they didn't? Specially that requests here usually aren't phrased with that in mind and any user would do a RM if he wish. Half of the admins patrolling here move everything and the other half almost nothing, if you don't want/wish to do a move either take out of the queue or leave it alone. Bertdrunk ( talk) 00:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
|discuss=
to
Template:RMassist, which when set to "no" suppresses the "discuss" link which may be used to convert your request to a discussion on the talk page of the page which is requested to be moved. This makes it harder for admins to do that, but I'm not sure all are on board with this, so can't promise that other admins will honor such implicit requests to simply remove controversial technical requests rather than convert them. I believe the vast majority of editors appreciate these conversions, which save them the trouble of starting their own formal RM. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
14:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Hi all
Just a quick question about use of {{
rmnac}}. In the past, the wording of this page used to say it was optional. Something like "it is recommended that non-admin closers use the template..." I notice that the wording at
WP:RMNAC now says Any non-admin closure must be explicitly declared with template...
Was this an explicit decision that was made by consensus at some point? And if so, should we be using polite messages to non-admin closers if they don't use it, or indeed inserting it ourselves? I notice there are a few who don't use it, for example,
SSTflyer at
Talk:Gladstone (disambiguation), so just wanted to clarify really if this is a big deal for anyone. Thanks —
Amakuru (
talk)
12:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
What's the best process for a "technical" request, which actually turns out to be controversial, and has been implemented precipitously? Should technical requests be carried out "as soon as possible", even to the extent of only being a few hours (and thus no time for any other editor to oppose or raise issues). Or should there be a minimum waiting period to allow for this?
The situation in particular is Welsh narrow gauge slate railways, which was renamed correctly some years ago. A request was made today at Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways#British narrow gauge slate railways and at WP:RM/TR to, "revert a change made by a now-banned user. The article covers railways other than just Welsh ones, so the original title is correct, and is also consistent with the other "British narrow gauge.." articles."
There are a few problems with this: a correct and GF rename made years ago by another user should not be reverted just because they are no longer editing, for whatever reason. Secondly the request is both factually incorrect (the only railways there are Welsh) and editorially incorrect (the only railways that belong there are Welsh).
Most concerning though, this is a request from a new editor, hours old, who is already both familiar with page renaming procedure and its subtleties, "I can't move this back over the redirect created when the original article was moved", yet confused over the terms "blocked" and "banned". No-one has mentioned "banned", the past editor was indef blocked. I do wonder where such a new, new user has come across "banning" as a term before?
So, how best to reverse this?
@ Anthony Appleyard: Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Gnoming about fixing 'politican' I found problems with articles on Indian politicians. I'm looking for suggestions on how to proceed with these.
Prakash Rai (politican) needs a name change. However there is already
Prakash Rai, a redirect to
Prakash Raj (who changed his birth name for professional reasons). So I could move to
Prakash Rai (politician), but then we need a DAB. It is reasonable to take over the redirect and populate that with links to politician, actor, and a couple more people?
Rafiqul Islam (politican) needs a name change.
Rafiqul Islam is a DAB page with 4 names, missing the politician. Okay, just move and add to DAB page.
Abul Kalam Azad (politican) needs a name change for the politician from
Assam. But there is already
Abul Kalam Azad (politician) from
Bangladesh, and rather notable. How should these two pages be renamed? Include a place name?
It is the last one that is beyond my guessing, so I'm bringing all three here for direction.
Shenme (
talk)
22:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to go through all of this to fix the obvious misspelling of the article Rugby League International Calander? Hyperbolick ( talk) 14:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Please move Ginga: Nagareboshi Gin to Ginga Nagareboshi Gin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keznen ( talk • contribs) 18:07, January 16, 2017 (UTC)
Please move these two pages:
Reason for moving: The titles are incorrect. They must be moved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keznen ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If no split were to happen and a disambiguator was retained, it would probably be "(breed)" (cf Brittany (breed), etc.), since "(dog breed)" is presently being used for DAB and set index articles for multiple breeds of a certain class (e.g., Pointer (dog breed), Laika (dog breed)). All of these can probably be reduced to "(breed)" per WP:CONCISE.
