Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Application of WP:BOLD

This page seems a bit inconsistent with its approach to uncontroversial moves.

First it says that:

"The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle applies to uncontroversial moves"

but then it says a move is potentially controversial if "[s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move", and that a page move should be discussed first if "there is any reason to believe a move would be contested."

Surely the whole point of BOLD is that an editor can do something which might be contested without discussing it first. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you know going in that "[s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move" and move a page anyways, that seems more like being a DICK than being BOLD. But the BRD cycle still applies. If someone is bold and moves a page without discussion, any other editor can revert or request that the move be reverted pending discussion. older ≠ wiser 14:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Civility before posting on talk pages! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

BOLD implies "just go ahead and do it". Not moving an article if "someone could reasonably disagree with the move" implies ask first. This page should either say one or the other. I'm asking for some guidance not insults. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I interpret it as: if you're unsure whether anyone will have a disagreement with the move, but you think it's a good idea, go ahead and do it; but understand that anyone who does disagree can move it right back, and that once that has happened, it should not be moved again until the matter has been discussed. I would go so far as to say that if you make a bold move and someone objects, you should voluntarily and immediately revert yourself, and initiate the appropriate discussion. bd2412 T 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, for many situations BRD works just fine. But there are controversial issues that one ought to know are controversial, and if one does not then one will soon learn that they are. This particularly applies to sets/groupings of articles often with their own specific mention in the naming conventions.

Let us suppose there is a town in Belgium currently titled in French that an editor things should be in Dutch, and so they BOLDLY move it, only to have it moved back and then there is a RM with no consensus to move. If they are new to Belgian names it is possible they do not know that it is a controversial topic and so under BRD they have done nothing unreasonable. However if the same editor then goes ahead and change the article title of the next village on the map from French to Dutch with a "BOLD" move, that is no longer BOLD that is disruptive and hence the need for "[s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move". -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The instructions here are fully in line with the BRD cycle. If you expect any edit to be controversial, you should not be BOLD... you should go right to the Discuss part of the cycle. Think of it this way... if you already know that it is likely that you would be reverted if you boldly edit, then you might as well jump right to the discussion. You can pretend that the BOLD and REVERT parts of the BRD cycle have already taken place.

Moves work the same way... if you know that a Move would be controversial, it is kind of silly to go through the unnecessary steps of boldly move the page and having someone revert you... Just skip right over these steps and jump to the Discuss step. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Add section/link WP:BEFORERM

I propose we need a brief checklist, along the lines of WP:BEFOREAFD and WP:BEFOREBLPPROD but not as long.

E.g.

1. Familiarize yourself with main guidelines relating to titling WP:AT and WP:DAB

2. Use the top right search box to find out what articles en.wp already has.

3. Check page history and Talk history to see previous RMs.

4. and so on..

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

At least ask for 2. ? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking silence as silence

Before initiating a RM it is encouraged to take the following steps:

1. Familiarize yourself with main guidelines relating to titling WP:AT and WP:DAB

2. Use the top right search box or Google to find out what article titles and article content en.wp already has.

3. Check page history and Talk history to see previous moves and RMs.

But still the above seems fairly vanilla. Anyone? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the impetus for this change? czar ♔ 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing too many RMs which haven't done 2. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Many haven't even done 1, despite some very clear notices to that effect. But this can't hurt, and may well help. Support. Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested".

Per this instruction, going forward I will contest (and revert, per WP:BRD) any undiscussed move of any page with a large number of incoming links, where the purpose of the move is to change the original title into a disambiguation page. Too many disruptive moves have been made where the original title was the clear primary topic of the term. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Location of move discussions

See talk:aviation, where we are having a discussion on the appropriate location to discuss the move of a the page aeronautics, and if talk:aviation is the proper location (the rename does not involve the page called "aviation"). -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

@Steelpillow:, I suggest that you follow the advice you've been given and, if you want to propose a move of Aeronautics → aeronautical science, that you start a requested move below the Talk:Aeronautics#Aeronautics vs. aviation section. The related merge or move discussions can be pointed (linked) to this location. But first, you should consider which of those two names is the WP:common name for the topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Well, I gave my reasons at the time - the move proposal arose out of a previous discussion and it seemed sensible to keep both discussions on the same page and provide links as necessary. As for the relationship between "aeronautics" and "aeronautical engineering," this was discussed at length in the previous discussion I just mentioned, and your asking me to cover that ground again is a rather neat illustration of precisely why I thought it sensible to keep both discussions on the same page. Was I really so wrong to think so? If procedural policy is so much more important to people than having everything in one place, I can of course do it the long-winded way round. But is it, really? I am also somewhat disappointed to find that the "where do we discuss this?" discussion is now itself happening in two different places - to clear that up we will need a "where do we discuss where to discuss this?" discussion and I rather feel that the whole "due procedure" thing is getting out of hand. It is here to serve us, not the other way around, and each case should ultimately be taken on its merits. Maybe it is serving your personal way of working, I do not know where you are coming from, but I cannot believe it is serving those who would discuss the actual merits of this particular proposal. Feel free to educate me in the ways of simplicity, clarity and getting things done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC) It is actually a disservice to the readership when you sever the naming discussion of an article from the article involved. Since you've proposed a move on a talkpage that is not any page involved in the move (as there is only 1 page involved, and it's not there), then this is a disservice to all future editors who follow in the years to come who have to search through some other talk archive to find why something was moved, instead of just the actual article's talk archive. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC) I take your point in theory, though my experience is that in practice editors seldom search talk archives, they usually just have the discussion all over again, based at least in part on a valid "that was then, this is now" stance. The theoretical inconvenience to the occasional archaeologist having to follow my link to a second archive may be balanced against the immediate inconvenience to other current editors in referring back to a prior discussion on a different page. BTW, did you proffer a courtesy link back here on any page the other currently involved editors might sensibly be watching? For example one of them has repeatedly replied here, oblivious of your forking that "discussion about the discussion" to this page. This slip of yours is a neat illustration of why it is important to place emphasis on serving your current readership well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Well now here you mention another topic area, aeronautical engineering, which redirects to aerospace engineering, which is divided into aeronautical engineering and astronautical engineering. There are rightfully separate articles on these topics, one which is a science topic and the other which is an engineering topic. I note that this broad discussion started out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Aeronautics vs. aviation, which is a good place to have general discussions about multiple articles that are covered by that WikiProject. Sorry if this was already discussed previously on one of the other talk pages (WP:TL;DR) but given that the lead section of aeronautics says "aeronautics" includes lighter-than-air craft such as airships, and includes ballistic vehicles while "aviation" does not, why does aviation say The modern age of aviation began with the first untethered human lighter-than-air flight on November 21, 1783, in a hot air balloon? The two articles seem to contradict each other. Maybe before further discussions about merging or moving, you should focus on getting accurate, well-sourced content. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC) I had thought that any further commented would occur at Talk:Aviation, as I indicated that a discussion was already underway there. However, a comment stream started here. The head of this thread was an advisory notice, linked to an existing open discussion. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC) OK, I've read it now (it wasn't too long after all ;) and I sympathize. Will continue the discussion off this page. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Barring involved people from relisting move discussions?

Some people who nominated or previously voted are tempted to relist the discussion for more comments. However, WP:RMCI said that relisting is up to the qualified closer. Fortunately, I reverted involved people's relisting. If we can't bar them from relisting a discussion, what shall we do to limit it? --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone, involved or not, relisting a move discussion if the discussion has low participation, or could otherwise benefit from an extended period of time for discussion. Why does this need limiting? bd2412 T 22:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

People involved may want what they wanted: no move or move. A discussion, despite low participation, may have a consensus, yet an involved may want more comments by relisting to outbalance just for their needs, not for the right determination. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that a "No Consensus" closure results in a default "no-move" ... there is the potential that an involved editor could be trying to game the system by extending the discussion (ie attempting to forestall a "No consensus" decision.) So... I have to agree with George here. An involved party should not take it upon himself/herself to relist. Let an uninvolved editor make the determination as to whether there is a Consensus... No Consensus.. or if more discussion is needed.

That said... there is nothing wrong with an involved party leaving a comment requesting a relist... especially if only a few people have commented. My point is that the decision as to whether to close or relist should be made by an uninvolved party. Blueboar (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of relisting? What does it do? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Relisting moves the discussion to the top of the queue, so it gets another seven days before it goes into the backlog. That's all. There is no deadline, so I see no harm in anyone, no matter how "involved", taking this step. I suppose a second relisting would go beyond good etiquette, but again, what possible harm could come from even an interested party extending discussion in an open and public forum for a week? bd2412 T 05:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

100 or 200 people per day visit WP:RM, especially in last 90 days. I think they are regular editors of Wikipedia. Also, not everyone goes to talk pages: [1][2][3]. Putting it up to newest date after backlog may be pointless if talk pages stats are very small. In other words, three or two comments are enough, or maybe one comment is enough consensus. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I usually browse from the bottom of the backlog (as listed at Wikipedia:Dashboard#Requested_moves). Does this mean that I am less likely to see something because is has been relisted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm.... I don't follow ya. Stats of the Dashboard is similar to pages of a character from one television series, or an old song, or an old album. Not everyone checks the Dashboard, and stats there may represent regular Wikipedians, not general readers. George Ho (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Does relisting delay a RM from reaching the Backlog. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Only if it doesn't reach the backlog. But it doesn't when the RM already reaches it. Instead, a relist may yank it out of the backlog. George Ho (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Two questions...

a) When a discussion is relisted, can a closer decide that No Consensus is likely and close before the 14th day (the end of the second 7 day period)?

b) Would it help to distinguish between cases where the initial listing generated NO discussion at all (beyond the initial nom)... and cases where the initial listing has generated SOME discussion (but not enough discussion to satisfy one of the participants)? Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion relisted until after it had hit the backlog (after all, there is little point in asking for more time when there is still time remaining in the discussion). Still, if it gets delayed for one week, so what? It will still inevitably run out of discussion time and be closed based on the state of the discussion when it gets there the second time.

@Blueboar, a) a WP:SNOW close is always an option, but a no consensus close, I think, would have to wait until the end of the relisted period; and b) I have seen discussions relisted where there was no participation, and I have seen discussions relisted where dozens of opinions had been registered, and it looked like further discussion might point towards a resolution. bd2412 T 15:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... then I have to stick to my original opinion... the decision on whether to close or continue discussion has to be made by a non-involved editor, not one of the participants. Otherwise relisting can be misused as a "tactic" to delay determinations that otherwise might be made. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't much worry about delaying tactics. Wikipedia has been around for over a decade, and hopefully will be around for hundreds of years to come. Whether a particular move request takes seven days or fourteen days to close is a blip in the long term. I note also that our oldest backlogged discussions that have not been subject to relisting are over three weeks old. bd2412 T 19:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sticking with my old opinion. Relisting is irrelevant. Since the relister has made the effort to read the discussion and determine (but with consequence) that it is not ready for closing, it would be more useful for them to, at least, comment on what remains unresolved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Smokey... suppose you had been following a discussion closely (with the idea of being a closer). There isn't much discussion... say all you have is a relatively weak nomination arguing to move, and one extremely well written, policy based response arguing to not move. Let's say that this single response is persuasive enough that you determine that there is no point in further discussion... and that the RM can be closed as "don't move". You wait until the 7 days are up, and on the 8th day you go to WP:RM with the intention to close... only to find that the nominator has relisted... what would be your reaction? Blueboar (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think: the nominator's relisting implies that the nominator is aware of the one response and has no response to it. It increases my liklihood of closing "Not moved. No support for the proposal, and a policy-based reason against". If I doubted the obviousness of the weakness of the nomination and the strength of the oppose, I would probably !vote "Oppose. Unpersuaded by the nomination and agree with the policy-based reason above." The act of relisting by the nominator in the face of a strong oppose weakens the nominator's position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, what is the harm in waiting until the end of the relisting period? There are three possible outcomes - nothing new happens in that period, and it is closed a the end as though it had never been extended; more editors voice opposition to the move, and the resolution becomes even more clear; or a bunch of editors show up to support the move, which suggests that it indeed has the support of the community, but that the discussion just didn't get noticed until it was relisted. None of these scenarios constitutes a bad thing. bd2412 T 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Scenario #1: During original listing period, there is strong opposition. Then the nominator relists the discussion in spite of strong consensus. Then there are weak support comments in the relisting period, so the result would be "not moved". Scenario #2: In original period, there is strong opposition. Then the nominator relists, and then there are further strong support, outbalancing. The result would be either "no consensus" or "not moved". Scenario #3: There are no comments, and the closer would close the discussion, rename the article, and deem the results as "no opposition". There is no relisting. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've often thought about this scenario myself when considering closes. I think in general it's OK for someone who participated to relist the discussion, if either (a) a relisting is clearly warranted (because there are very few !votes, even including the one posted by the interested party), or (b) the discussion is already in favour of the way the interested party !voted (such that it is clearly not an attempt to game the system by holding out for more votes in the same direction). If there was a clear possible case for closing against the opinions of the interested party, then that interested party should not perform a relist.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

One example I present is Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Requested move 3. If you look at the history log, someone involved tried to relist the page, despite strong consensus. Fortunately, I reverted it, so someone uninvolved already determined the consensus and closed it as "not moved". But someone before that closed as "not moved" and reverted closure as requested. George Ho (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that in the case mentioned, it would have been better for an involved party not to relist. As it happens I also supported the proposed move there, but I would not have considered relisting, because my vote was against the tide of opinion, and also because the proposal had been in place for several weeks. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've read this entire discussion and reviewed Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Requested move 3. I'm with BD2412 (talk · contribs) on this in general, and am dismayed by the reverting of the relisting at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Requested move 3. I'm not persuaded at all by George's hypothetical scenarios. Even if there are 20 !votes in favor without any opposes prior to relisting, if there is even just one strong policy-based argument in opposition that refutes the support argument after the relisting, the result should be no move. If the new arguments are all weak, then it's a judgement call that should be made based on strength of arguments, not counting !votes.

As to Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Requested move 3, I'm dismayed by the apparent (mis) interpretation of WP:ON as endorsing official names over WP:COMMONNAME. AFAIK, there is no community support for this. This discussion needs broader attention; relisting is not only appropriate, but should be coupled with announcements at WT:AT. More to the point, this is why it's important to retain the ability for anyone, involved or not, to relist. There is simply no harm in delaying such decisions. In fact, the only harm is in hurrying decisions (by not allowing relisting by involved editors) so that a small non-representative group can retain their non-consensus opinion as seeming dominant in a given discussion. --B2C 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Let us suppose that an uninvolved editor closes a move discussion... and an involved editor immediately goes and starts a second nomination with the rational "Not enough people were involved in the first discussion". Would people say this is OK, or would you consider it disruptive? Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This scenario wouldn't apply. In that case, one involved editor told an uninvolved closer to revert closure under pressure. Then another involved editor relisted it; one uninvolved editor reverted irrational relisting. Then another uninvolved closer legitimately closed it, and there are no objections. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the question, that depends on amount of comments, off-thread discussions, and motive. George Ho (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar (talk · contribs), I would say it is OK to immediately start a new discussion on an issue that was closed as "no consensus" (on the theory that consensus develops through discussion), but many seem to believe that is disruptive. But relisting simply means leaving open, another 7 days, a discussion about which there has been no closure.

