Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

Proposal: New section names

For those not following the discussion above, here is where we are. The proposal on the table right now is:

  • Uncontroversial moves (remains the same)
(add a line in this section explaining that anyone who thinks a proposal in this section is potentially controversial should move it to Incomplete requests with a note saying the "Uncontroversial" claim is contested and the request needs to be completed -- discussion section created, etc. -- before it is moved to Move discussions).
  • Incomplete and contested proposals → Incomplete requests
  • Other proposals → Move discussions

Please indicate whether you approve of these changes or not, and, if not, please explain why. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of this. You've just come along and attempted to summarize the discussion above, and poorly I might add. We were brainstorming names for sections. You've come along and picked your favorites and put them up for a !vote. How about we continue the discussion above before you decide to implement another change with the discussion still in its beginning stage? JPG-GR (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's a work in progress. Incorporating the latest comments from above (including my own as well as JPG-GR's), the proposal is now:

  • Uncontroversial moves → Uncontroversial requests
  • Incomplete and contested proposals → Incomplete proposals
  • Other proposals → Move proposals

--Born2cycle (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually my own favorites appear way, way up above (search for wtf). Remember, I could have just changed it to something (it would have been "Open proposals"), but felt that initiating a discussion was the proper approach. As to the most recent proposal, no problem with keeping "Uncontroversial requests" unchanged, but half of the incompletes get there by being bumped from Uncontroversial, so the word contested should remain. As to "Move proposals", not a good choice, because both the Uncontroversial and Other sections are "Move proposals". 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read this entire discussion? Both of your points have been addressed, and you don't seem to acknowledge that here. Yes, perhaps half of the incompletes get dumped there from Uncontroversial, but are dumped there rather than put into the main section because they are incomplete. Being incomplete is the one and only characteristic that causes something to be there rather than in the main section.
What do you think of the point that was made about discussion being implied by proposal? An "Uncontroversial request" is not a proposal because there is no discussion. If it needs a discussion (because it is potentially controversial), then it would be moved (after going through Incomplete to become completed) to Move Proposals. All this can be clarified in a few words in each section. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Too fine a distinction between "request" and "proposal", and I am not sure how you can say that all the incompletes are incomplete. For example, the proper procedure were I to put "move Ice -> to Solidified water" into the nobrainer section (Uncontrovesial section) would be to not delete it as absurd, but to politely move it into the "incomplete and contested section for 5 days, and then delete it. After all this discussion, I withdraw the suggestion that the sections be renamed. Unless they already have been. What they say now seems fine. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you about that distinction being fine. But I still think your original point was valid, that the names could be improved. I just wish others would participate more, or at least agree not to revert whatever we come up with here when it's implemented if they choose not to participate.
Your ice example makes my point. The reason the request would be moved from the no-brainer section to the incomplete section rather than to the discussion session is because it is incomplete. If it remains incomplete for 5 days then it is deleted. But if it is completed then it would be moved to the main discussion section. Hence, the characteristic that causes it to be in the incomplete section is it being incomplete. That it is "contested" (another way of saying "incontroversial") is simply a reason for it to be moved OUT of the no-brainer section. But the reason it is move INTO the incomplete section rather than INTO the main section is the fact that it is incomplete. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion in this thread and the one above, it doesn't look like we're going to come to any consensus on changing the section names. "Sigh*--Aervanath (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really too bad. But as long as most who are participating simply state their opinion and leave, instead of work towards consensus through discussion, that's what's going to happen. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What I was trying to create was an example of something that someone put into the uncontroversial section which would have an obvious objection. I could have said ice -> crystal H20, or even ice -> "hockey playing surface" for example. When I find things like that in that section, they are complete for that section, and if I think they have merit, but are clearly controversial, and clearly in the wrong section, I just complete them myself and move them into the "other" section. If I simply disagree, I just put them into the contested section, not because they are incomplete, but because they are contested. It is quite common for people to put proposals into the wrong sections, and I regularly move them as I see appropriate; for example if someone fills out a full blown proposal to change "Water slides" to "Water slide", I just move it from "other" to uncontroversial, although I always check first to see if there has been any discussion to indicate that it could be "Water slides". I fully expect that if anyone disagrees they will move it back etc. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I fully understand what you're saying. My point stands. In the situation where you move to "other" it's only after you complete it. Prior to that it is a complete request (and thus complete for that section), but it is not a complete proposal. In the cases where you disagree and don't bother to complete the request in order to make it into a proposal, you put it in that other section where it sits until it times out or is completed - hence, again, the one and only characteristic that is common to all items put there is that they are incomplete proposals. The fact that some of them may also be contested requests is incidental and arguably irrelevant. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically true. What is that saying about semantics? You may be right, but if the other person does not understand what you said does it really matter? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving several pages at once