As for titles after a split, they'd be American Akita (seemingly the common name now of that breed), and whatever is the WP:COMMONNAME in English sources for the original Japanese breed as distinct from the American one; that might be Akita Inu (I suspect it is, from familiarity), regardless of the origin of the words. Lots of dog breeds have non-English words for 'dog' or 'hound' in their names in English. But it might be Japanese Akita, if usage has shifted. It would take some research, since it would need to exclude sources that do not distinguish the two kinds of Akita (from probably June 1999 and earlier, though not all from after that date make the distinction). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We badly need some kind of searchable archive of this stuff, and for this to be "advertised" prominently on the RM page. It appears to me that about 95% of RMs are rehash of innumerable previous discussions, but the consensus determinations in them are rarely cited, because they're so hard to find. For one topic alone, I've had to hand maintain my own archive of results, which is incomplete, and it's a massive hassle. This appears to be the only major WP process the results of which have no searchable history. I would think that Harej's RMCD bot|RMCD bot could be adjusted to move completed discussions to archive pages instead of just deleting them, so RM works more like everything else. I think this is important because RM is a major drain on both editorial and administrative time, the source of intense amount of heat without light (with dispute spilling over into WT:AT, WT:DAB, WT:MOS, and the talk pages of naming convention guidelines, wikiprojects, and articles topically related to the one being moved, on a basis that it's just regular but constant. RM never actually seems to long-term resolve anything, but simply exists as a long-term tug-of-war at tens of thousands of articles.
The best we have right now (that I know of) is doing WikiBlame ("Revision history search") at at history page of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, but this tool is slow, and is extremely limited, produces very partial results necessitating search after search after search even for one year of data, is counterintuitive, and rarely is very helpful. We need something much more like the archive searches at WP:ANI or WT:MOS.
The ideal result would actually be for closed discussions to be copied to an archive (not theoretically hard; RMCD bot is already smart enough to identify and repost at the RM page any properly formatted RM when triggered by its template; a closure trigger could have it do an archival job, too). I realize that's essentially "tasking" Harej to write a bunch of code, though. I would think that even existing archival bots could just archive the listings, without their resolutions, directly off of WP:Requested moves/Current discussions, and that alone would be a major boon.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
(
←) I think we can probably start helping with this problem by making sure {{
requested move}} when substed provides some sort of HTML comment or something of the sort like <!-- Move request -->
. Just to take the example about dynasties, I was able to make a really plain search regarding dynasty move requests at
[3]. A similar search for insource:'dynasty'
rather than intitle:'dynasty'
would probably be on the same level of response. However, with the template moving every once in a while and having its text changed every once in a while (better now--I can get results in the 2012s timeframe from the above), it would be good to have some sort of static text for which we can search. --
Izno (
talk)
13:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
insource:'Requested move'
as an alternative to "move request". Also insource:'Move discussion in progress'
is a standard header used by the bot on cross-post notifications. Noting that this search syntax is complex and on
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion there are search boxes where one simply enters a search term and clicks a button, so the template with the button automatically does the insource:'move request'
or insource:'Requested move'
or insource:'Move discussion in progress'
part, can we implement a similar button here? {{
archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes}} But the vaunted {{
Search deletion discussions}} isn't working for me:
An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length. (659 > 300) –
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Flying Colors (2015 film) was deleted while an RM was in progress on its talk page, which was then speedy deleted. The RM is now in the backlog.
Does the bot handle this, or is manual cleanup required? Andrewa ( talk) 03:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Among the closing instructions at WP:RMCLOSE § Three possible outcomes there's the following text:
There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen.
This implies that a requested move could discuss several alternative titles and it seems to suggest that it's possible for the outcome to be a title that wasn't explicitly proposed in the nomination. However, one recent close (and the comments made at the ongoing move review) seem to indicate there's a strong trend in current practice to procedurally close as "not moved" discussions in which the title that receives consensus is not listed within the {{ Requested move}} template at the top of the nomination. I disagree with this practice, but if that's what is normally done, then it should somehow be reflected in the closing instructions. Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Want to move the translated article User:USA-Fan/callus shaver to callus shaver. But can´t find any helpful information to do this. -- USA-Fan ( talk) 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved here from project page so discussion can continue. Brad v 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
After Mandruss made his proposal, Bermicourt took to canvassing here, which has so far brought one more to his side on the Saxony RM. Not an acceptable behavior, is it? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, the 9:3 at Talk:Narrow_gauge_railways_in_Saxony was read as no consensus. So what now? Both move review and RFC have been suggested there. Is anyone up for writing a neutral case for one or the other? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
See my draft at User:Dicklyon/rfc#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge. I invite anyone who wants to help make it a neutral question and productive discussion to make tweaks there, or make suggestions, or start your own alternative proposal. Thanks. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed recently (subjective) in move discussions on some articles that there is more participation thank you'd expect - and the penny has dropped that it's because we've added an invitation to participate on the facing side of the article. Which is great. But when in the case of the move affecting many articles including John Lewis (department store) and John Lewis Partnership, when the template is placed on one of the John Lewis articles enjoying a spike that's advertising the RM discussion to 160,000 readers on the spike. That is more significant the normal Alerts imbalance when a discussion is held at only one article rather than on the dab page Talk page. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yet again, Dicklyon's insatiable appetite for undiscussed page moves takes him to a whole new and unfamiliar field. Low probability of intercept radar has been moved to Low-probability-of-intercept radar. No prior discussion or notice of this.