George Ho (talk · contribs), there are objections. I'm objecting. --B2C 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I see, the prior closer didn't relist the discussion, but left the decision to someone else. The involved relisted it without proper rationale, so I reverted it. Also, the discussion went on for almost a month before one reverted closure and one reverted relisting. The discussion went too stale, and no one made effort to notify projects about the discussion. George Ho (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the only time reverting of a relist might be justified is a second relist after no additional comments were made since the first relist. That was not the case here, and the rationale for the current title remains perplexing. --B2C 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Either talk to BD2412, who closed it, or create another move discussion. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Note, however, that the discussion at issue was open for more than three weeks, which is more time than a single relisting would allow. I would propose that any discussion can get one free relisting by any editor, no questions asked. I doubt people will do this disruptively, or where it is clear that the outcome will remain the same even with additional time. bd2412 T 22:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

George Ho (talk · contribs), my objection is not to the closing, but to the revert of the relisting. I mention that only because you claimed above that there was no objection to that revert, after I had already expressed objection.

I've started a new discussion about the title, though not a formal RM, at the talk page[4]. --B2C 22:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Relisting should be up to the closer, and a qualified closer may be involved editor as long as, per WP:RMCI, the involved is determining the consensus and timing neutrally. Why objecting the relisting by someone involved, who found majority's arguments weak? George Ho (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand it is your opinion that "Relisting should be up to the closer". I don't understand your reasons for holding that opinion. I've read what you wrote above, and none of it leads to the conclusion that "Relisting should be up to the closer", as far as I can tell. So, unless I'm missing something, anyone should be able to relist for any reason, simply because there is no downside to allowing that. The only exception might be when relisting a successive time after there was no discussion since a previous relisting in a case where consensus is in favor of the proposal, because allowing unlimited relisting would allow for indefinite delay of consensus-supported change in such cases. But if there appears to be no consensus, or consensus seems to oppose the proposal, since there is no difference in outcome whether the discussion is closed or relisted, there can be no harm in relisting. The potential plus-side is that something might come up to show there is consensus support for the proposal. Why inhibit that possibility? --B2C 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Relisting the sufficient discussion by non-closer is unfair to an experienced closer who can determine the discussion. I believe so because I saw someone reverting the effort previously. Well, someone involved tried that also in Talk:Charice Pempengco, but efforts were reverted. Fortunately, someone uninvolved relisted it, but there were no newer votes since, leading to "no consensus". --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Now you're arguing that "Relisting the sufficient discussion by non-closer" should be prohibited because it is "unfair to an experienced closer who can determine the discussion"? Seriously? Unfair to the closer? Now we're concerned with giving our closers "fair" access to closing discussions? And postponing the opportunity to close for 7 days is somehow unfair? This makes sense to you? That's the reason involved editors should not be allowed to relist open discussions that are in the backlog?

If you're talking about reverting a close, that's entirely different.

The issue here is any request that is in the backlog and has not yet been closed. Such a request is fair game for relisting (except for the exception case I noted above). Your objection makes no sense. Again, nothing you've said logically supports the conclusion that "Relisting should be up to the closer". What is the downside to allowing involved editors to relist? --B2C 00:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

To the bolded question, I must think of a downside. ...The possible one is the length of discussion. If it's lengthy, then there may be a consensus, and relisting is unnecessary. But, if length is irrelevant, another possibility is the involved person's goals and determination of comments. Is that person biased or neutral toward comments? Also, allowing so encourages other to think it's okay for anybody to relist the discussion and/or to disregard the comments made. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you have to try to think of a downside speaks volumes, not to mention that you really have to scrape to come up with a "possible one" like "length of discussion". The relisting does not per se increase the length of discussion, unless others have something to add which is presumably pertinent, in which case how is that a downside?

Your other "possibilities" are circular arguments. So what if the person is biased? Bias isn't necessarily bad. It may be neutral or even positive. In this case, unless the relisting is itself detrimental (and how could it be?), the relister being biased doesn't make it suddenly bad. And, yes, allowing anyone to relist does encourage others to think it's okay for anybody to relist. Which is fine, because it is fine for anybody to relist! If it weren't, then you'd have an argument. Simply pointing out that allowing anyone to relist makes others think it's okay for anyone to relist is not itself an argument against allowing anyone to relist. --B2C 02:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is reverting a relist bad then? Why did others revert a relist? Was it misinterpretation? --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think reverting positive or neutral-at-worst efforts is not good for WP (discouraging to others, if nothing else), and, again, I don't see how a relist is anything but positive or neutral-at-worst (except in the special re-re-list case I noted above). I have no idea why others reverted a relist, but I would discourage that, as I am doing here. --B2C 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

I'm pinging Raykyogrou0, User:In ictu oculi, and Red Slash about this, so they'll come here. --George Ho (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My view is unchanged, relisting is best left to uninvolved editors, I have never seen a justified relist by an involved editor and seen several bad ones. If it is in the backlog then the choice between close and not close (ie relist)　ｓｈｏｕｌｄ　ｂｅ　ｉｍｐａｒｔｉａｌ． In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• My view is unchanged. Relisting RMs is a waste of time. Relisting doesn't hinder an imminent close. Relisting doesn't attract attention, it in fact hinders attracting wider attention by keeping it out of the backlogged zone. If anyone has any partiality, they would be better advised to add a meaningful comment supporting their view. If their aim is to seek more input, they would do better to explain what input is desired, and why. It is much easier to give input by answering a question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I always look for new listings first. A relisted discussion would therefore be more likely to draw the attention of editors like me, and would still get your attention when it eventually does make it to the backlogged zone. Not everyone searches from bottom to top. bd2412 T 05:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do you make an extra effort on a relisted RM that you previously passed over? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I tend not to look at all at RMs for which the subject matter is unfamiliar, but the fact that something was relisted might make me curious to see what was going on there. bd2412 T 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds perfectly reasonable. Ideally, in my mind, the relists would be accompanied by a statement on why it is relisted, if not obviously due to lack of response. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• • • I'm not against having only uninvolved editors doing the relisting. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "justified relist" makes as much sense as "justified breath". That is, a relist is no more harmful than a breath and neither should require justification. --B2C 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Haha, wow, I just saw this. I was unsure if I had the authority as an involved editor to relist a discussion when I relisted one and got reverted by George Ho. Apparently I was right to be unsure. Apparently nobody else is sure, either. Here's my question. Should we just bag relisting altogether and just let requested moves fester in the backlog? No more relisting? In any other case, I don't see what problem there is with involved people relisting, as long as we make it clear that an admin (or anyone in a WP:SNOW situation) can early-close. (An example: say George requests a move of foo to foofoo. I provide a terse oppose; he responds, but I don't reply back for whatever reason. Nobody responds after a week, and George is concerned that an admin - or anyone - may well sweep in and close the RM as "not moved" which will not just keep the article there, but also make it more difficult to move the article later. George relists. Then BDD sees it, and instead of closing it, now analyzes the arguments and supports George's proposal. In ictu oculi does a Google Books search and supports. Wikiproject:Foo gets notified and six editors from the project all support, citing WP:MOSFOO. B2C comes by midway through the week-long relisting period and notes that there's no reason it shouldn't be moved. He closes and moves it. Nobody is hurt, nobody cries, nobody is injured, and the encyclopedia is hopefully improved.) Thanks for pinging my account, George Ho. Red Slash 09:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Relisting - Break 2

Perhaps the underlying problem here is the fact that RM discussions get moved to the backlog after only 7 days. Is that too short a time? Should the automatic backlogging be pushed back to 14 days? Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from RMCD bot operator – From a technical standpoint, I don't think that would be hard to do. Currently, the bot lists by date for just eight days, before entering the backlog section. The guidelines say that normal listing time is seven days before they may be closed. So items are just listed for one single day by date, day #8, when they are ready to close, but not yet in the backlog. We could have a recently entered the backlog section, where items are still listed by date—a section where items are ready to close but not ready to relist, and I think I could clearly indicate where this in-between listing-status section begins and ends. If that would be helpful. Not expecting it would be difficult to do. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of discussions are resolved within the initial seven days alloted. I would put it this way: allowing one free relisting by anyone is the same as saying that discussions can be kept open for fourteen days, but can be closed after seven days if no one objects at that time. bd2412 T 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes... keeping discussions open for 14 days is effectively the same as allowing one free relist... but there is one difference... if we keep unclosed discussions open for 14 days (with an option to close any time between 7 and 14), there is no longer any need for an involved party to initiate a relist... and thus no need for someone to object to their doing so. Effectively, nothing really changes (the end result is that the discussion remains open for an additional 7 days)... but this way we avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and the potential for arguments that result. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Except there are discussions that go longer than 14 days (Taiwan comes to mind), and justifiably so, so we would still need a relisting mechanism.

Frankly, I just don't see what problem there is with the current system, except that some people seem emotionally offended by the idea that an involved editor can relist. I don't doubt the visceral response they have, but I see no rationale for such an experience. I don't think we should be changing policy or guidelines to accommodate irrational emotional responses. Now, maybe there is a good reason to prohibit or inhibit involved editors from relisting, but, except for the very rare re-relisting delay-tactic case where there has been no discussion since the last relisting and consensus favors change (which can be managed by notifying any closer), if such good reason exists, it has not been expressed in this discussion so far as I can tell. --B2C 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Suppose we treat the expiration of the first seven day period like a PROD (which anyone, including an interested party, can remove at any time and for any reason, including no reason at all). If no one relists, the discussion is over; if anyone relists, the discussion continues until day 14, when it is definitively over unless an uninterested party can offer a really good reason to continue it. bd2412 T 19:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Even for that, I call WP:CREEP. In many cases relisting a 2nd or 3rd time is appropriate. We should just be clear that anyone can relist because there is no reason to prevent anyone from relisting, and if consensus is clear then any discussion can be closed even if it's not in the backlog yet (perhaps because it was relisted).

If perpetual relisting and re-relisting by involved editors as a WP:Status quo stonewalling delay tactic in a case where consensus favors change is ever actually occurring, there is nothing to prevent anyone from contacting an admin to close per consensus. In no other case should relisting, and re-relisting, even indefinitely, matter. --B2C 19:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me counter that with a proposition that editors seeking to relist a second time or beyond should be required to articulate a reason why additional relisting is appropriate and likely to be beneficial to the discussion. I would also suggest that if the purpose of relisting is because of a lack of participation, then that relisting should be accompanied by notification to relevant projects. bd2412 T 19:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When I was active doing closes of these, I recall getting some feedback that relisting a second time was not desired. If a discussion went that long it was likely a no consensus. Of course that ignores those discussions where the discussion is still active. So requiring a justification for a second relisting would seem like a reasonable option. But should 2nd relistings be restricted to not involved editors/admins? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If 2nd relistings could ever cause a problem somewhere somehow, then maybe they should be restricted to not involved editors/admins. But since they're harmless, it's just CREEP to restrict them.

They're harmless because they don't prevent closing where consensus favors change, and they have no effect in all other cases (where there is no consensus or consensus opposes change, whether the discussion is closed or remains open, the result is the name: no change). --B2C 20:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's still WP:CREEP. What is the benefit to WP to ever require a relisting to have to be justified? Relisting causes no harm. Even in a case where consensus favors change, relisting for no reason other than delaying the change is inconsequential because consensus favors change, and so the discussion can be closed and the move made. In all other cases relisting has absolutely no effect except maybe allowing for more discussion. So what? --B2C 19:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's WP:CREEP if there is a community consensus that some degree of limitation should be put on the ability to relist discussions. Clearly there are a fair number of editors (with whom I disagree) who think that involved parties should be barred from relisting at all. I am not suggesting this, nor that relistings be capped at one, but that second relistings or more be accompanied by some reasoning that goes beyond adding the word "relisting" to the discussion header. Furthermore, there is an additional problem that can arise from too many relistings, which is an unnecessary cluttering of the WP:RM page itself. bd2412 T 14:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that the opinion that there should be some degree of limitation on the ability to relist RM discussions exists and is arguably fairly prevalent among the few of us here participating. But that's not community consensus - far from. What is entirely unknown, so far as I can tell, are the reasons for that opinion. I note that neither you nor anyone else has addressed any of the questions and points I've asked and raised.

In particular, what harm is there in relisting in general? Because if relisting is harmless (as I contend it is as nobody can explain what might be harmful about it), then what does it matter who relists or why?

We all know that power corrupts, and there is no reason to believe that that social principle does not apply on WP. What if the only reason that motivates people to want limitation on relisting is power-grabbing control? I'm not saying it is, I'm just throwing that out there as a hypothetical example of what might be the reason. It can be any number of other dubious reasons as well. Do we really want to set rules based on JDLI arguments - arguments not based on sound reasoning and explanation in terms of bettering WP? I, for one, think not. Absent an explication of reason for having limitations on relisting, I suggest it's reasonable to assume the only reasons are of the dubious JDLI variety. --B2C 21:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New maintenance template for move reverts.

I have created Template:Movereverted to make it easier to explain to reverted editors why their page move required discussion. The template, {{movereverted}} calls the following message:

---

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of a page has been reverted so that the move may be discussed. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Please note that any move of a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links should be considered potentially controversial, and likely to be contested. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you.

---

An additional parameter is available for the article name, {{movereverted|Foobar}}:

---

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Foobar has been reverted so that the move may be discussed. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Please note that any move of a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links should be considered potentially controversial, and likely to be contested. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you.

---

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 January 2014

Groovy. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we want to encourage unexplained reverts, which this template in this form arguably does. Since there is nothing wrong with non-controversial moving of pages without using RM, I suggest a required objection explanation parameter. That is, only someone who objects to a move should revert a move, and in that case they should explain the objection. For further explanation of this thinking, see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". The documentation of the template should add that the explanation should cite policy/guidelines that are alleged to have been violated by the reverted move. --B2C 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It is often the case that what seems perfectly obvious to one editor might not seem so obvious to another. I think it is a perfectly valid reason to revert an undiscussed move in order to make the non-obvious more apparent. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I have tweaked the language of the template a bit. I have no strong objection to a "reason" parameter, but I don't think it is necessary, since the template already cites the WP:RM language that a move must be discussed if there is any reason to believe it may be contested. No reason is needed beyond an editor feeling that the move should be discussed, even if they agree with it. bd2412 T 14:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Capital Hill or Capitol Hill ?

A recent RM discussion did not settle the issue of whether the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands is "Capital Hill" or "Capitol Hill". The discussion continues, so please weigh in at Talk:Capital Hill, Saipan if you care. —  AjaxSmack  22:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion concluded, and settled on Capitol Hill, Saipan. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Central East Africa

Can someone close this request? It ended up as a merger poll that resulted in a merger outcome (to be merged) at Talk:East Africa. That turns the move request into a moot decision, as content will be moved to the article article through a merge. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for resolving this -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

United States Public Policy talk page archive number 1

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/archive 1

Can an admin please merge the talk page history of these two together to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1? Future archiving will go to the 2nd archive, so this one is now only historical in nature, but for uniformity and standardization, name of the archive should be upper-case "A" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Can a nominator vote?

Hi, I would like to know whether a nominator of a RM can also vote within the discussion? I have always thought this is fine as I have seen this common practise on AfDs therefore assumed this would also apply to requested moves, merges etc. However, on Talk:Tony_Adams_(footballer)#Requested_move another editor has said otherwise[5] and stricken my vote. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any explicit prohibition. It is generally presumed that a nominator supports a proposed move, however, that is not always the case. A nominator may merely be assisting another, or moving an entry from a contested technical request to a full discussion. As such, I see nothing inherently wrong about a nominator making their preferences clear; however, it would probably be helpful to clearly indicate they are the nominator (e.g., by saying Support as nominator), such that any !vote counters don't inadvertently double-count. older ≠ wiser 15:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and a relevant note at the bottom of the WP:RM/CM section currently reads: Nominators may add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, adding "as nominator" (for example, * Rename, as nominator: ...), or allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. benmoore 16:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the nominator !voted when they made the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As I explained, that's not always the case, and I see little benefit to sanctimoniously striking someone else's vote based on an interpretation of the guideline. older ≠ wiser 20:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• A nice style, sometimes used, and worth considering whether it should be recommended, is where the nominator makes a clear, neutralish proposal, followed up by an explicit !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As SmokeyJoe has pointed out, this was exactly my intention. In reference to Bkonrad's and Ben Moore's suggestions, can someone please amend my edit to Support per nom or Support as nom, or whichever is appropriate? I would do this myself but muchI prefer it if a third person was to do this. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done benmoore 11:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor's 'support' !vote and comments should have been made in the opening nomination. Yes you can get neutral nominations but they are few & far between. GiantSnowman 11:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree in theory, but since RfC's require neutral proposals, it's not THAT surprising to see people do RMs as if they required a neutral proposal. Old habits die pretty hard. Red Slash 04:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Meh. First, since !votes are not votes, literally, voting multiple times should not be an issue. Second, noting that you're the nom is customary in any subsequent !vote comments.