At Talk:Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration#Requested moves, a user has pointed out that requesting several moves at once, with one centralized discussion, may conflict with WP:NAME. As this is routinely done here, and format for it is even provided by this page, input would be appreciated. -- Jao (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Move templates say that moves should be listed here

According to the intro to this page, there's no obligation to list a potentially controversial move here (which is a guideline I support). However, as far as I can tell there's no proposed-move template that can be used on an article that doesn't say that the move should have been listed here. I don't see any logical reason why that should be the case. Perhaps I should have posted this on the Talk page for the existing template, I don't know; it's just something I wanted to point out in case this is an oversight. Propaniac (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the convention (that is, the behavior that people actually engage in) is moving towards listing all, or mostly all, potentially controversial moves here. I think that's how it should be, since if you don't publicize a move proposal here, you are likely to only get people who are watching the page in question, and they often are biased one way or another. That may be to your advantage, but it's still not a good practice. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not actually required that you use the move templates, either. However, posting at WP:RM is a good way to find editors who are more familiar with the wider Wikipedia consensus on naming conventions, which can help resolve controversies among editors who are more narrowly focused on the particular page.--Aervanath (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There also is such a thing as over templating - if you want to discuss the move the normal thing is to just discuss it on the talk page for the article - no need to add a template, just put the discussion at the bottom of the page where it will be easily found. Or just boldly move it and then discuss it if someone disagrees. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
To make a long story short, this is a page that evolved to fulfill a need, not because it was mandated by a policy. Since there is no policy along the lines of Wikipedia:Deletion policy or Wikipedia:Mediation that acts as a patron to this page, we can't force people to go through RM. It survives because it's useful, but if editors can come to a consensus without its help (or templates), that's fine too. And in that context, there's no problem with a move discussion that doesn't have a move template, either. Dekimasuよ! 04:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Massive move requests

Is there a simple way to set up a move for lots of articles? There are about 60 articles in Template:Pride Events that need to be moved. Is there a bot or something that can help tag them or do I have to manually do it? I will try and just move the ones that I can first though (an admin moved the parent article, so these shouldn't be controversial). TJ Spyke 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any bots that do it. Try at WP:BOTREQ or WP:VPT to find out if there are already some that are available, or if anyone's willing to write one. If not, you'll have to do them by hand.--Aervanath (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
And if you find one, let us know here, please, it's useful info.--Aervanath (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Do the articles need to be moved, or do their links to the template need to be updated to reflect the template's new page name? --Una Smith (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Many of the articles are titled "PRIDE 11" for example, in addition to changing {{PRIDE Events}} to {{Pride Events}} in each of the 60 articles, so that the "v" in "vde" does not redlink. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There are no redlinks in the template itself, nor is altering the template names on the pages necessary, since Template:PRIDE Events now redirects to Template:Pride Events. Seems to be a non-issue.--Aervanath (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing move for multiple articles

The instructions on this page for proposing moves to multiple pages are extremely unclear about what the user is supposed to do with that chunk of code, if it's supposed to be combined with the template that is otherwise used to list requested moves, and if it is supposed to be combined, how to do so. Just copying that code and using it instead of the template results in a request that looks strange and wrong compared to the other requests listed. At the very least, if that IS what is supposed to be done and what the request is supposed to look like, it would seem that the page titles listed for moving could be bolded. Propaniac (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be more specific as to what you mean by "strange and wrong". JPG-GR (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

For Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we have 2 pages, one with (film) and one with (films). I want to move (films) to (film), however, since it was moved already and the pge is already created, it will not let me do it. How can I move this now?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The answer is, make a move request. (But don't, because you already did, and it's under consideration.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Help text