As always, this is simple slavish pursuance of a minor styleguide footnote, against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NEOLOGISM. This is an obscure term, even in radar, and I can see no prior use of the hyphenated form whatsoever. This move was inappropriate, obviously controversial in the recent contexts, and should have been discussed at the very least. It should be reverted. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I support someone reverting every single one of Dicklyon's unilateral moves that involve case changes or dashing changes for the following reason: "undiscussed controversial move". -- В²C ☎ 07:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I just boldly removed an endorsement of "Google Books and Google News Archive" from the wording of the page. I don't know when it was added or by whom, but in my experience when there are such poorly thought out and counter-policy statements of "advice" in these pages, they were unilaterally added without proper discussion or consensus, and so I assumed the same was true here. Not everything in Google Books and Google News Archive is a reliable source -- in fact most are not. And explicitly telling users to prioritize these over more reliable searches like adding "site:.edu", "site:.ac.jp", etc. is highly inappropriate. If anyone doesn't like my edit, it should be discussed here and preferably some link to the discussion that led to the previous discussion given. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Fuhghettaboutit who added that text. I've always found it useful in that a Google Books/Scholar search is always more useful than a raw Google search but I can see where you're coming from. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
a Google Books/Scholar search is always more useful than a raw Google searchThat's simply not true. "a raw Google search" can include qualifying parameters like "site:.edu". And Google is not the only search engine. This page is not the place to discuss the nuances of this -- the instructions can not and should not be giving an unnuanced "do X, don't do Y". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:RMassist must be used on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thank you, Scynthian ( talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Huh. It looks to me here that User:Piko 158, a new user and not an admin, deleted a page. How's that possible? Maybe I'm reading this wrong? It was a redirect page, but even if she's a Wikipedia:Page mover, that doesn't allow one to delete redirects, I don't think.
I ask because up to now if I find a redirect blocking a move I have to file a Requested Move (uncontested) which is an extra step. Is there an ability for civilians to delete redirect? Or am I misunderstanding what happened here? Herostratus ( talk) 22:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
When moving over a redirect with no revs, there was a weird hack to delete the old redirect page... without logs, or cleaning up the orphaned revision. WHOOPS Switched it to using the standard deletion, which seems to work. Note this will produce a deletion log entry as well as a move log entry. This may scare people.
I am concerned that user:Domdeparis appears to be systematically moving articles "House of..." to "...Family". I left a message on user:Domdeparis talk page:
I am glad to see that you reverted to edit to the redirect Percy family ( diff).
I think that such a move is controversial so you need to make a WP:RM#CM request on Talk:House of Percy. -- PBS ( talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Since I wrote this I have reverted a move of the House of Arenberg to Arenberg family. user:Domdeparis made the move with the comment 'In English"House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of' ( diff).
I think that user:Domdeparis may have a coherent argument for English and by extension British and Irish Nobility, but it needs to be discussed further to see if the assertion is true. If it is then general moves may be in order—although I suspect that articles such as those on the families of the Princes of Wales prior to conquest and those in Ireland before the introduction of the title King of Ireland may contain exceptions.
There is a further problem moving article from "House of ..." to "... family" causes practical problems with people including links to articles to people of the same name only vaguely related to the Noble Family for example how many Spencers are there? This issue also needs considering if article such as "House of Percy" is to be moved to "Percy family".
While argument for the systematic move of English nobility may (or may not) be accepted. There is no systematic rule for Continental European aristocracy.
For Continental European article on aristocratic families, I think that for most WP:RM#CM are needed, because in most of Europe the rules are more complicated and many of the sources that are used for such articles use "House of ..." (if only because like that for the House of Arenberg rely on Non-British sources and use "House of").
This is because there is a more complex relationship between entities such as the Holy Roman Emperor and other noble families who often held their lands to all intense and purposes as sovereign entities and had legal differentiation from non-aristocratic families (Ie formed a noble class), and the titular head of a state was not necessarily an inherited position (in law if not in practice).