In any case, stating that the nom is not allowed to !vote is incorrect. --B2C 21:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rights to finish a technical move

I just came here to ask for a technical move (because I got an error when trying a regular one). Then I tried to click "move" and could finish my own request. Didn't expect that.. (think I've tried that a long time ago and couldn't). That's cool, everything seems ok. I just ask why didn't it succeed in the first place? Did I get privileged permissions in the meantime that I didn't ask for? If I have them why do I have to come here for extra work (for logging?)? comp.arch (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Was Nonfinite verb a red link? Any autoconfirmed user should be able to move to a red-link title, and you should have been autoconfirmed a long time ago. You would also be able to move over a redirect if the redirect had never been edited. "User error" is my best guess, unless an admin had recently deleted the title in response to a WP:G6 request, but then the administrator would usually complete the move. Per this 13 October 2013 diff, the title had been changed months ago in the article body, as this change had stood the test of time, I agree that it was a good technical move. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if Nonfinite verb was a red link. Came to the page from Non-finite verb (that I then edited to "Nonfinite verb" in that page). Thanks for answering. I now see that Non-finite redirects to the same page (is that a good idea, that is, could it refer to something else?), if that is ok, probably Nonfinite should too. comp.arch (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-finite is just a dictionary word; I made it a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. I'd just leave Nonfinite be as a red link.

I'm not sure removing the hyphen is a good idea, as usage is mixed. Google Ngram Viewer indicates that "non-finite verb" is the more common name, and the gap between the two is widening in favor of the hyphen. The verbal noun article still uses a hyphen. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Gemini film move

What I can understand here— 2 Indian films named "Gemini" were released in 2002 — Tamil and Telugu. Now editors are trying to move Gemini (2002 Tamil film) → Gemini (2002 film). And to make their way clean, they have moved the other article without any discussion. I feel this is incorrect to move an article just to smooth another RM. Even if it is not so, as the first move is being presented as a "point" in the second article's RM, I feel they should follow RM procedure in the first article too. Tito☸Dutta 21:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

When naming articles, as long as the article in question is a general topic, the most common name is used. But, since this is a film, I firmly believe that the title should be as in the film's title card. And evidence have been provided proving the same. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 04:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:UCN apply in all cases. It doesn't matter what the title card says, since we have stuff like Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope which is currently residing at Star Wars (film). Similarly other films also reside at their common names not their official ones or title card versions. The Studio renamed the first Riddick film to Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black, but our article still resides at Pitch Black (film) -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made my point. Its the admin who have to take a call now. If my earlier move violates any policy, it can be reverted. But don't hold me accountable for I believe in Be Bold -- Sriram ^{speak up} 05:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Don't misinterpret WP:BOLD. And even if you think that that was a "BOLD" move, BRD is above "WP:BOLD". Two editors, 70. . . and I oppose the move, I'll revert your move soon unless no one else posts here. Tito☸Dutta 17:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'm good. Just wanted to convey 'assume good faith'. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• In passing, this is the sort of move discussion where uploading a Telugu film poster via WP:File Upload Wizard would benefit the Gemeni (film) article as much or more as a title/RM discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But the words in the poster are in Telugu! -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

At the article's talk page, there is a youtube link to the film itself where the title as it appears in english can be verified. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Got an image here -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And one here. The thing is, every image with the english name has the site logo. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost every poster has the english name which spells 'Gemeni' -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Handling COI in RM closures?

If a move request gets closed and there are concerns about conflict of interest (and it hasn't been possible to resolve it with the closer on his talk page), is that an appropriate matter for an MR? I hesitate to go that way, since the instructions say that an MR is not to focus on the person who closed the discussion. Some other process may be more appropriate – I'm just not sure what that would be. Thanks for any suggestions! ╠╣uw [talk] 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cross-posted here. benmoore 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you might mean at Wikipedia talk:Move review#Clarification/advice... anyway, it's (also?) cross-posted there, and an uninvolved editor (not me, I'm involved in the discussion in question) has already replied there. Andrewa (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

admin help needed: revert controversial undiscussed move...THEN an RM (if ever)

Please see Talk:Stawamus#Requested move and note my most recent post there; reliable sources are being demanded to move the article back to where it was created at, but no reliable sources were used to move the article in the first place; what ones have been provided in the current discussion are also not about the topic at hand. The other guideline invoked by the speedifier (User:Kauffner was WP:UE....but, um, "Stawamus" is no more English than "Sta7mes" is. The fallacy being inflicted upon indigenous placename and other articles as with Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish is that Wikipedia is in English; but Squamish isn't an English word or name either. In any case, this move was undiscussed and should have been reverted immediately; perhaps my error in using an RM to move it back to where its creator and principal author created it at, rather than to seek admin reversion and let "anglifiers" try and prove their case with the reliable sources they are demanding from us that their preferred version of the name is in fact what the community calls itself, and isn't just a pastiche notion of "more English" because of all the toponyms based on the "anglicized" (and mispronounced) version of the name which is, yes, common in the area. Or should this be at Move Review: but that's for RMs huh? I should have taken Talk:Squamish people#Requested move there as it was seriously flawed - and too hastily closed (7 days) despite major namespace collision issues - and shouldn't have bothered starting Talk:Squamish people#Requested move 2, which is seeing all the same misconceptions and other issues that tainted the first one so badly. I'm also seeing that undiscussed moves of such kind which should be reverted immediately and shouldn't have to be RMd to get back to the original, abound....Talk:Owekeeno people#Requested move is another, Talk:Carrier people#Requested move is another, and then there's Okanagan people which used to be at Syilx and was speedy-moved by the same editor (Kwami) who also did a whole bunch of others all some if not most of which were successfully, finally, reverted back to where they belonged, by hard-fought RMs, but which should never have been at RM at all. Now, I'm told that my "walls of text" mean that people don't read what I have to say; that's weak and is, to me, just evasion. That such undiscussed moves are numerous and that the issues around them are complex mean that short explanations are impossible; speedies on the other hand are done with only a one-line justification....very often wrong or mistaken as with Sta7mes/Stawamus, Wuikinuxv/Owekeeno, Dakelh/Carrier and more.... and in asking for admin intervention before in the wake of such undiscussed speedies, done en masse no less, I get no response. Why is that? Anyways with Stawamus it should be reverted; for an obstructionist intervenor to demand reliable sources to move it where it belongs when none were provided to do the move is the reverse of what should be being done. How many other "English" indigenous titles are going to be turned into "English" (that isn't in fact English) without citation by speedy and have to yet face RM? Why should umdiscussed speedies be so easy, and remain unreverted, while RMs to revert them - which should be unnecessary - are regularly faced by difficult and obstinate demands and attitudes that are, to put it briefly, pointedly obstructrionist in character...and often full of more misconceptions and shoddy citation reading than the original speedies? Shouldn't there be a better mechanism to revert speedies than RMs demanding citation/guideline-following that the speedy itself didn't face?Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The bold move was made over two years ago - at this point, it can be judged to have at least some consensus and shouldn't be overturned solely on the basis of it having been undiscussed. If it had been done more recently (like in the past week or so), then rolling it back would be a good option, but that's not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

negligence is not consensus....and how many people look at the content of Category:Squamish people regularly enough to have caught this in time? Is it so easy to change obscure articles' titles and hope no one sees the citation-less move for long enough that it becomes de facto. And I gotta repeat? WHAT Consensus? And what citations? Other than this particular case, there are others where the speedy was caught, if not within days, but within weeks or months, and were not reverted, even though no citations were provided and, as in this case, an error as to what the name is even pronounced like and what it refers to was made. Stawamus is a common name on the local landscape, but it is not used for this community, and the community's name is pronounced differently than all the other "Stawamus" items out there.....so when is a consensus without information backing it up valid? For as long as it can stay unnoticed by people who know the subject matter....and then they will demand citations to resist any RM to move them back, as happened with all the St'at'imc/Ktunaxa etc cases last year......I see recklessness, a lack of research/citation, and not a small bit of arrogance in such moves....and in this case "anglicizing" it amounts to chauvinism...which as others have pointed out to me is in fact built into many ofthe "we don't care" guidelines in MOS....why is that exactly? This was not a heavily trafficked article, where the notion of many observers not commenting so agreeing might constitute consensus. What the latest proposal is now is to delete it entirely, if a suitable name acceptable to those hostile to native language spelling cannot be found (well, one has been found, and it's centuries-old, but it's been rejected out-of-hand). And from my userpage, this axiom is a propos "a consensus of fools is only foolishness".Skookum1 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You may not see it as fair, but that's how Wikipedia usually operates. Yes, there is some advantage to the bold mover if no one reverts the move in a timely fashion, but there has to be some statute of limitations on what constitutes a "revert of a bold change". At some point, the bold change becomes the most recent stable version, and I think 2+ years certainly meets that threshold. Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

....Even though (a) the cites used to justify it, including in resistance to changing it back, are demonstrably the wrong cites and (b) the PRIMARYTOPIC of the title is definitely not what it's supposed to be. So let me get this straight...someone can move an obscure article by fiat, and if no one notices then that change is gonna stick even if it's wrong? And existing conventions in the same category and topic area can be ignored, and only COMMONNAME used a bludgeon without even having to adequately cite it? That the wishes of the original creator, who also happens to be a published expert in the field, can be ignored in favour of a unilateral move by someone who (a) can't even cite the place properly and (b) has no idea what or where it is?Skookum1 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are edits on talk page automatically copied here?

I realized I made a mistake in my original posting for Lake Manassarovar and edited its talk page with the change. From the info message at the top of this current discussions page, though, it's not clear whether such copy edits get propagated back here. Do they? If not, what is the correct procedure to fix something significant? (I did it manually, just in case) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The bot rewrites the entire page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions every 15 minutes, more or less. Whatever manual updates you make to that page wil be reverted by the bot. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

How to keep formatting?

In my RM of Lake Manassarovar (Lake Manassarovar), I used bullet formatting to structure the statement, but this formatting doesn't work in the text that got copied to this current discussions page (because all the newlines get stripped out, causing the text from the next point/paragraph to run up against the previous without a space). Is there a way to preserve this formatting? If I manually edit it here, will it be preserved (and should I)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lengthy rationales of this sort, including links and/or bullet points and other formatting, are best summarized in your main reason text. Then the longer, formatted reason(s) can be added as additional comments in support, by the proposer, which will not be copied to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions by the bot. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

While on this topic, take a look at the main page at the bottom. An editor heavily edited several overly long nominations and now the bot can't figure out when they were nominated. This needs to be fixed. I was tempted to undo the edits, but somehow that does not seem right. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. Really, a 100+ title requested move should probably be discussed on the talk page for the appropriate naming convention, and once the naming convention is changed then these could all be technical requests. Just my opinion. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. The nominator is trying to rename a bunch of articles on this subject. I suspect without success from the comments I have looked at. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Grindrod, British Columbia → Grindrod withdrawn

I withdrew this just after posting the RM by striking out what's on the talkpage and commenting that a dab page is needed because of people with the surname which I only noticed on the search page after the RM template went through.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:.shabaka

A few more eyes from editors familiar with our requested move and title policies would be appreciated here. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 17:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A new version of Template:Requested move is now live

We are now in beta test of a new version of {{Requested move}} which uses the new Module:Requested move for improved error checking. The change should be transparent to users. More new features are on the way, and I will be updating the documentation soon. Kudos to Mr. Stradivarius for writing the new module. Please report any issues you may find here. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Talk:Comox people#Requested move

All participants in the new, second RM on Comox at Talk:Comox people#Requested move agree that Comox, British Columbia, including the nominator should be included in that RM, and also that it should be undabbed per PRIMARYTOPIC; but it was prematurely closed by a non-admin user; curiously Comox was relisted less than a week after the previous RM was closed; rather that MoveReview it, there is now consensus that it is a factor in the current RM and should be included. What the procedure to do that is I don't know, but seems moot because the nominator himself now agrees to its inclusion as well as re the PRIMARYTOPIC being the town, which should be undisambiguated per WP:CSG#Places.Skookum1 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Talk:Bella Bella, British Columbia#Requested move

When I launched this, I overlooked including the Bella Bella dab page, the existence of which Vegaswikian suggests is proof there is no PRIMARYTOPIC. The dab page should be added to the RM, I don't know how to do that, and please note my google searches on Talk:Bella Coola, British Columbia#Requested move and Talk:Lillooet, British Columbia#Requested move which are closely related in context. Such PRIMARYTOPIC challenges are all non sequiturs and easily disprovable as it is a given that Canadian usages referring to the towns are going to overwhelm all other "global usage" citations, despite protestations that Canadian English usages do not override allegedly "global" common usages, which makes no sense at all as Canadian English IS part of global English. And, er, what usages are numerous enough internationally to overcome millions of this for the town-usages as are MOSTCOMMON in Canada? That argument I've made on the Bella Bella and Bella Coola RMs, so will leave off about that, other than to say the knee-jerk demands for "proof" of PRIMARYTOPIC in all such cases is obstructionist, especially when it's very simple to google "Bella Bella -wikipedia" and have a look. Another very similar though slightly more complicated one is Saanich where there is no formal RM as of yet but it seems there will be as my attempt to remedy the situation on my own was reverted and I was slapped down for it as violating procedure. Sigh. I'm busy for the next few hours but will file one there later, even though WP:CSG#Places is very clear and googlehits are going to easily demonstrate the case for the move based on PRIMARYTOPIC.Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Re the Atlin RM - this should have been relisted, not closed as there is NO OTHER possible PRIMARYTOPIC

With only one groundless "oppose" that is word for word what Vegaswikian has posted on a dozen other related RMs, at least, concerning which User:Floydian commented on the parallel Lillooet RM "The nay'sayers here have very weak rationales, mostly consisting of IDONTLIKEIT by putting reverse onus on the person with local knowledge to verify your doubts from an international perspective. If you are not familiar enough with the various terms to be able to say without a doubt that "This is" or "This isn't" the primary topic, then your reasoning will be poor at best... because you don't know any better.....[stats].....Some of the editors in this discussion and the many related and prior discussions need a good trouting for resting their laurels on ignorance."

Thanks to the view results tool employed by Floydian on the Lillooet RM, such by-rote opposition in the Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Saanich and Comox people RMs (where the town article is on the table despite being relisted, and had just had a similar non-admin closure, now all have viewer stats supporting what is to a Canadian the obvious PRIMARYTOPIC; as of earlier today these stats are also on the new Tsawwassen RM.

Though named for the lake, Atlin is a highly notable town in Canadian history, the focus of the next-largest gold rush to the Klondike in its day, drawing 10,000-15,000 men overnight through bizarrely difficult mountain passes, including 80% of the workforce on the Yukon & White Pass Railroad, and was a key component of the competing territorial claims in the Alaska Boundary Dispute becauase of that rush and is the only town in its region of any size at all (such as it is; there really are no other towns south of the 60th Parallel - the BC/YT boundary - until you get to Stewart very far to the south, or Telegraph Creek, very far to the southeast) - that region being larger than a good dozen or two US states; the electoral district and the Atlin District (a mining district and a term which also refers to the whole part of BC north of the Stikine basin and west of the Liard basin) are both named for the town, not the lake; and none are primarytopic candidates.