I have been informed that Wikipedia:Requested moves should not be used for pages that do not already exist and not for discussing new article creation. Would it be appropriate to add to Step 3 of "Requesting potentially controversial moves" the text 'Do not add the page to the "Other proposals" list if the page to be moved is located in your userspace and the destination does not yet exist'?--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (based on the anon editor's comment on your talk page) the issue is not that the move requires moving an article from your userspace to the namespace, but whether the article would survive AfD in the namespace. WP:RM is not really the place for that discussion, since it's essentially a content issue, not an article naming issue. Raising the question at the Heroes talk page would probably be a good start towards determining if the article meets notability guidelines. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I've already posted at the Heroes talk page. To limit others making the same mistake, I think it might be good to clarify the help text then by adding to Step 3: 'Do not add a move to the "Other proposals" list if there are only content issues with the article. The list is for articles having issues regarding their names.'--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just added the above note to step 3. Please clarify it if necessary. Thanks.--MiamiVolts (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
JPG-GR has reverted your edit, and I agree with him: this is not something that comes up often (this is the first time I've seen it). If other editors come along with the same misconception, then it would be worth it to change the instructions; until then, it's better dealt with on a case-by-case basis.--Aervanath (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Understood. If it later decided to change the instructions, it might also be worth noting that for such cases, the move template is not appropriate either. The use of the move template was also removed from my userpage since the request was no longer posted at WP:RM.--MiamiVolts (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects

You may have noticed a recent change in the software under which double redirects now display both pages in the format Name Name. This is also a functional change essentially eliminating the problem with double redirects; if A → B and B → C, clicking on A will now take one directly to C. Note that this change does not propagate past doubles—triple redirects and higher are not "fixed". Policy, guideline and instruction pages have not yet been updated to reflect the changes but things are coming down the pike on this, and I thought a heads up for regulars was appropriate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics

It is becoming clear to me that RM has lost the capability to find any consensus on moves to add or remove diacritcs from article titles. I don't think we are making any progress through having three to five of our most reliable commenters make the same arguments over and over again every day. I know there were efforts long ago to develop a standard guideline for the treatment of diacritics, and that they failed, but we need some sort of a centralized discussion to take the place of these helpless !votes.

In the meantime, while I know it's better not to create any new cabals, I propose that we institute an informal corollary to WP:ENGVAR, agreeing to oppose all move requests based on diacritics until we can come up with a working system for dealing with them. It wouldn't work, of course, unless both Pmanderson and Húsönd were to sign on.

Some of our naming conventions are very good. We have a clear system for treating things with strange mixed caps. We have a clear system for the treatment of company names and products. We have clear systems set up for how to disambiguate between soccer players with the same name, movies with the same title, etc. Can't we figure out something to do with diacritics that doesn't raise anyone's blood pressure? Dekimasuよ! 14:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The larger problem, as I see it, isn't strictly "diacritics vs. not diacritics", but the pursuit of the most accuracy vs. common names. This doesn't just impact Slavic articles; the numerous plant-related move requests we've had recently (such as Yucca Brevifolia/Joshua tree) are essentially the same issue. There are those who favor using common names/spellings, and those who favor the most "correct". Until that issue is resolved, I don't think any progress can be made in the specific areas this larger issue affects. As far as I can tell (or at least based on my interpretation), the naming conventions, particularly WP:UE, favor the former approach (to use common names), yet we have most plant names at their scientific names (even when they have a well-known common name, like the Joshua tree example). Most Slavic-related articles are with diacritics (with the exception of a handful, like Novak Djokovic), despite the fact that the vast majority of English-language sources don't use them. Essentially, we have naming conventions that specify one thing, but everyone does the exact opposite. The question is, do we change the naming conventions to reflect reality, or do we rename the pages that don't comply with the conventions? Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that I embody the whole pro-diacritics battlefront in my single person, to the point that if both me and Pmanderson would agree to back off then the war would be over. The war will continue to exist, because there will always be people like me who view this issue as accuracy versus "dumb-it-down", while others like Pmanderson view it as common usage versus "make-it-look-like-Chinese". So basically Parsec is right, it does come down to accuracy vs. common usage, and one's position on this matter will change dramatically depending on what one considers more important for this encyclopedia. It doesn't mean that either me or Pmanderson is right and the other wrong, we just see things very differently. And by all means no, it's not just the two of us who will be fighting forever. This has always been a major source of disputes on Wikipedia (and certainly some of the weirdest)~, and always will. I can foresee no practical compromise, as both sides disagree on the essential. The only workable solution is to keep a more or less stable equilibrium, where none of the sides tries to impose a policy or guideline on the other, and no user tries to enforce his or her views unilaterally. Húsönd 19:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Húsönd is right; there isn't a compromise here, as the two positions are mutually exclusive and there really isn't a gray area in between them. The only real options here are to go forward with a massive Wiki-wide discussion (it won't be much fun to keep up with the hundreds of thousands of kbs of text that will be posted, and a strong consensus one way or the other is highly unlikely) or to basically sweep the larger issue under the rug and continue to argue over individual articles (which is a waste of time, in my opinion). So we're essentially at an impasse. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"Essentially, we have naming conventions that specify one thing, but everyone does the exact opposite." No, most editors for most articles follow the naming conventions. There is no reason why we should not use verifiable reliable sources in English to determine the name of articles. "Parsec is right, it does come down to accuracy vs. common usage," How do you know what is "accurate" if you do not use reliable sources in English to determine what the name is in English? --PBS (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know, the vast majority of Slavic and Icelandic names (the two most recent major diacritics move requests—Novak Djokovic and Teitur Thordarson) use diacritics. The most common argument from those who favor retaining them is "every other article uses diacritics, why is this one being singled out?" The issue is not "what is common in English usage vs. what is correct in English usage", it's "what's common in English usage vs. what is correct period". The latter argument holds that Novak's name correctly transliterated into the Latin script is indeed "Đoković", and that common usage is largely irrelevant. Again, unless someone wants to start a wiki-wide discussion in the hopes that it would result in a clear consensus, I don't see this as being a resolvable issue. Personally, I don't think such a discussion would result in anything defining, and would therefore not be worth the time it would take away from writing/improving articles—you know, the more important thing. Parsecboy (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-admins