See for example the relationship between Sigismund III Vasa and the other families in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. This is also true for other families better known to the British public see for example House of Nassau. Where the article explains in the introduction:
The lords of Nassau were originally titled "Count of Nassau", then elevated to the princely class as "Princely Counts" (in German: gefürstete Grafen, i.e. Counts who are granted all legal and aristocratic privileges of a Prince).
So in summary. I think moving most British "House of ..." articles can probably be decided with one well discussed WP:RM#CM or WP:RFC as an example case to set a president on how to handle all of them. However for articles on European continental aristocracy families, because of the use in sources that are cited and the legal complications of their precise status, any such move should be done through WP:RM#CM, as deciding on the best name for the article is complex and potentially controversial.
-- PBS ( talk) 10:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
“ | The dynastic family or lineage may be known as a " house"; [House of 1] which may be styled " royal", " princely", " comital", etc., depending upon the chief or present title borne by its members. | ” |
“ | 1. A ruler or governor, especially a hereditary ruler or someone who founded or is part of a dynasty. | ” |
“ | Count (male) or countess (female) is a title in European countries for a noble of varying status, but historically deemed to convey an approximate rank intermediate between the highest and lowest titles of nobility. [House of 2] | ” |
“ |
In Italy The title of Conte is very prolific on the peninsula. In the eleventh century, conti like the Count of Savoy or the Norman Count of Apulia, were virtually sovereign lords of broad territories. Even apparently "lower"-sounding titles, like Viscount, could describe powerful dynasts, such as the House of Visconti which ruled a major city such as Milan. |
” |
The only thing that matters is WP:COMMONNAME. There is absolutely no guarantee of consistency in such matters, and especially no obligation for Wikipedia to hew to some ridiculous "only royal houses are deemed "House of" rule. If this means we have House of Percy and Kennedy family, so be it. So... I'd be strongly in favor of cautioning Domdeparis to slow down and file RMs based on that particular family, and not attempt to assert any kind of nonexistent principle about which groups are referred to as "House of" and which are referred to as "family." SnowFire ( talk) 23:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
house (noun) - an old important family, especially a royal one
(especially does not mean exclusively)Could someone help with the mass move of pages here? The discussion was closed but the decider didn't move the pages. MCMLXXXIX 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I always do the moves first and closure second, cleanup third unless particularly urgent (can't offhand think of an example of "urgent" but I know I've found some over the years), figuring that if I get called to glory or otherwise interrupted (I do have some higher priorities than Wikipedia, including but not only wine, women and song) in the middle that leaves the more transparent mess. The bot and macros seem written on this assumption too. Interested in other practices and rationales. Andrewa ( talk) 04:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In the interest of raising the bar on the usefulness of RM commenting, how about bringing attention to some of the best ones you see out there?
Just quote the comment and include a link to it.
I'll start... -- В²C ☎ 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
* Oppose. First, on reading policy, if two names are used just as often, we use the name without the middle initial for reasons of concision (as linked & mentioned above) in addition to the other prongs of the naming criteria (article titles policy). Second, I actually find that the middle initial is used far more often in book and academic paper titles. This said, he is even better known as just "Rothbard" but that doesn't mean we change the title to that. "Murray Rothbard" is sufficient for the article title naming criteria: the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify). czar 02:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [8].