• "Atlin, British Columbia" had 885 views this month (March)
• "Atlin Lake" had 462 views
• "Atlin Mountain" had 197 views; named for the lake
• "Atlin Provincial Park and Protected Area" had 136 views; named for the lake and/or the town/district
• "Atlin District" had 256 views; named for the town
• "Atlin Road" had 201 views; named for the town, its terminus
• there is no corresponding ethno article (yet) for the Aa Tleinn kwaan of the Inland Tlinkit; their name in any case is from the lake, and not spelled "Atlin" when used in English.
• perhaps fittingly given this needless fracas, that name translates "big water" in the sense of "big winds and waves" i.e. "lake of storms" in Tlingit

Atlin should be at least relisted, better yet it should be overturned by someone who does not rationalize a bad call as "subjective" when objective evidence abounds, as well as who does not respect/GF "local expertise" vs a "no proof" spurious objection from someone who's never heard of the place. CONSISTENCY re other town-titles and WP:CSG#Places are very, very clear, and were ignored by the opponent and the closer both; the close was improper, and the fuss and rigamarole of Move Review should not be necessary; nor should having to dig out stats for any of these have been needed simply because one editor has a complete lack of GF towards the proponent, who is acting on the consensual mandate of CANSTYLE, CANTALK, TITLE and more, and who happens to have expertise, a factor which seems regarded as less and less of value around here; even derided.

This RM I thought had time for proper debate, and did not reckon on a premature close based only on the sole challenging vote and was busy elsewhere - quite frankly I was too busy compiling stats to combat Vegaswikian's other host of opposing votes to get back to this one and was both surprised and a bit shocked to see it closed so wantonly and hurriedly with no time to respond. So many spurious and easily-disprovable "oppose" votes from the same editor, so little time....this should be relisted or overturned; the instructions to discuss the matter with the closer given his smug reply to my objections to his similar close of the Comox town RM "We obviously differ on where to draw the line on reasonableness. That's expected, since the judgment is ultimately a subjective one. Fortunately, we now have Wikipedia:Move review, just for disputing move request closures. Enjoy!".

Yeah, sure, like a guy like me is gonna have any luck at at all at Move Review huh, which is more about talking nice and saying "please sir, can I have another RM" than the reasons that the closer, and the "oppose" votes, were wrong? Indeed, it is a subjective decision, and not objective at all.....and skewed by a meaningless and pointedly hostile and too-repetitive "nay" vote from the same editor who discounted the town of Squamish in last year's only-7-days close on the Skwxwu7mesh RM, granting PRIMARYTOPIC to the ethno article even though the same view stats tool as above demonstrate that the town IS the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Squamish". Yes, you do hear the sound of axes grinding; you also hear the sound or RMs slamming shut repeatedly on contested town-as-primary-topic RMs, with Atlin, Comox and Squamish left in abeyance "until next time" but all others passed in favour of the unique town name.

That "Enjoy!" (re the Move Review process) strikes me as both tart and smug, and by now it's clear that Vegaswikian's campaign to oppose re PRIMARYTOPIC on nearly any RM I file is "disruptive" and not appropriate behaviour in RMs. There is an underlying POV subtext of this opposition which is obvious to those how know the overall context of all these disputes, but which those demanding I produce "proof" when they do not even say what the other primarytopic might be is. In this case, "Atlin", I fail to see any other PRIMARYTOPIC for teh stand-alone title; Atlin Lake certainly is not it (anyone notice it's, um, two words?).

So go head, whomever, TLDR this and continue in your unwillingness to learn about topics and titles you presume to pass judgment on and "votes" based on nothing but IDONTLIKEIT and IDONTLIKESKOOKUM1, also.

People should read the articles and the sources before voting on such matters IMO, or casting "blind" oppose votes as if by bot across dozens of articles; the same proviso should be the responsibility of the closer, admin or not. Uninformed decision making is become the BANE of Wikipedia and is entirely against WP:COMMONSENSE.Skookum1 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There were only two people to comment on the discussion (you as the nominator) and Vegaswikian - either relisting or closing as no-consensus are both acceptable courses of action. You are of course free to re-nominate it in the hopes that it garners more attention the next time.

Regardless, I'd advise that a barely 2:1 margin in favor of the town over the lake (and not even a majority of total views for all entries of the dab page) is not strong enough to meet the requirements of a primary topic. At least in discussions I've participated in, an order of magnitude seems to be the minimum threshold. See for instance the recent move for George Zimmerman, which had a much wider margin between that page and the alternatives. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RMCD bot on overdrive

RMCD bot has re-placed notifications of the closed indigenous peoples' bulk RMs on a few pages lately; how does it get shut off? I notified the talkpage at the bot, figure it's best I do that here once I saw these:

• (diff | hist) . . b Talk:Hän people‎; 23:58 . . (+341)‎ . . ‎RMCD bot (talk | contribs)‎ (Notifying of move discussion)
• (diff | hist) . . b Talk:Tahltan people‎; 23:58 . . (+341)‎ . . ‎RMCD bot (talk | contribs)‎ (Notifying of move discussion)

Both of those happen to have open individual RMs, but that's not what the bot is notifiying about, but RMs which were BATHWATER closed weeks ago.Skookum1 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Re those current RMs, both have been closed with the needless dab removed (which was the subject of the bulk RMs that got tossed out also). The bot notices are since then.Skookum1 (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I responded at user talk:RMCD bot#bot on overdrive on a closed RM. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

changing EToro to eToro

the name of the compeny is eToro and not EToro, can we change that? TNX Orfia (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of displaying it in lower case. I have changed that. Sw2nd (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

TNX! Orfia (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for finding an non-involved admin

Hi folks - sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I couldn't think of anywhere better. I started a move discussion (Talk:Halifax_Regional_Municipality#Requested move 2014), and the discussion is reaching the end of the suggested minimum 7-day period, and appears (to me, at least!) to be arriving at near-consensus - only one dissenting opinion. However, I'm obviously not a disconnected editor, and I probably have neither the skills nor the rights to do this move, even if I was. My question is: "How do I find such a person?" Thanks in advance for any advice! AshleyMorton (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sea of bold

This section is awash wish bold text which makes it hard to follow. Could this be streamlined at all? Perhaps the use of bullets or a numbered list to outline the various options for different situations, to reduce the reliance on bold text? —sroc 💬 15:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I toned it down some by changing the internal section links from bold to italics, and unboldfaced some of the shouting of instructions. Of course we already have a section Wikipedia:Requested moves#When not to use this page which already uses bullets and bold. I'm not happy about the note about (Republic of) Ireland articles in the lead section, and will look into a solution for that. Is it better now? Let me know if you have any more specific feedback about anything that's not clear. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Much better. I've made some minor revisions as well. With our combined efforts, I think it's much clearer and easier to follow now. Thanks! —sroc 💬 14:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, shouldn't the footnote about Ireland articles be in a separate "Notes" section at the end of the article? Perhaps using the footnote text ^{[Note about Ireland articles]}? I realise the lead is transcluded, but isn't this the only page that calls it? —sroc 💬 14:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved the notice about Ireland titles from the RM lead section to the closing instructions, where the intended audience should still see it. A more robust outright block on using {{requested move}} on these three talk pages is technically possible, if consensus demands that. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs moving?

Hi, just in case someone who understands the procedure can do something with this...

It seems that Talk:Kalgoorlie, Western Australia got "left behind" and should go to Talk:Kalgoorlie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.61.186 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 May 2014

•  Done Cheers! bd2412 T 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving a part of an existing page to a new page

Dear,

I do not know how I can move a part of an existing (too long) page to a new (separate) page.

It has indeed be suggested and agreed that the section The Bruckner Problem of the page Anton Bruckner would be moved to a separate page called "The Bruckner Problem". See Proposal: move the Bruckner problem material to a separate article.

Please let me know how I have to proceed for doing it.

Thank you in advance for your help, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to do it, but I have not succeeded. See The Versions and Editions of Bruckner's Symphonies. Please help. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Meneerke bloem: You're on the right track. See Wikipedia:Splitting. You have the new detailed sub-article. Now, remove redundant text from the parent article, leaving just a summary of the sub-topic, per Wikipedia:Summary style. This is not something page-moving can handle. Copy-paste with attribution, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bird common name decapitalisation

As per the new MOS:LIFE guideline, forged by consensus, all animals, including birds, now should be listed at sentence case names. So, like, do we have one big massive move request? Is that necessary? My suggestion: find a team of administrators willing to blaze through and move Emperor Penguin to Emperor penguin and all the other birds that need to now be moved, and get work on that done as soon as they are willing and able to start working. (It has to be admins for reasons that I'm sure you all know well.) Red Slash 21:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've begun work on some of these, haphazardly. I'm willing to join a more systematic approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I submitted classical requests (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Articles requested moves) because I do not know other ways to move these pages. But I agree that a more organised and efficient approach directly involving administrators would be preferable. Coreyemotela (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

The RMs aren't really helpful; you're kind of wasting your time setting them up, others' time commenting on them, and then some admin's time in closing them. I'd recommend changing the text—all the text, not just the lede/taxobox—and then move what you can, and when you've done a bunch of them that you can't move maybe list them here or just say what taxon you did or something and then JHJ or myself or someone else can move the rest. That would be more efficient, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of preemptive drama and move war avoidance, I would suggest all such moves contain in their edit summary a link to the discussion: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation]]--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The direct link to the discussion is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation. The more systematic approach is discusssed on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What's needed?. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

Well, it is now. It wasn't when I wrote the post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Harbor Commons / New York Wheel

Harbor Commons previously contained both 'Harbor Commons' and 'New York Wheel' material. More than half of the content, and most of the edits, were New York Wheel specific. The 'Wheel' material has just been split to New York Wheel (which was previously a redirect).

The 'split' edits appears not to comply with WP:PROSPLIT (To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]".)

Bearing in mind the content/edit proportions, does the following course of action look appropriate?

• Revert Harbor Commons 'split' edit
• Delete New York Wheel
• Move Harbor Commons to (new) New York Wheel page
• Split 'Harbor Commons' material from (new) New York Wheel page to new Harbor Commons page in a manner compatible with WP:PROSPLIT

Asking here on account of the 'move' component. TIA. 180.183.4.79 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey 180.183.4.79. No need. All you need is two dummy edits, one at each page providing belated copyright attribution. See, e.g. here for an example.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Giant Markets

Talk:Giant Food Markets of Broome County, New York#Move? (17-26 March 2014) is overdue for closing. 82.132.217.154 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I re-opened the requested move, which had been improperly closed, albeit in good faith. Sorry, once the tag is removed from the talk page, the request fell off of our radar. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Portal renames

Can some people please look at Portal talk:Molecular and cellular biology where portals are being renamed after having failed to establish consensus? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not listing correctly

Looks like a signature that omits the talk line gets listed as unable to determine the time of the listing. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit? Actually, it was this edit and this edit that was needed to get the bot to recognize the time. A review of the edit history shows that it took three uninvolved editors, plus the nominator, to get that request corrected, all because the nominator failed to notice and follow the template instruction to Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. It's been on my back-burner for some time to make it so hard to use {{requested move/dated}} directly that only template editors like myself would be able to figure out how to circumvent the instructions. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne Hotel

Hello. I've removed a redirect which looked irrelevant. I'd like to move my userpage User:Zigzig20s/Melbourne Hotel to Melbourne Hotel, but because the page already exists, it won't let me. Can an administrator please do it for me? Thank you. Sorry--I don't know how else to ask after reading the project page; it's not clear at all...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No admin action needed. Move your page to Melbourne Hotel (Perth) and convert the page at Melbourne Hotel to a dab. The is no good way to determine which if any of these is the primary topic. I also suspect that there are other like named hotels that are notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Which ones? At the moment, the Melbourne Hotel page redirects to a hotel which is not actually named Melbourne Hotel at all (though it used to be named that way). So the current redirect seems irrelevant. We have here a hotel actually named Melbourne Hotel however, so I don't see why it shouldn't occupy this page...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Vegaswikian that this redirect should become dab & should not be used as the name for the new article. The redirect is not irrelevant as it provides a redirect for a researcher looking for the historic hotel in Florida by its original name. The new article should become Melbourne Hotel (Perth) as to not confuse anyone. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why, as that hotel in the US is no longer called the Melbourne Hotel. I think the hotel in Perth bearing this name should be found at Melbourne Hotel, with a see also line at the top for the American hotel (which is a detail). Wikipedia is not meant just for the USA.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many hotels in Wikipedia using the format of Hotel (Location) - it is a common technique used to avoid confusion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, but here we have a hotel bearing the exact name...It makes no sense to redirect this page to a hotel with a different name!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense as it avoids confusion to use a dab when there are two or more hotels with the exact same name, and identify each by some other characteristic. The fact that the name has changed is very relevant to the history and using a dab makes it easier on researchers, IMHO. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Nothing a hatnote can't fix. I have moved the userspace draft to Melbourne Hotel. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Melbourne Hotel (Perth) until consensus can be achieve per this discussion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

But your move really makes no sense as your hotel is NO LONGER named Melbourne Hotel??Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Your hotel"? Just because a hotel has been re purposed, does not mean it is not nor can be considered as the primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's use some common sense here. There are two articles on buildings that might be referred to as the Melbourne Hotel. Even under normal circumstances, a dab page is not required, but one of these articles doesn't even include Melbourne Hotel in the title. There is thus no conflict between titles, since no one is suggesting 1900 Building should be renamed. A simple hatnote will get readers to the other article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This seem to me a fairly clear cut case. The article on a topic actually and currently named Melbourne Hotel is the primary topic when what it is compared to is another topic actually known by a different title, that has not been its name since 1984, and for which there appears to be far less mention in reliable sources. The red link currently on the DAB page barely looms as figuring into the equation. The basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to existing Wikipedia pages (red links shouldn't even appear on DAB pages unless articles also include that red link and there are only three here; see MOS:DABRL). To top if off, the red link name is not even clearly ambiguous with the topic. Thus, WP:TWODABS applies; the article should be moved back to the primary title and a hatnote will take care of anyone searching for the old name of the 1900 building. It doesn't look like there will be many such people needing it for direction – which is the very reason why a hatnote is more appropriate than a DAB page here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed the same logic I used when I moved the draft to the undabbed location. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Any further commentary or should we restore the solution I had originally made? Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No further comments after more than a week, so I've restored the original solution. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Time between RMs

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Time between RMs

Should there be a minimum time between RM discussions? Specifically, a minimum time after a RM proposal failed to gain consensus before trying much the same thing again? I think there should be, because it is easily trolled and exhausting of participants, distracting to editors who would rather improve content, and because repetition causes people to instinctively dig their heels in. An exception would be new or different information to previous RMs. Otherwise, I think six months is reasonable, and has sort of been followed historically. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Six months seems to be pretty traditional, one downside of naming an exact number is it invites those dissatisfied with the previous outcome to try every X units of time. The other problem I see making it explicit is that if and when new information comes up that might change the result, people will toss out "But it hasn't been X units of time yet". There is also the difference between a non-conensus result and definitive earlier result. That all said, I actually agree six months is good time limit for the first retry, but might want to see if up to nine months or a year if that fails. I'd also add larger scope consensus changes as something that would allow a relist; such as an RfC that changed a guideline or policy, though in those cases the impacted pages in theory could be moved without an RM. And I would allow wrong venues to relist, for example an RM that involved a disambiguation page that neglected to notify all the related pages; and allow of course the move review process to send something back for relisting. PaleAqua (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  One other exception I'd allow is if an significant number of !voters change their view after an RM closes. PaleAqua (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Any "good reason" should be sufficient. However, how do you test whether !voters change their mind unless you have been continuing to discuss it? If you continually discuss it, then you bias results to favour those who are prepared to repeatedly "discuss" the same thing, and this is an off-putting behaviour. The counter-question is: "Is six months really that long?". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, any "good reason", not just new or changed information. Badgering/beating dead horse shouldn't be allowed, but it is possible for people to change opinions on their own. I know I have at times. Also a lot of times consensus builds over lots of separate but similar localized things into something generalized. PaleAqua (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral - closing admins often give guidance, 3, 6 or 12 months. These have been raised about 10 days back at WP:AN with the suggestion that a log/list of such closes should be made. To be honest I think it's working as is and doesn't need overregulating. Some RMs are poorly attended, or not seen, or something else happens elsewhere. Those RMs shouldn't be held to an iron 6 month rule. If it's the annual Burma/Myanmar, Hillary[Rodham]Clinton or Sarah[wife]Brown fest, well... those cases have plenty of article watchers saying enough is enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Setting a time limit does not really address the underlying issue - which is that it is disruptive to rehash the same arguments over and over again. Rather than pegging the filing of a second RM on some arbitrary passage of time, I think the deciding factor should be whether the proposer can bring something new to the discussion (something not discussed or ignored in the previous RM). Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with that. Perhaps a requirement that a repeat RM within six months of the last close must directly address that discussion, and state what is new about this new proposal? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why allow a rehash after six months? It's still disruptive to repeat the same arguments over and over... no matter how much time has passed.

Side Question... would it make sense to move this discussion to WT:RM? It is kind of peripheral to what this policy page is about. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The point here was to add something to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah... I understand. Then I definitely oppose... I don't think Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes is the right venue to discuss the issue. How much time should pass between RMs is a procedural question that is better stated at WP:RM. This policy is more focused on the "big picture" ... as long as we point to WP:RM (which we do), we can leave it to WP:RM to set its own procedures. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC) .

• • To help avoid repetition, a couple of times I've created frequently asked questions lists/summaries covering the arguments for the various positions being taken, so any new discussion can start with, "See the FAQ—do you have anything to add?" I think this helps a lot with perennial discussions. isaacl (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We should certainly discourage people from flogging a dead horse, but I don't think a general time restriction is the way to do it, given the wide range of potential circumstances. The rule would also be rather vague and difficult to apply, particularly the exception for "new or different information to previous RMs". You could virtually always argue that there was new information, such as how the person/thing/whatever has been referred to in sources published since the previous RM. Neljack (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm with In ictu oculi - namely, I think such moratoria are sometimes appropriate, and in such cases they are usually imposed by the closing administrator, in response to comments about a moratorium in the discussion they are closing. In other words, in such cases a moratorium is part of the consensus evaluated by the closer. It usually includes the caveat that the discussion CAN be reopened if new information becomes available or if someone comes up with a new argument. This is currently within closer/consensus discretion and should remain there. We don't need a rule saying that it SHOULD be done, or specifying the term length. Basically I strongly support maintaining the option of such a cooling-off period, but I oppose making it into a rule. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add the tradition to the this page. It only needs to be one sentence long eg:

While consensus can change, unless there is substantial new information to present, or the previous requested move was closed with another re-list time, wait at least six months before initiating an new requested move.

I disagree with user:In ictu oculi assumption that just because a RM is poorly attended that it should a reason to reopen a debate more quickly. I think user:Blueboar that many editors get caught up in such discussions and are worried that unless they keep rehashing their position, that their opponent will assume that silence is consent, so they continue to dance like a puppet on a string, when really all they want to do is move on to something more constructive. An explicit time-out rule like this would help to dampen down the fires. After a time consensus can change and new editors may enter the debate so rehashing the same points is not necessarily undesirable. What is undesirable is rehashing them before enough time has passed for a new consensus to emerge.

The six month moratorium is known to regulars at RM and is considered good practice, but may not be known to other less experienced editors (why should it be). Adding a sentence making the tradition explicit will still allow closers to give further guidance, but the default would be a time-out rather than the ambiguous situation we have at the moment which allows move warriors to feign ignorance of best practice and continue their campaign ignoring the outcome of an RM that the do not like. The most obvious example I know which would have benefited editors waiting at least six months between bouts is the great yogurt fight. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 113#Proposal to bar IPs and newly created accounts from restarting contentious discussions. PaleAqua (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as already supported at WT:AT, copied above. The six month moratorium on repeating much the same proposal, as is well known to regulars at RM, should be documented, as good practice, and to inform other less experienced editors. "unless there is substantial new information to present" seems to sufficiently contain most "good reasons" and even new arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving to common page titles

I have got the list of biographical articles. Many of them will require page moves, I think I wouldn't come here for every single page move. I would like to ask if moving a page like Bob Asher (American football) to Bob Asher (footballer) is alright and non-controversial. OccultZone (Talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely controversial, please do not proceed. American football players are never called "footballers" and therefore should not be disambiguated that way. Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Got the answer, thank you. OccultZone (Talk) 14:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What to do about an issue with a move when you aren't requesting a reversal?

I have two issues, one specific, and one general.

• My specific issue is documented in detail at Talk:List_of_birds_of_North_America#A_constructive_bird_suggestion, and also earlier in part at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#A_constructive_bird_suggestion. However, in summary, a seemingly potentially controversial name change has been made in a somewhat irregular manner, and, perhaps because it seems at least related to the Category namespace (though I don't think it's technically a category), it has created some additional work for me (fixing a double redirect resulting from it), and I'm concerned that it may do so for other editors (as well as possibly creating problems and/or irritants for ordinary readers). So I want to bring it to the attention of people with technical expertise in case there are wider problems with it, and perhaps technical fixes for them. But I'm not requesting a revert myself - others may have objections to the change, but I don't. I simply want to ask for technical help, which I am doing now, and then drop out of the picture, as I just stumbled across the problem by accident, and I have no real interest in the matter myself.
• My general issue is that your article either gives no advice to people in my situation on how to proceed, or alternatively does so in a manner that I was unable to even notice, let alone follow. Hence I have had to raise the matter here, even though this may well be the wrong procedure. Presumably such advice could be given in one or two sentences in the article (or could be better clarified or highlighted if it's already there). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down is appropriate when you have an issue but no actionable proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned two issues above, for both of which I made simple reasonable actionable proposals (a request for technical help and possible technical fixes on the specific issue, a request for a brief outline of the correct procedure on the general issue).

On the other hand your comment, which itself makes no useful proposal (I am already sitting down, and have no wish to have a cup of tea, and do not see how it would fix either issue if I did) will have no useful effect, but has already succeeded in wasting my time, creating a dispute where none previously existed, and making Wikipedia a more irritating experience for me than necessary (in the process unnecessarily reducing the amount of Wikilove that your linked article purports to be intended to increase). And it may succeed in making it more likely that my suggestions will be unnecessarily ignored, because of the false implication that I have made no actionable proposals, etc. However, I don't have time to engage in a pointless dispute with you about an issue which I already said did not greatly interest me, so having made my comments and having tried to draw the issues to the attention of anybody who might be able to do something useful about them (such as the two proposals already mentioned above), I am now taking this page off my watchlist in the hoping of avoiding further unnecessary time-wasting irritation.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if someone could rephrase your post for me, somehow I don't get it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all lists of birds by region are titled "List of birds of Fooland" rather than "List of Fooland birds" as per bird project guidelines. The single exception out of 100 plus lists was for North America. I raised this at MoS, since I have some battleground history there, was told that it wasn't an MoS issue, so I boldly moved it for consistency. I don't know why this is potentially contentious, since no one has objected (yet). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Jim's move was fine - double redirects happen all the time, there are bots that fix them, nothing to worry about. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What to do with old page histories that are required for attribution

Interesting discussion at Talk:Node of Ranvier#Page history of merged article that some watchers of this page might like to participate in. Jenks24 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No relisting of moves - suggestion

Should we just stop relisting moves? After thinking it over, I'm not sure why we don't just let them sit in the backlog till someone closes them. Red Slash 03:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

They should be relisted, because many times we don't have our knowledgeable(by subject) users online as frequently as the opener may have expected. I haven't seen the relisting as commonly as the relisting of Afd, and other disputes. But we can surely agree that there should be some discussion before the relisting of the subject. OccultZone (Talk) 03:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I find relisting very useful. For me it means "there is no consensus at the moment, but I think there's a reasonable chance that in the next week or so more commentators might come along thus helping us achieve a consensus". Bloating the backlog with discussions that aren't ready to be closed isn't helpful. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is highly useful in some particular cases. Mostly happens with BLPs. OccultZone (Talk) 11:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bulk undiscussed moves

I note in the description overleaf "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move". Presumably that occurs to undiscussed "BOLD" moves, and they should be subject to revert/discuss no matter how long ago those moves took place; you'd think so but there's this thing called inertia, and also narrow field of view compounds the problem. Because often enough, when bulk u.d./BOLD moved titles are used as examples of why not another one should not be moved back. Bulk RMs were objected to, individual RMs fought using that same argument, all to do with a sea of undiscussed moves ... many of them only simple redirects from unnecessary dabs.

About 5% of these, in my experience of the file histories of hundreds of them (thousands), or less, were not bulk moves; 95% were. So why is it that bulk BOLD moves are OK, but filing a bulk RM to revert them is not? Not that logic is any Wikipedia policy anywhere, and it's certainly not to be found in that dicey milieu known as "consensus". Often enough, it's even more absent from discussions in general. Rule-citing, without context and often mis-citing rules, however, is. Be that as it may, I've been ordered to not name names even though mine gets tossed around "a bit" wantonly, but be that as it may..... I've gone to RMs, been accused in ANIs that they were too many at once, a "frenzy of moves"...but why isn't this said about the "frenzy of moves" in 2010-2011? Those who know me or keep an eye on me or whatever know what I'm talking about or should by now.

So, if db-moves and technical requests are rejected because someone objects, does that make it "controversial" if the objection is not based in policy or logic??

Y'see, this line "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move" sure caught my eye just now..... fine, but what is someone disagrees unreasonably and without substance/mandate of actual policy, rather hand-waving that IDONTLIKEIT, as if that were enough. Particularly when that person doing the hand-waving is the one who did all the undiscussed BOLD moves in the first place, even going so far as to lobby to get guidelines changed to validate it even though many were moved before those rewordings were fielded, and the existence of those were used to validate the guideline rewordings as examples of "convention".

Whatever, I'm not expecting a logical response from some quarters (anything but) and likely someone will give me a tonguelashing over what is supposedy a DEADHORSE (actually it's a poisoned horse), but noting that line about "reasonably" the issue of what to do when someone is unreasonably objecting to straightforward technical moves based on policy (not on unsubstantiated claims of parallel primary topics, as dab pages were substituted recently in place of the redirects-to-disambiguated-title by the same editor who created those redirects).

I've heard talk of stability, and "stable at that title". Yet the titles in question were stable at their titles before the undiscussed BOLD moves were done, and since them, there being too many to address all at once, many with further dab issues and (often specious) primarytopic claims, they have, as a group, largely sat undiscussed, unreverted and hm I'd say over 90% or more are only redirects-to-disambiguated title.

Whatever; I've been avoiding logging in or doing much here since the last dress-down by someone who doesn't know the context and only sees the edit wars and the animosity and frustration that have made me nauseous of this place, or seeing that little "yellow" new messages thing; not always someone looking to dish out a whipping, but something I see too much in association with what I call harassment, but again, never mind that; I won't be around much, life calls me, I wasted too much of my life here and got shot in the face more than once for it.

The last round was all the crap I got for trying db-moves, as suggested to me, instead of the bearpit of RMs....consensus exists by precedent for a good 80 recent RMs that are of the redirect-to-disambiguated-title type, yet such consensus has been rejected unreasonably at guideline discussions, just as the logical placement of {{only-two-dabs}} on dab pages in substitution of those redirects was not only edit-warred over, and the intervening admin in that removed them, ultimately, saying they were "not constructive". Well, what is constructive if not a template recommended by a guideline specifically about that kind of page, "binary list as an excuse to try and make one topic seem equal to the other" by concocting false dichotomy to supplant the false/inconsistent/a-factual justifications used the first time around.

So if RMs are railed against as a "frenzy", and even misportrayed as undiscussed moves, while actual undiscussed moves en masse go completely unaddressed...... there is no process; there is only a veto one masking itself as "controversial". At one time that veto of one maintained its self-authored guideline was "policy", even though it was not coherent with policy and guidelines beyond itself; attempts to revise it have been met with the same obstructionism with which the RMs, and lately the db-moves, have had levelled at them.

Attrition through psychological exhaustion has taken its toll, and so the "winner" has successfully accomplished preventing any more damage to their "walled garden of undiscussed titles". And Skookum1 is leaving the building, though not yet slamming the door; this has become a futile place full of those righteous with the fire of the guidelines but bereft of logic and, all too often, the knowledge and open minds needed for a project such as encyclopedia-writing.

The text I mean, the content; not the vast sea of guidelines and policies that are increasingly somewhere between quicksand and a weapon, yet somehow wordings of guidelines are ignored or glossed over....as in the above case "someone could reasonably disagree with the move".......so what does "reasonably" mean anyway. In the twisted world of wiki-speak, does it include "unreasonably" also, in that being reasonable and factual, time and again, has been dissed as "POV". NPOV does not mean that truth and fiction should be given equal weight; nor does it mean wrong be considered the same as right. Or that style guides created within Wikipedia need not have bearing on the real world, yet because of Wikipedia's prevalence wind up having effects on the real world.

Reasonable/unreasonable...... seems to me that newspeak and newthink are entrenched within Wikipedia now, where words mean their opposite, and basic English phrases are regularly claimed to mean the opposite of what they do mean.

So, bulk undiscussed moves....what policy says they have to be recent to be considered for reversion? What policy says that policy should be ignored in any technical or formal RM on the basis of someone's unreasonable and/or unsubstantiated IDONTLIKEIT. If there's gonna be RMs, it should be RMs from the original titles, not the undiscussed ones, huh? Maybe bold/revert/discussed doesn't mean what it says either.

I am weary of the game, and the opponent I am forbidden to name can keep his ball and bucket and shovel; and the umpires can hold onto their bats, I'm bored with them too.

I'm just here fielding those questions and won't be around much. I live in paradise, have had quite enough of wiki-hell, and my guitar is calling me and a much more worthwhile way to spend my energies than being logical and consistent in a digital "place" where those (logic and consistency) are in "abundantly short supply".Skookum1 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't give any specifics, but, from a brief look at your recent edit history, yeah, I would assume that any title change of an article about "peoples", "tribes" or "riots" is potentially controversial. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have always understood the line about "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." to be a wise caution. It is essentially saying: Dear potential mover... Before being bold... think twice. If you can think of a reasonable reason not to move... it is likely that someone else will do so as well. In which case, you might as well take their opposition for granted. Skip right over the BOLD and REVERT part of the BRD cycle ... and go right to DISCUSS from the start. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Move Alcohol ic beverages — recommended maximum intake

Please delete Alcohol ic beverages — recommended maximum intake ("Alcohol ic" is a typo). Alcoholic beverages — recommended maximum intake already exist. --David Hedlund (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This request belongs at WP:RFD, not here. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverting disputed move Reply

Although this Requested Moves log has a Requests to revert undiscussed moves section to undo moves initiated against consensus, that section is empty thus far. At what review board or with which admin does one initiate that process in a case such as this, in which a single editor continues to unilaterally revert the long-stable version to his preferred version, against the expressed objections of other editors. He claims he is reverting to NPOV as if this were a content dispute, but the relevant point is that the article is being repeatedly moved despite it being recently stated on the talk page that such a move would be controversial and therefore a move request is mandatory. Presumably, the editor in question is reluctant to subject his preference to a move request, but surely that is no reason why the violation should be permitted to go uncorrected and the perpetrator's disruptive editing to go undisciplined? FactStraight (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You would just follow the instruction provided on the page and list it on that section for an admin to review. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging talk pages?