I can't prevent this from happening, but I seriously question the value of it. Each participant will choose comments that tend to align with that participant's views on various situations. What's the benefit to this activity? Omnedon ( talk) 03:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What I liked about the particular example I gave was the methodical reliance on WP:CRITERIA. Anyway, this wasn't mean to showcase opinions we agree with, but well-made useful arguments in RM discussions. -- В²C ☎ 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
My all-time favourite move request was Queen Anne of Romania, shortly after she died, closed by yours truly with this rationale:
The result of the move request was: Not moved. OP and supporters argue that the title is a misnomer because the subject was never legally a queen. Dissenters argue that she was nevertheless called Queen for 60+ years of her life while married to the former king, therefore making this her WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the recent RS covering her death still call her Queen Anne. Our titling policy explicitly assigns stronger weight to dominant names in usage, rather than official names. Wikipedia is also not the place to Right Great Wrongs. The policy debate started by this case, while ongoing, is trending towards supporting the common name rationale. Finally, the policy-supported title happens to be the same as the longstanding article title, so this adds some extra weight to keeping things stable. If the longstanding title were contrary to general policy, things would be more difficult to adjudicate (see the recent discussion about New York). Note that this closure is neutral about the best way to write the subject's names in the lead and to explain her queenship or lack thereof. — JFG talk 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Move supporters argued that she never was a queen, to which opponents said she was always called a queen, with both sides perceived as trying to right great wrongs. One editor raised a delightful parallel with Emperor Norton. Endorsed at move review. — JFG talk 12:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
There is discussion of a possible change of the article title Liancourt Rocks, a disputed island. Discussion here Siuenti ( talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the section "Wikidata update" could use an update. I don't see leftmost, center and rightmost fields – but rather, top, center, and bottom fields (which are respectively labelled "Label:", "Description:" and "Aliases:"). I believe I figured it out, but perhaps someone could check this and update if necessary. (I apologize if it's my browser displaying the page oddly.) – Reidgreg ( talk) 14:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Per the gap in the bot's repertoire pointed out at Talk:Pence (disambiguation), I have updated RMCD bot to post notices of requested moves where the new page proposed for moving to redirects to a different page that the page that is proposed for moving, and that redirect does not have a talk page. As a result of this enhancement new notices were just posted on the following eight pages:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Can any-body check whether User:Andy M. Wang/closeRM.js is functioning as desired.In my case it prompts me to enter my reason for the close, but only adds an edit summary with the entered reason rather than inserting the close templates etc. Posting it here because the script dev. is highly infrequent on en.wiki.Please ping while replying back.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The backlog is nearly empty. Does this mean RM is working lick clockwork? Or is a backlog problem being hidden by the inane pointless relisting? What is the benefit of relisting old discussions? I like to review only the old discussions, as I prefer to see what the article-interested people have to say first. People who like to review RMs from the top will have already seen the RM listed. Relisting is a near-silent edit to article-watchers, so what is the point? If there is a point to relisting, is there a way to introduce a way to navigate to relisted RMs from Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think no consensus after a full discussion is a better outcome than relisting, which rarely changes things if a substantive discussion has taken place. It takes the concerns of the reader into mind: a RM tag on place for a month because of three relists is not good for a highly visible article, and those are the ones that tend to have long substantive discussions take place within the listing period. A potentially controversial move with limited comments that disagree is a different matter, and I think is a strong case for staying open longer.
I think a page listing all relisted discussions would be good. It would allow the regulars who want to comment on those listings find them easier than CTRL+F. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
--'''''Relisting.'''''
embedded in the rationales, to distinguish actual relists from someone who happened to use the word "relist" in describing their rationale. So any relisting that does not conform to this syntax will be considered malformed so that item won't sort correctly in any reports I may produce that are sorted by the original request date. As long as everyone uses {{
Relisting}} for that, and doesn't override its default, and nobody changes that template without checking with the bot operator first, we'll be fine. I'm open to suggestions for tweaking this.
wbm1058 (
talk)
18:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:RM has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin please replace the text of the redirect with the following?
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from shortcut}} {{R to project namespace}} }}
The Redr template alias is to be replaced with Redirect category shell. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments."
Could I get clarification on this? What is the thinking behind this statement?
Does this mean I should not say "Support" or "Oppose" unless I can add further argument? (What if I agree with previous arguments made and simply want to concur?) Or is this policy just there to tell editors that their opinions are not sufficient justification for a recommendation?
— A L T E R C A R I ✍ 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:RMUM ("Undiscussed moves" section) says:
which strongly indicates that WP:BOLD applies to moves. But below at WP:RM#CM (the "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" section) it says:
Well so which is it? I can see the argument for not generally encouraging bold moves of pages, since they're harder to undo than regular edits. I can see the other way too.
But can we we can get clear guidance one way or the other?
There is a big brouhaha at ANI right now over disagreement over this very matter, and I have seen others. Herostratus ( talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
(It doesn't help that
WP:RMUM is poorly stated and a bit confusing. "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial... you may revert the move" means "if someone makes a move and even if you agree with it but you suspect other people might not ("if you consider such a move to be controversial") you "may" roll it back, which is distinctly odd advice.) (Nevermind, this issue fixed with what I believe is a simple correction.)