Two separate talk pages – Talk:Ransomware and Talk:Ransomware (malware) – exist for one page: Ransomware. How would I go about requesting a move or a merge for this? The requested move templates only recognize the mainspace page. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 22:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, can be tricky as there isn't always a clear answer as to what to do in these cases. Sometimes it needs a histmerge, sometimes a the old talk page needs to be preserved. Anyway, in this case I've simply moved Talk:Ransomware (malware) to Talk:Ransomware, deleting the old page that was there as no need to keep when the page it had previously been associated with had already been deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for the late reply. This was concerning a thread at WP:GAN where an article wasn't attributed as an good article because the talk pages were split. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 03:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:National_Social_Front

It seems to me that, after a week, it's a consensus for moving. --2.34.251.200 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Slow slicing

I think this article should be moved back to "Death by a thousand cuts", which it was originally named. Either that, or rename it to "Death by slicing" as suggested by User:SnowFire.

Copied from Talk:Slow_slicing#Name by SnowFire:

This article was moved in 2006 under the rationale " Death by a thousand cuts is not a very common translation for lingchi." But... that's missing point. This article isn't about what is the most precise translation for lingchi; it is about the practice as a whole. The title should be the name for the practice in English (which is not always a precise translation of the foreign term.). And it's not even clear if "slow slicing" is the best translation of lingchi, anyway.

I'd propose that the most common English term is the original article title "Death by a thousand cuts," but that's also something of a misnomer according to multiple sources. So if we picked that, it'd be totally on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. Luckily, I think "death by slicing" is both accurate and well-known. The 2008 book "Death by a Thousand Cuts" notes that:

"Called by Western observers “death by a thousand cuts” or “death by slicing" ( http://books.google.com/books?id=7TfWj_N6QXYC&lr=lang_en&source=gbs_navlinks_s )

Google scholar backs this up, albeit weakly:

• lingchi "slow slicing" (3 relevant hits; ignore the top one, it's blatantly a mirror of the Wikipedia article's text)
• lingchi "death by slicing" (6 relevant hits)

Various other sources seem to back it up as well. The most popular terms in English are "death of/by a thousand cuts" and "death by slicing." Anyway, unless someone objects, I will move this article to Death by slicing soon, since it doesn't seem to require a WP:RM. But I can open one if there's a desire. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I also opened this as suggested by SnowFire on User_talk:SnowFire#Name. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation and child articles

List of Clarence (2014 TV series) episodes (corresponding to the article Clarence [2014 TV series]) recently got moved to List of Clarence episodes (without any parenthetical disambiguation). The parentheses are necessary in the parent article since there already exists Clarence (1988 TV series). Is this move for the list article correct? Would there be any confusion with a list of episodes of the 1988 series, even though such a list currently doesn't exist? – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing instructions

@Fuhghettaboutit: asked for an explanation of why I deleted the following sentence from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, in the section about moves of disambiguation pages: "At the very least, following such a move, list it at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#To do." The explanation is a bit too long to fit in an edit summary. If you follow the link given in the quote above, you can determine that the section actually is part of a transcluded subpage, which is (as of this writing) Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/June 2014. That subpage is a list, generated by a bot, of the 1000 disambiguation pages that had the most incoming links as of the beginning of the current month. Because the list is intended as a snapshot valid as of a specific date, users should not be encouraged to add to the list other pages that did not qualify as of the given date. Besides making the list inaccurate, such manual additions may change the page's format in ways that could interfere with the userscript that helps maintain the list during the month. That is why I sought to delete the sentence in question. (Also, since [6] is a current list of disambig pages with incoming links, automatically updated at least daily, there really is no need for an editor to post anywhere when moving a disambiguation page.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Okay, gotcha. I don't believe the page was like this when I added that instruction, but yeah looks like it has to go, and I don't see any useful equivalent replacement ((smiling when I say this) but I can think of multiple edit summaries quite under the character limit that would have flagged the issue and avoided my revert:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Help requested

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this, but I need help. If you look at the article for Herbert Pugh, it is about an 18th-century artist. The talk page redirects to the talk page for Talk:Cecil Pugh. Herbert Pugh and Cecil Pugh are two different people. I think there should be a new talk page for Herbert and the existing talk page for Cecil should be decoupled from the article page for Herbert (I hope this makes sense). I don't know how to do this. If anyone can help or show me how to do it, I would appreciate it. Thanks--FeanorStar7 00:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect. This will separate the two talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have added the appropriate project tags for Herbert (a biography tag and a visual arts tag).--FeanorStar7 07:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Where can we find old move requests?

I don't see a link to search the archives....-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have any specific title in mind, look at the talk page for that title, and any archives of that talk page that may have been saved. All discussions of potentially controversial moves are held on the title's talk page. You may also browse the history of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. To find all completed moves, including bold and uncontroversial technical moves you can use Special:Logs. Choose "Move log" from the drop-down menu of log types. Enter the title you want to search for in the "Target (title or user)" input box. Hope this helps. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't appear to be archived. Though most of the move discussions actually take place on article talk pages, so if you know the article you are looking into for just check it's talk page. I suppose you could use Wikipedia:WikiBlame: [7], but it probably has too much churn on the summary page to be useful. PaleAqua (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Template {{old move}} or {{old moves}} may be placed at the top of talk pages to document and link to previous move requests for a specific title. Also Wikipedia:Move review#Archive and Category:Closed move reviews for requests that were appealed.

• There are 507 transclusions of Template:Old move
• There are 207 transclusions of Template:Old moves

These templates are not universally applied. I'd guess they are more likely to be used on some of the more contentious titles. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The move I'm looking for is Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions -> Wikipedia:FAQ, and the only discussion I can find on it is Wikipedia talk:FAQ#Move request, which just says "This article has been renamed from Wikipedia talk:Very Frequently Asked Questions to Wikipedia talk:FAQ as the result of a move request." Oh well, it's not really that important anyway.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:FAQ index#Requested move. I used Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions and limited the namespace to "Wikipedia talk" where the move discussion most likely happened. Luckily, there are only five pages and the discussion is on the first page. --Kusunose 13:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We're going relatively far back in time, to when the templates and procedures were different. The request was made here, on 16 February 2008, using the now deleted template:multimove: {{multimove|Wikipedia:FAQ|Wikipedia talk:FAQ}} ... and on 21 February 2008 pages were moved and the FAQ reorganization was announced here, using another deleted template: {{moved|Wikipedia talk:Very Frequently Asked Questions|Wikipedia talk:FAQ}}. Template:Moved was recreated for a different purpose on 30 January 2014‎; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 10#Template:Moved for the deleted version. As a result of that discussion, the template was substituted before it was deleted. {{Old move}}, which was created on 3 June 2006‎, seems to be a de facto replacement for {{Moved}}, but {{Old moves}} wasn't created until 24 July 2012‎. {{Move-multi}} wasn't created until 28 November 2009 (see template talk:move-multi). Wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So from the move log, we have:

1. 22:34, 21 February 2008 Keith D moved page Wikipedia:FAQ to Wikipedia:FAQ Index (Move request as per talk page)
   • 18:27, 16 April 2012 The Evil IP address moved page Wikipedia:FAQ Index to Wikipedia:FAQ index (decap)
2. 22:35, 21 February 2008 Keith D moved page Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions to Wikipedia:FAQ (Move request as per talk page)

• with both of these moves discussed in the multi-move discussion now at Wikipedia talk:FAQ index#Requested move (which was Wikipedia talk:FAQ at the time of the discussion)
• and a notice of the discussion posted here (which was Wikipedia talk:Very Frequently Asked Questions at the time the notice was posted). – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

— I updated each talk page header with {{old move}} templates. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Time could not be ascertained"

I made a huge request covering over 50 pages and it's being listed in the "time could not be ascertained" section instead of today's date. What's up with that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably a bad signing of the posts. Some of the regulars will try and fix what gets listed there, but it may take a few days. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, there's always been a bit of problem when listing over, say, a dozen pages in a single RM. As Vegaswikian says though, it will get fixed eventually as people continue to fiddle with it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

...And my fiddling seems to have fixed it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed move by new SPA needs reversion

He'd made too many edits since the move to revert this, which is totally undiscussed and needless; needless to say thought "indigenous" and "original peoples" might be construed as being interchangeable they are not, really, and "indigenous" is a normal Wikipedia term in regular use. See Traversetravis' usercontributions and the move of List of traditional territories of the indigenous peoples of North America to his chosen "original peoples". His additions to that page seem SYNTH, also, not that the page doesn't already have some OR and UNDUE problems.Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonja Kristina move

Hello.

I am not sure if I have done enough to do what I am trying to do.

I tried to move a page 'Sonja Kristina Linwood' to what the artist is known as, i.e. 'Sonja Kristina' but I could not because it already exists.

See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sonja_Kristina_Linwood#Requested_move

Have I said and done enough?

Thanks.

Yes, that was sufficient, though I do have a question I asked on the talk page section for this RM. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Apple iAd Producer

The actual name of the product is just iAd Producer , not Apple iAd Producer, so can the page please be renamed/moved? Thanks Mattsephton (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Seems like a reasonable technical request. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

References

How to notify editors?

I could not find the template (subst:expected) that I can use to notify interested editors to a Move discussion. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Browse Category:Wikipedia page-name maintenance templates for appropriate templates. I see there is a Template:RM notification, though it seems to have only been used once. You can always just post your own personalized notification message, without using a template. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Handdcrafted could do of course, but usually these Procedures (like XfD) have smart anchors & linklabels to link directly. Especially since this one has a bot follow up, I could miss the link point. Even then, there could be an advice like: "Notify interested users by adding ==Requested move==A page you might be interested in is proposed for a move. See [[Talk:Page X#Requested move]]. ~~~~ to their talkpage."

(I already see possible confusion here). -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Presumably most really interested editors are watching the page and will thus see a Watchlist notification. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Template {requested move} does not handle namespaces well.

Template {{requested move}} does not handle namespaces well. It fails editors expectations. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: Can you be more specific about what your expectations are, which are not being met? A specific example might help. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume Depiep is talking about the RM he/she began at Template talk:RailGauge. Perhaps they are suggesting the template should automatically realise which namespace it's in and, for example, when starting a RM in the template talk namespace it will assume you are requesting a move to a template namespace page. Personally, I think it's better as is – it offers more flexibility for when cross-namespace moves are required and, frankly, adding "Template:" when wanting to move a template page is not that unreasonable. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I see, yes there was a misunderstanding with this edit, and it took a few more edits to get it right. A look at Show preview before saving the page should have made the issue clear, and I agree with you that most editors would immediately see the need to specify the namespace. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll be more specific later on. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Show preview does not clarify the issue, because it shows what the editor has mistakingly entered! IOW, it repeats the original mistake, which of course an editor will confirm. It does notify (or warn for) not notify or warn for the cross-namespace action. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Clarify -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Example.

I created Draft:Test1 (might be gone soon, for some reason draft pages do are not allowed to test something).

Then on Draft talk:Test1 I added the template [8]

{{subst:requested move|Test3|reason=My reason (test)}}

The template resolved this to new pagename proposal Test3, which is in mainspace.

Of course, when an editor makes that mistake when entering, the new name does not look like a warning. (server being nonresponsive, could not save this right away) -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Such a cross ns move could be intentional. For that reason we cannot block the proposal from saving (say with a "wrong proposal, not accepted" red message). But I think it would be helpful if the template shows a message (inline, minor, red-text) like "This is a cross-namespace move" in the box prose. And maybe a parameter |cross ns=OK could be available for the editor who knows what they are doing (=do not show the message). -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: OK, I have coded up such an information notice in the template's sandbox, but I used italics rather than red. Look at Draft talk:Test1 and tell me what you think. You can try editing it for various namespace destinations. Actually it's not hard to foresee that Draft → Main space move requests could potentially become quite common. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (minor: maybe change text into like: "This proposal implies a cross-namespace move ..."?). -DePiep (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Great. The change is now live. I'm not sure "implied" is an improvement. It is such a move, and the notice is saying so, not just implying that it is. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Xbox 1 name dispute

i am not sure but i try it to bring here since a mod told me to go in this RM direction instead calling up a despute. Its about a dispute for the Xbox One and the original Xbox in this wikipedia article. I insist to display both Xbox One and the first Xbox since just like with the first Playstation people are calling the original Xbox just Xbox 1 too. It should be obvious that both console should be displayed with links to their articles, i even posted various references but this user Zero thinks differently all the time without giving any references whats so ever.--Crossswords (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, the dispute is over whether:

1. Xbox 1 should redirect to Xbox One, as it does currently (because Xbox One is the WP:Primary topic for Xbox 1) -or-
2. Xbox 1 should redirect to Xbox (console), the first generation of the product -or-
3. Xbox 1 should be a WP:Disambiguation page

This isn't really the venue to decide that. If you want to give the discussion a broader exposure beyond Talk:Xbox 1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, then consider Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Or take it up again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Please read the previous discussion there. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Request help with move/merge

"Worcester College of Technology" and "North East Worcestershire College" have merged into "Heart of Worcestershire College". I have moved "Worcester College of Technology" to "Heart of Worcestershire College" and need help merging "North East Worcestershire College" page with it.

This page North East Worcestershire College needs to be deleted as I have mixed its contents on Heart of Worcestershire College with the Worcester College of Technology

Charlr6 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charlr6. I've changed North East Worcestershire College into a redirect to the new article, Heart of Worcestershire College, so that if anyone searches for that old school they still get to the new school and find some information there. Seems a better solution to me that simply deleting. Also, if you have copied contents of one Wikipedia article to another please make sure you've followed Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Would there be any need for deletion of the page in the future do you think? After I mean people have gotten used to and understand that both colleges have merged? Like within a year or two? Charlr6 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so. Wikipedia's general practice is that redirects are cheap and if they are being used at all then they are worth having. But that said, if in a few years you think it should be deleted you should feel free to take it to Redirects for discussion where there can be a discussion about keeping or deleting it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Charlr6: No, the redirects from both former names need to be kept permanently. The colleges existed under those names, and someone might find a reference to either of them and need to find out about them. I'm not at all sure that it was right to move the Worcester College of Technology article, with its history from 1851. School of Design, presumably supporting the pottery industry, established at time of The Great Exhibition, etc - looks like scope for an interesting article there which might not sit well with the current college article. What happened to the two notable alumni? You seem to have lost them, and some other history, in merging the articles. (1939 number of students?) It looks as if you have removed information from the encyclopedia in doing this merge, and your question about deleting the redirect seems to show that you do not understand the nature of the encyclopedia. There's also a lot more needing to be done to tidy up tenses etc in the article resulting from your undocumented merge - see the comment above about the need to attribute any copying. PamD 13:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Found the 2 notable ex staff/students, lurking below the refererences! PamD 14:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The notable staff/students already existed on the previous article. As did the history for Worcester college, and as it was there I felt no need to delete anything. I did however put paragraphs together as before they were several short sentances describing certain things. The School of Design article already existed on the Worcester college as well. And if you feel the need to put that into its own article then feel free to. Charlr6 (talk)

No problem with the two notables - I'd just not noticed them in the new article because they were down below the references. Have expanded and moved them. On the history, too, I'd somehow not spotted the 1939 info, thought it had disappeared. But the whole article was a bit of a mess after the merge, with lots of "is" that needed to be "was" etc, and more importantly you had copied a chunk of other editors' work from the NEW College article without giving them the credit for it. Wikipedia is very strong on attribution: every word needs to be traceable back to the person who first added it to the encyclopedia, not just to the person who decided to cut and paste it from another article. I've now put in the necessary attribution. Before you merge an article again please read WP:MERGE. Thanks.

Meanwhile, please supply a source for the quote from the colleges, and tone down the PR guff (or frame it as attributed quotes): it's not the sort of thing an encyclopedia should include.

Is the stuff on the campuses up to date, or does it reflect the points in time when the old articles were written? The college website is pretty hopeless: the section on campuses tells us which coffeebars they have but nothing else much. Also zero about the history/heritage of the institution. Ah well. That's progress. Or something. PamD 15:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make an editors work my own, even if your just saying that is what it looks like by copying. The quote and some of the text surrounding it I found via this word document, which seems like it was part of a newsletter that I found via searching "new college and worcester college of technology merge" in Google and on it it reads "Read the full press release here. - Worcester College of ...". It is a DOC format. I've been looking to find the right way to reference it but I can't find the appropriate way, as it is a link that will download and open a work document that details what I've written in. Charlr6 (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously a press release which is turning up in various places - I've found it on a newspaper website and given the ref from there. No, I don't say you were trying to claim credit for the stuff you imported, but please remember Wikipedia's attribution rules and take care another time. I seem to be having a day of this sort of thing, having just sorted out the templates needed when someone split Banff and Macduff four years back without using the right templates! I think this is OK now, though the stuff about the campuses probably needs to be checked/updated. And I'd love to find out a bit more about the 1851-onwards history of the college to add to the article. PamD 17:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Need some advice about an RM added in the middle of a move discussion to a different name

A discussion was started at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Need to change name of article to just Islamic State. I didn't do this as a formal RM because I wanted feedback about the name and a dab issue. Despite the discussion, another editor started a formal RM at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested. What's the best thing to do so that at least we are discussing alternatives? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've procedurally closed it, you can continue discussion in the section you started. Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, doing so. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Section moves

Is there a process currently in place for move sections of articles to their own, stand-alone article? Did a cursory search in the archives here but didn't see anything.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

See the procedure for Wikipedia:Splitting. --Vclaw (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves

I have been bold and created a section called "Undiscussed moves" in Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Lead.

The term "undiscussed move" used elsewhere on the WP:RM page, but it is not explained, nor is there mention of the how disruptive move warring is and that we have the "undiscussed moves" revert process to discourage anyone trying to capture the high-ground by an undiscussed pre-emptive move in the hope that if there is an RM to move it back that RM returns no-consensus.

I hope I have phrased the section in line with WP:TITLECHANGES and current practise, but as is so often the case first drafts will need to be modified. I hope people are bold and edit it mercilessly.

-- PBS (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be made even simpler... if an editor thinks a move will be uncontroversial, he/she can be bold and move. However, if anyone subsequently objects... return the article to the original title and discuss. Don't edit war. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Then simplify :-) but how long after a move can a person object? -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Urgently need help with an RM that showed up as closed when I added it.

I somehow messed up Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 2 and it shows as closed - and has done since it started and no one noticed! There's a 3rd option being suggested and I'm not sure how to fix that either. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed hopefully.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to check to see what I did wrong. I've done RM's before that worked. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up after moves - dab pages etc

There's a relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#.22code_of_honor.22.3F, basically about whose job it is to tidy up after moves which break incoming links. (eg move X to X(y) and X(disambiguation) to X - whose job is it to fix the links which were fine and now point to the dab page?) PamD 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think that all incoming links should be cleaned up before the page is moved, to avoid creating a spike in reports of the number of links to be fixed. Typically (though not always) the editor who has proposed the move is in a better position than an uninvolved editor to know which solutions to apply. As I have noted in the other discussion, disambiguation links are now being created faster than we can address them, so our usual disambiguators may never get around to the messes created today. bd2412 T 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

 BD2412 The most extreme cases I've seen are when a significant set of editors want to move a pop-culture topic which dominates a title on the encyclopedia off of primary topic, because they "don't like it". I don't think this can be fully automated unless someone can write a really smart bot program. The vast majority of articles will be about the dominant pop-culture topic, but to be accurate you will want to use WP:AWB to catch the handful or two of pages that are about the other topics on the dab page. That's what I did when there was a proposal to move Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). AWB makes it easy to process boatloads of pages quickly while still catching the exceptions. I did this, to set a good example, before the RM closed. There's no harm in moving a more specific title to a less specific title, e.g. Thriller (Michael Jackson album) → Thriller (album). Which could now be done just by "flipping the switch" because I laid the groundwork. The dab problems arise when going in the other direction. The other infamous example which comes to mind was Brand New → Brand New (band). I did that after the move, even though I wasn't one of those religiously insisting on the move, and it was a lot of work before I found out how relatively easy AWB could make the task. And it wasn't until recently that someone actually wrote an article about the primary-topic-wanna-be brand new. Are there any specific recent moves or proposals that triggered this new discussion? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a particular move that has led to this; the number of disambiguation pages with small numbers of incoming links are rising as steadily as the number with large number of disambiguation pages with large numbers of incoming links. It seems to be a combination of moving topics large and small off of primary topic status, careless linking, and our recently having lost access to the dabsolver. bd2412 T 02:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. This isn't an area that I've been particularly active in. Taking a look at WP:Disambiguation pages with links, I see the Disambiguation pages with links report has S-Video at the top. It's easy to find the culprit. No discussion beforehand, and no effort whatsoever to clean up the mess. I wonder if they are even aware of the mess they created. Can anything be done to preempt this sort of thing, or make it easier to reverse? I note that we went straight from S-Video the article to a disambiguation without even taking time along the way to create S-Video (disambiguation). – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I submitted a request to revert these undiscussed moves. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I note also that S-Video (analog video standard) has appeared in the newly created Category:Invalid redirects which I am working on clearing out. So I would have gotten to it there, just not as quickly as via Disambiguation pages with links. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted that move. Potentially controversial moves that are made boldly, without discussion, can be reverted boldly, without discussion, in accordance with WP:BRD. An undiscussed move that creates dozens of bad links is definitely going to be controversial. I have proposed before that it should be technically impossible to carry out such a move without first obtaining a consensus. bd2412 T 12:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, good. Moving on to the next item on that list, here is the revevant edit history. Once again, we went straight from a hatnote-disambiguated article to no-primary-topic status, completely bypassing creation of a Epitome (disambiguation). No prior discussion or recognition of the necessary post-move cleanup. Would you like to revert that one too? I suppose it's a judgement call whether to fully revert, or to partially revert by moving Epitome → Epitome (disambiguation) and updating the hatnote on the restored article to point to the newly created dab page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What a mess: I've now created Epitome (disambiguation), so as long as we're happy with the literary form being the Primary Topic (I think that's what it was in the past?), we just need to tweak the hatnote on Epitome. Oh I'll do so now, anyway. Apologies if I'm treading on any toes. PamD 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I probably should have done that. I have now merged the history of the deleted disambiguation page at the primary topic title into Epitome (disambiguation). The editor who made the initial undiscussed move actually just asked me on my talk page what was controversial about his move. bd2412 T 18:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I was puzzled as to how any previous dab page had disappeared completely ... presumably into some accessible-to-admins black hole! Hope my work didn't complicate matters too much. PamD 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I had just moved the page right back over it, which restored the status quo ante. bd2412 T 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The next one is legitimate, but involving a topic that I'm not keen to spend any time on. I left a message asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga #Transformers: Robots in Disguise needs disambiguation assistance. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Add new instructions to not request "File:" namespace moves via WP:RMTR

Over the past few days, I have noticed a few move requests on the technical moves page for pages in the "File:" namespace. As far as I have seen via other "instruction" pages in Wikipedia, all "File:" moves are inherently not technical for various reasons, such as breaking external links to the image/file/etc. I propose that instructions be added to this page informing editors that "Move requests for the File: namespace should not be done here; instead, the {{Rename media}} template should be utilized on the file page to request the file name change." Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've always been hesitant to do them for fear of breaking things. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If we agree to do this, the template should be modified to generate an error message if used on a file. Actually why not make that change now? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: Sounds good to me. I'd edit {{RMassist}} myself to take care of this, but my time has been a bit limited recently (trying to figure out where in the template's coding to input this is taking me a while.) Unless someone else desires to take care of it, I'm now going to ping Wbm1058, a recent editor of the template, to see if they could perform the edit to the template as referenced above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Also writes an error message if attempting to move categories by technical request. Note that technical requests for file moves on English Wikipedia direct users to use {{rename media}}. Technical requests for file moves which are only on Commons just produce a "must create file before requesting that it be moved" error. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:3D_Test_of_Antisemitism#Requested_moves

For some reason this request has got stuck in at the bottom of the page in Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Time could not be ascertained. The time stamp for the entry was Gregkaye (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC) which, for some reason, was added twice.

It would be great if someone could sort this out. Thank-you.

I would also appreciate advice on how to remove Journal for the Study of Antisemitism as this is the Journals actual name

Gregkaye (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like its all OK now, it's in the dated list and the journal has been struck out of the list. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Done @Gregkaye: Regarding the "time not ascertained" error, a signature needs to be placed at the end of the first line after the list of move nominations. Essentially, a signature needs to be placed on the line that the {{Requested move}} creates that starts with a "–" dash (before any line breaks happen, such as the ones caused by pressing "Enter" or "Return" on a keyboard.) So, I copied your signature at the end of that line. Also, regarding the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism nomination, I removed it from the template at the top of the discussion, and crossed out the listing on the talk page; on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page, on multiple move requests, with the exception of the first listed page, the bot gets the list of page move proposals from the template on the talk page, not the text listed below the template. (So, the list that will soon appear on Wikipedia:Requested moves should appear without Journal for the Study of Antisemitism appearing at all.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Steel1943 Consider yourself barned with stars. Much appreciated.  :)) Gregkaye (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Steel1943, is it possible to add the move rationale into the Requested moves page similar to other requests. This could be either in entirety or in part. Thanks. Gregkaye (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Gregkaye: If you mean having your entire rationale display for the move request you mentioned, yes, but only if there aren't any line breaks before your signature. Basically, all bullets, etc. before the first vote would have to be merged together to form one paragraph. With the length of the rationale you provided, I don't think doing that is wise. However, on the other hand, I was thinking that the discussion after the signature on that page could be encapsulated in {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates with wording such as "Extended rationale" in the top template to let readers know that there is rationale included between those templates, while at the same time helping readers clearly understand where the rationale ends and the "voting" starts. (I must admit, it took me a moment to figure out where the "voting" started due to the formatting of the rationale.) However, I realize that you are asking for essentially the opposite of what I just said, but it would really clean up the discussion; if this option is done, then some wording could be added to the first line such as "See below for the remainder of the rationale" to help readers arriving to the discussion via WP:RM realize that the remainder of the rationale can be found on the talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: Thanks for that, I am not to bothered about the extent of content and perhaps it is whatever works best. The initial text was:

Follows successful move of “Antisemitism” → “Anti-Semitism” on 27 August 2014. Gregkaye (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC). Three criteria are cited to support these moves as follows: WP:COMMONNAME “Use commonly recognizable names”  “...Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural...” WP:CRITERIA: “Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles” WP:NOTPROMOTION: “Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.” This ruling applies to all article content in all directions.

Perhaps something like that with standard ellipsis (...) and a moved signature and time stamp at the end.

Whatever you think really though. At the moment the listing just stands out as different. TY for all. Gregkaye (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Done @Gregkaye: I went ahead and edited the move request as requested: I replaced the rationale with the rationale provided here, then as I suggested, enclosed the rest of the rationale in "collapse" template, and then added a note to your rationale that will show up on Wikipedia:Requested moves stating that more rationale can be found directly below on the talk page. Please let me know if there are any concerns regarding this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Steel1943:, Sry m8 but what I was asking related to the idea "to add the move rationale into the Requested moves page similar to other requests." Maybe I should have specifically mentioned: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Current discussions. Can the rationale, in full or in part, be added here? Gregkaye (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Gregkaye: I answered this question earlier in this discussion:

..."If you mean having your entire rationale display for the move request you mentioned, yes, but only if there aren't any line breaks before your signature"...

So, basically, I would recommend not doing that (which is why I did the edit you reverted; it may be the best option.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood, Its really appreciated that you rescued the list up from the fearsome dungeon that "Time could not (be) ascertain(ed)". Thanks for aligning its parameters to be both lawful and good in Wikipedia's great sight /site.  :) Gregkaye (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Gregkaye: No problem. Glad to help. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Fashion and clothing branding

I was wondering about the following changes and thought to ask for thoughts

Ben Davis (clothing) Ben Davis (clothing brand)

Bonia (fashion) (fashion retailer)

Bestseller (company) Bestseller (clothing retailer)

Diesel (brand) Diesel (fashion brand)

Duchamp (clothing) Duchamp (clothing brand)

http://www.duchamplondon.com

Etcetera (Casuals Etcetera) Etcetera (clothing brand)

http://www.etcetera.com/about/product/

Fenchurch (clothing) Fenchurch (clothing brand)

http://www.fenchurch.com/

Kenzo (brand) Kenzo (fashion brand)

They all fit in Category:Clothing brands and other brands categories but brands were often not mentioned in the titles.

Gregkaye (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think I may just go ahead with these moves as non controversial on the grounds that good may far outweigh harm. Gregkaye (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Or not. Dabs should be short and accurate. So if (clothing) works, do we really need to change that to (clothing brand)? There is no case for the change at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• nothing done as yet with the exception on current discussion on Etcetera (Casuals Etcetera). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vegaswikian. These proposals do nothing but make the dab longer. The article title is not a category. Ground Zero | t 02:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How To Move a Talk-Page

I am not technical enough to know the details of how moves work, but I think I have a special case where I can't put the requested move script in a talk page. Here is why: Long story short, I screwed up a page move. Currently, the main article 2014 Core Coalition intervention in Syria has a talk page called Talk:2014 Core-Coalition intervention in Syria. (notice the hyphen in talk page title). I would like to request moving Talk:2014 Core-Coalition intervention in Syria to Talk:2014 Core Coalition intervention in Syria (notice the hyphen) while preserving the content of 2014 Core Coalition intervention in Syria. Does anyone have the ability to do this? Thanks in advance! Peace MPS (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• @MPS: Looks like that issue has already been resolved; see Talk:2014 US-Coalition intervention in Syria. (It seems as though the new title for the article is 2014 US-Coalition intervention in Syria.) For future reference, moves like this one can be requested at WP:RMTR. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip! Peace, MPS (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Dab page, September 2014

Revising the same post as at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_25#Deletion_of_DAB_pages copied here:

I am fairly sure that DAB pages have been supposed to be discussed at AfD. However, I don't seem to find any explicit instruction to that effect. Having played around in a few XfD places, it occurs to me that deletion of DAB pages might be better discussed at WP:RM, because DAB expertise/experience/interest is much more concentrated at WP:RM. I don't think that DAB page get listed for deletion very frequently. An idea. What do people think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Last time prompted by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Grouping (disambiguation). This time by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian War (a disputed disambiguation page).