Herostratus (
talk)
19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first", no. This is not right. Nobody should be bold and move Hillary Clinton or New York without discussing it first. We need to fix this. wbm1058 ( talk) 19:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's how I would interpret it too Blueboar, but it could be clearer. I propose adding the following highlighted clause to RMUM for clarity: "Anyone who has no reason to believe a particular title change might be controversial can be bold and move a page without discussing it first..." -- В²C ☎ 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need to write new guidance, per se. It's all there, but just not in the right place. If you didn't notice what I did, I just lifted the three bullet items from the guidance given lower on the page, and changed them from positive to negative statements by adding nots and changing "someone" to "noone". So by the time the reader gets to the lower section, they should already know they're in the right place, so the three bullet items may not be needed there, if we want to keep it concise. Though a bit of redundancy there is OK too I think. wbm1058 ( talk) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
No not necessarily. I mean, it sounds reasonable, but it's not necessarily too helpful, in that it depends on the use of "reasonable" which people tend to interpret as meaning "what I think, as opposed to what that other fellow thinks". There's no hurry. Maybe actually we should restrict page moves more strictly.
Anyway it's not matter of interpretation. It really does say "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page [but] if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again". It's uses the word "bold" and so is implicitly referencing WP:BOLD. ( WP:BOLD, which is a guideline, opens with "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it'. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia" (emphasis in the original) and then continues in that vein. It does say later "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care" and "more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces". They talk about a lot of places where you want to maybe be not-so-bold, but moving pages isn't one of them.)
And it's been there since 2014, so you can't wish it away. It's a major change of both theory and practice, so there's no hurry.
But the Hillary Clinton example is worth pursuing. Yes it does feel wrong if someone BOLDly moved that to "Hillary Rodham Clinton". I think that's because its a substantial change. In the same vein, if someone BOLDly went into the article and rewrote whole swaths of it on their own dime, that also would not feel right, because it's a substantial change. It partly depends on how visible the article is TBH.
So if it's a substantial change change, maybe it should me more restricted altogether.
I dunno if "No one could reasonably disagree with the move" is very helpful. My recent experience is that there are very few titles that a reasonable person couldn't reasonably claim would be better under a different title, as User:Blueboar notes. And I mean, even if you expanded it to "No one could reasonably disagree with the move, e.g. misspelled title", people are going to be like "Moved Mumbai to Bombay to correct spelling error".
"Reasonably disagree" is vague enough to be useless when titling is involved. Give me a list of ten random titles and I bet I can come up with reasonable cases for different titles for nine of them at least.
One solution would be simple: "Never move a page (unless you are closing an RM). Instead request a technical RM so an administrator may approve, or initiate an RM discussion. If there is an emergency or other good reason and a page must be moved immediately, contact an administrator." That might be too constricting, I don't know. It would slow down title changes maybe, which I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.
Absent that, we might want to expand on what "reasonable objection" covers, with details and examples. This would be difficult work though, and possibly impossible to get agreement on.
Before making major substantial changes in whether and how people can move we should probably have an RfC and bring in outside eyes. It may be that we're not seeing the whole picture and that there are specific or general benefits to allowing WP:BOLD page moves. (And anyway any changes here should have a commensurate change there.) Herostratus ( talk) 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I withdrew my objection to User:Born2cycle edit for now, and restored it. If I'm the only objector I don't want to stand in the way of what others seem to feel is an improvement. I don't consider the change to be stable yet, and I may propose other refinements in the next few days. But if everyone else is fine with it no other page watcher wants to roll it back... it's reasonable, so fine. Herostratus ( talk) 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can be bold and move a page if:
→ Anyone may move a page if:
Well, first, there is a possibility that the new titles (and dab pages etc) may actually be better ... so we can not start off with an assumption that the moves are disruptive. Now, there is also the possibility that another editor will disagree with the moves, and revert. So far, neither editor is being disruptive... It's just a routine disagreement - to be settled through discussion. Things only become disruptive if the first editor does not respect the revert, and refuses to shift to "discuss". when the first editor crosses the line into edit warring... that is disruptive. Blueboar ( talk) 18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we can probably hat this discussion -- I haven't found one person (including myself), here or at the small side-discussion at the pump, who believes that WP:BOLD applies to page moves in the sense of "this might well be controversial, but you never know, so here goes". Even the editor who originally inserted "Anyone can be bold and move a page..." I think meant "Anyone can be bold and move a page" as a description of fact without necessarily endorsing it. And the change has been made. So nothing more to do here I don't think. Herostratus ( talk) 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal to add a sentence about page moves. -- В²C ☎ 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few people at that discussion indicating that BOLD should apply to moves just like it applies to edits. Well, if that's the case, then we need to update WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:RM accordingly so the guidance is consistent. -- В²C ☎ 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)