If there is no objection, I propose to edit WP:RM to the effect that deletion of DAB pages should be listed at WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not the forum for the actual deletion of pages like Grouping and Russo-Ukrainian War, and frankly I don't think it would be appropriate to delete either. What is appropriate is the discussion of whether there should be a primary topic (discussed here) or whether the title should redirect somewhere (WP:Redirects for discussion). So while Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion is probably not the appropriate forum, this may not always be the best alternative. With Grouping the consensus is that there is no primary topic. It is thus standard practice for Grouping (disambiguation) to redirect to Grouping. I think the debate was over whether Grouping Act should be the primary topic, and consensus was that it should not. I see that there was an argument about partial title matches, but I think there are just certain titles of such an ambiguous nature that the "partial title" argument shouldn't be strictly applied.

As for Russo-Ukrainian War, I think at the heart of the matter is a very political debate over whether that should redirect to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Take that to WP:Redirects for discussion. The way the page looks right now, it should be treated as a technical deletion. But obviously it's not that, as this is clearly controversial and contents have been suppressed. Was there actually another "Russo-Ukrainian War", and was there an actual disambiguation there? In that case, if someone wants to discuss a change in the primary topic, then that debate can be held here. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• As RMs are held on the talk page, and on deletion the talk page gets deleted, the RM process is not well suited.

AfD is the place for deleting mainspace pages. I'm thinking that an RM listing notifying of an AfD discussion concerning a DAB page could be requested. Perhaps automated.

The question is not whether particular pages should be deleted, but where should the discussions be held. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As RMs are held on the talk page, and on deletion the talk page gets deleted, the RM process is not well suited. Excellent point. As for automating notifications, I'm not sure how that could be done generally. As for your particular current example, I see that discussion already spilled over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 98 #Russo-Ukrainian War, and from there spread like a disease to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Accusations of "vandalism", and disruptive editing across many articles. Which seems to have spread notifications wide and far, yet makes it harder for anyone new to the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian War to get up to speed on the issues. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And see also Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine #Requested move to Russo-Ukrainian War – seems they've already made a pit stop here at RM, and have moved on. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They actually had two move discussions ongoing at once, see this permalink. Something I'm afraid the current RM system doesn't handle well. They should have let the first proposal run its course before initiating the second, or handled them both in a single discussion. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: An intriguing idea. Yep it is likely that were such discussion listed here they would on average be seen by more users sophisticated in DAB page issues. What I worry about is that having instructions on the page might fool people into believing that they should list DAB pages with two blue entries here when what is sought is a move of the primary topic to the base name in which case no deletion discussion should take place, which is a far more common scenario under which DABs are deleted than what this would be addressed to. If we were to do this, I would propose some type of "this is not for..." note, but in general I support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Renee Paquette --> Renee Young

This is an uncontroversial move, which I attempted to do myself, but was unable to because the target is a redirect. There was no opposition to the move expressed, so if an admin could move this page over the redirect, that would be great. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Renee Paquette § Requested move 2014 – looks like an easy routine close. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This is why I wish some of the "routine maintenance" functions of the admin tools could be devolved to regular editors. Too few admins watch the "non-sexy" pages like RM. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to ask for help on this, but the requested move discussion for West Midtown has expired and not been closed. Can someone help?Keizers (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Should "Draft:" namespace moves be requested on WP:RMTR???

I've seen a history if move requests on the technical requests page to essentially publish "Draft:" namespace pages. Should this be the case? As far as I know, the process for publishing a draft for non-autoconfirmed editors is the Articles for creation process. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

AFC is totally optional. We hope that users dealing with technical requests who see these will take some appropriate steps like declining and talking to the user if the draft is far from ready—telling them it will likely be deleted if moved because of X, Y and Z—or move but do normal newpages patrol procedures like tagging the page for maintenance, but I see no reason drafts cannot be asked to be moved here. We also advise users of this process at Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft (though I should disclose that I was the one who added that to the page back in 2009).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two types of "Draft" articles... 1) drafts being worked on in user space (Username:potential article name) and 2) drafts in public space (Draft:potential article name). The rules and procedures that apply depend on where the draft is housed. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have used RM for two kinds of drafts - those meant to replace articles that were previously deleted on notability grounds with new articles intended to show encyclopedic notability (e.g. Buddha Bar), and those meant to be moved in place of existing articles as the asserted primary topic of the term (e.g. Container, which also also required that the disambiguation page be moved to Container (disambiguation)). I believe that these are the appropriate uses of move requests for articles in draft space, and that a page that is merely a completely new article with a unique title should not require any process to be moved by anyone. bd2412 T 14:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Well aware but I see them as very much flip sides of the same coin, with the only real difference being a heightened deference we accord userspace drafts. I see no reason our move procedures would be different between them (except to the extent that we would generally expect only the named userspace draft user to request the move).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite... for a userspace draft, there is no need to go through any "move" process. The article creator can simply create a new mainspace article, and cut and paste the material from his/her user space into that article. It's really no different than if the article creator "drafted" the article on his/her home computer... and when ready simply created a new article, and cut and pasted the material from his/her computer to Wikipedia.

Those in Draftspace, on the other hand, are likely to be the product of more than one single editor... so I can see that we might need to document that there was some sort of consensus to shift it to mainspace. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a) not preferable for userspace drafts with only a single editor to cut and paste rather than moving the page (though it does not present a copyright problem); and b) it is not uncommon at all for userspace drafts to include substantive edits by other users requiring a page move to avoid copyright problems. I have edited numerous userspace drafts of others (often after they ask a question at the help desk, Teahouse or elsewhere), and userspace drafts are also (and still) submitted to AFC using {{subst:submit}} (even though we sometimes now move them to the draft namespace after submission). Were I a not-yet-autoconfirmed user with a userspace draft, or not an admin and wanted to move a userspace draft to the mainspace where some other technical impediment existed, I would want every one of my edits to the page to be included in the history. This is not to mention that any userspace draft by a single editor that is a translation of a foreign Wikipedia article or which contains content copied from other articles, if compliant with attribution standards, should have a copyright attribution edit summary in its history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't encourage "cut and pasting". So often, the user is not the only author, and this breaks copyright compliance if not done right, and is a pain to get right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Only if technical assistance is required, if deletion of a redirect is required. Otherwise, autoconfirmed users should do the move themself, and non-autocomfirmed users should be encouraged to become autoconfirmed before writing brand new articles. IP authors may need this assistance to do moves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Need a few pages moves reverted

There have been numerous controversial and undiscussed page moves on my watchlist recently. About 3 of them. Would a admin revert these? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Bladesmulti: Please post your requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. An administrator will assess your requests, and perform them if they are undiscussed move reverts. Steel1943 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing Steel1943. I have inserted just 4, more to add. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Help/question

We have an editor who insists on lower casing article names that are proper names--articles about particular/unique events that are certainly proper names requiring capitalization under any English capitalization rules and under WP MOS capitalization. He is ignoring concerns expressed by other editors and just continuing with the loser casing. Is this the proper place to get his changes reverted, one by one? If so what is the syntax? Hmains (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File your requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requests to revert undiscussed moves. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC on a page move moratorium

There is a page called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant during the last year there have been

7 Requested moves from June to September 2014

Rename; 13 August 2013; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; Moved Requested Move; 12 June 2014; Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; not moved to the initial proposal but moved to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Requested move 2; 29 June 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State; no consensus Requested move; 31 July 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria; Procedurally closed Requested move; 8 August 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State; Not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State". Move; 20 August 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization); Quick close (no move) Move request - 6 September 2014;7 September 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State; Not moved, rough consensus against Requested move 17 September 2014;17 September 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation); No consensus for the move

I closed the last RM on 3 October and suggested a moratorium on page moves for three moths. When this was ignored and another section was opened I imposed a moratorium as an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions that cover that page. The moratorium will last for exactly 3 months and end on 7 January 2015.

At the time I imposed the moratorium there were

9 sections on the talk page about the page name started during the proceeding month

"New name" started 21 August, Panam2014, last comment 1 September 2014 (closed 3 October) "Move request - 6 September ", Kingsindian closed 30 September "Requested move 17 September", Gazkthul closed 3 October 2014 "Alternative name" 20 September, Panam2014, last comment 1 October 2014 "How much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State?", 30 September, GraniteSand, last comment 3 October 2014 "English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change", 1 October 2014 GraniteSand, last comment 2 October 2014 'ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State"' 2 October 2014, Gregkaye, last comment 3 October 2014 "A good reason not to use Islamic State", 2 October 2014, Legacypac , last comment 7 October 2014 "An RM to ISIS?" 7 October 2014, Gregkaye

Since the moratorium has come into effect, a few editors have complained that there is no census for the moratorium, so I have initiated an RfC to see if the is a consensus to end the moratorium with the closing of the RfC: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves. I have posted this here in the hope of soliciting opinions for the RfC from those who are frequently involved in page moves. -- PBS (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The scariest Wikipedia page move suggestion?

• Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Requested move suggests moving Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa to 2014 Ebola virus epidemic :: OK and an ordinary sort of move suggestion. But a message in the discussion says that soon may arise a need to move it again, to 2014 Ebola virus pandemic :: many hope that THAT move will not be needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• You aren't scared of closing all the move requests on animal names? I am. Dekimasuよ! 23:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• I was hoping that a world Ebola pandemic does not happen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I know! Dekimasuよ! 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A long list of moves that User:Hmains wants reverted

[Note: Discussion moved from the main page. Dekimasuよ! 14:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)]

• asked for in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Move requests as "... In my write up, I also mentioned getting all the rest of items in user:hmains/worklist also moved back to their original upper case. Is this something you can take care of somehow? The move request templates for handling multiples do not seem to work at all so there is not much I can do. Hmains (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)\

• All contested: We have innumerable previous RMs back and forth over names like these, and it always comes down to an article-by-article determination whether the name in question is 1) a conventional name almost always capitalized as a proper name in sources, e.g. the Boxer Rebellion; 2) a descriptive phrase used by some but not all sources and only capitalized in some of them (generally do not capitalize these on Wikipedia, and it opens the question of whether WP:COMMONNAME policy is being satisfied for the case at hand, which often turns out not to be the case), e.g. Arab–Israeli conflict; or c) a descriptive phrase made up by Wikipedians because there is no satisfactory common name (never capitalize these, except where they contain proper names), e.g. cargo planes bomb plot (these also often need to be re-examined under WP:COMMONNAME, since common, even conventional names for them frequently develop after a few years). PS: The multi-move templates work fine; I use them frequently, so Hmain's issue seems to be PEBKAC. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, though, these are listed as reversions of recent undiscussed moves. If they are in fact all reversions, they should all go through first, and then RM discussions should proceed from there as necessary. The burden should be on the editors who want to move the pages, not the ones who want to perform reversions. Dekimasuよ! 19:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, できます. These moves must be reverted per WP:BRD. The contestation is that of the bold moves to these titles. Given that these bold moves are contested, they must be reverted. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, WP:BOLD is policy, and WP:BRD is just some essay. In any case where there has already been an at least fairly recent consensus discussion that did not conclude in the favor of the name recently moved to, that's a good argument for reverting, but most of these don't seem to have any evidence of such discussions at all. Someone a while back named an article, and someone more recently re-named it, and now we're here. If there's disagreement over what it should really be, that should be a discussion, not a reflexive mass revert, especially when a number of them, perhaps the proponderance of them, will in fact remain at lower-case names. As was pointed out quietly by RM admins in the midst of the last two months of animal breed article name venting, there is no point to a mass status quo ante revert when facts and policies may well be on the side of the bold moves to begin with, as it necessites moving them all back to old, often poor, names just for the sake of doing so, because some essay wants it, then moving them right back when RMs on the actual merits (facts and policies) conclude the orignial names were poor choices. It's a waste of time and a drama factory. RM's purpose is to help consensus form about article names, no to institutionalize WP:REVERTWARring. "Put it back or else" and "don't you dare change something" are not a Wikipedian rationales of any kind. "Let's figure out what the name really should be, to best serve our readers" is our goal here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please, "me and whose army?" is to revert that many quickly now before discussion can start? There are nearly 100 of them. And each must be checked before the move in case the move has already been done, and in case history-merge is needed, and for complications in moving their talk pages. Can't we discuss the moves from where they are now? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I just did six. At least the majority of them have only a single edit at the target, so the answer is really "anybody." If they all get bumped to individual, independent RM requests as suggested here, that will be more work for everyone later on and distract attention from the move requests filed properly below. (Hey, I'll do most of them myself later on if you'll close some easy ones in the backlog.) Dekimasuよ! 23:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Seriously, WP:BRD is an essay, not policy. I'd say make this request a controversial multimove request on one of the above requested pages, be done with it, and get this long amount of text off the WP:RMTR page. The amount of text here right now is honestly an eyesore, and will most likely deter new editors from using this page for true uncontroversial requests when they see the current state of this page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• (I had an edit conflict, too.) Again, that's not really a solution. Unless there is consensus shown for the current, "new" titles (there probably won't be), the result will be to revert all of them to their previous titles. This will involve someone having to move the pages in the end anyway, and the multimove request will still show all of the pages to be moved in a long, long list on this page. Better just to get it over with. Dekimasuよ! 23:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• In all honesty, at this point, whatever gets this ridiculously long list off this page as soon as possible. I was more or less suggesting an WP:RM multimove request since the {{Requested move}} template can handle up to 150 requests, and since this isn't the first yen that this editor requested such a large bulk amount of similar moves; because of that alone, there seems to be controversy surrounding all of these moves. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• I will look again in the morning. It is 11.17 pm here in England and I am going to bed. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all of these moves. None of these are proper nouns and WP:MOS calls for them to be in lower case. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. See my comment above. This disputes-on-the-merits already arising are clear evidence that a status quo ante mass revert will just be a WP:POINTy waste of time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Left out of the above is my original reason for asking that these reverts take place. It is "capitalization of proper names per WP:NCCAPS and its included reference proper noun and Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014" If anyone can get the multiple template to work, good; I tried all sorts of things; the template failed every time. Hmains (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Done I have performed all the rest of the moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait, you performed them even after multiple editors contested them? Don't you think that undermines the nature of and expectations about the Technical Requests section? If we're simply going to ignore it when things are contested, we may as well do away with this process and simply have regular RMs, no more speedy technical requests.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • These weren't actually technical requests, however. For one thing, the moves were unblocked, with only one edit at the target--in other words, anyone could have processed them and there was no technical hurdle. Second, they were requests to revert undiscussed moves. Not processing reversions of undiscussed moves because they are contested would be equivalent to allowing movers to sidestep the RM process by fait accompli. Dekimasuよ! 14:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • If this were applied evenly, I might be inclined to agree, but in my experience it is not. In particular, I find that the demands of people claiming to represent wikiprojects are habitually given more weight, even when there is no evidence of any consensus behind their demands, and even when they fly in the face of clear policies at WP:AT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Other people had done most of them; I found about 18 left, so I finished the job for the sake of consistency. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This still look like proceduralism for the sake of proceduralism, though. It's more important to have discussions on the merits of the names, and get the names right via consensus, than to move stuff around, back and forth, for pseudo-legalistic reasons, before the discussions actually happen.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped in finishing this task, including Anthony and Dekimasu. In most cases the rightness of the moves is still an open question and I believe that discussion can continue in the usual way. Those of us who have worked at WP:RMTR are used to seeing lots of moves that ask for lower-casing of article titles. Often these are performed technically without even a whisper of controversy. So I was surprised that the full move discussion at Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014 sustained the upper case title without a dissenting !vote. Perhaps the matter is more complex than it looks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is; I explained this above. There is no general rule that some phrase describing an event must be capitalized (or not, though we default to not per MOS:CAPS). It's a matter of how the WP:CRITERIA policies apply to each case examined on its own, especially whether the name in question is the WP:COMMONNAME and treated as a proper name by most soruces, or if it's just one of various descriptive phrases, with inconsistent treatment in sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)