Some of the moves requested here look like they can be done by non-admins fairly easily; is it okay for someone like myself to make the move and remove it from this list, or add it to the controversial moves section? -–Drilnoth (T • C) 14:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly fine for non-admins to work here. JPG-GR more or less ran the page for a significant period of time before he finally got the bit. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; just wanted to make sure. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 14:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You can do any moves except those that require admin tools: deletion of a redirect, moving a large number of subpages or history merge. Ruslik (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; and maybe with some moves that do need deletion I could just use {{db-move}}, so that it gets done faster? Or should I just wait until an admin comes through this page? –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to leave it for an admin, so that it gets done in one step. There are, I believe, about four admins who come by now and again. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Using {{db-move}} is perfectly fine (it's why the template exists, after all). Again, that's how JPG-GR got things done here for a long time. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Review of Teitur Þórðarson's move proposal

Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed this move proposal as "move", clearly against consensus as arguments provided by the opposition were simply disregarded. Questioned about his rationale, Aervanath claims that previous title was "not in the Latin alphabet". The move of "Teitur Þórðarson" to current "Teitur Thordarson" not only was clearly non-consensual, as it is not concurred by many articles we have throughout Wikipedia that have titles that use every single letter contained in the previous title (e.g. Þingeyri, Þórshöfn, etc). And which, let's not dispute, was in the Latin alphabet. Furthermore, by moving to "Teitur Thordarson", Aervanath not only eliminated the letter thorn (Þ), as also the letters "ó" and "ð", usage of which is even more widespread throughout Wikipedia; and more accurate. In fact, in the discussion one user expressed concerns that, should the thorn be eliminated, the other diacritics should by all means remain. Aervanath ignored this and closed the proposal as move. I request his closure to be reviewed and overturned. Thank you, Húsönd 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I, the user Husond refers to, don't really mind the eth being replaced by a d. He/she is correct, though about how everyone has ignored my arguments as to why even if the thorn and eth are changed, the o-acute should remain. Regardless of whether thorn and eth are part of the Latin alphabet, or the English alphabet, or are generally recognizable to English speakers, the o-acute is a modified o, which is part of the Latin alphabet generally and the English alphabet in particular, and is recognizable as a modified o rather than as a funny Druidic or Viking thingy. No one involved in the move and the debate over it has offered a reason, let alone a convincing one, for the o-acute to be changed to an unmodified o.--Atemperman (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that only two users, out of five who didn't remain neutral, supported this proposal. This is not even a plurality, let alone a majority that is necessary to form consensus. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of the 5 editors who commented one way or the other, two supported, two opposed, and one proposed dropping the eth and thorn but retain the "ó". From a straight head-count, the result would be no-consensus, but the evidence presented also needs to be considered. Those who favored the move provided a number of reliable sources that support the transliterated name. The single source found by Húsönd turned out to be a Wikipedia-mirror. In cases where there appears to be no strong consensus either way, evidence of wider English-language usage can tip the scale. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Going back and reviewing the discussion, I saw the same thing that Parsecboy just pointed out: the only source that used the original spelling was a Wikipedia mirror; all other sources use "Thordarson", with no special characters at all, not even diacritics. So, according to WP:COMMONNAME, my decision should be upheld, even if consensus does ultimately hold that "thorn" and "eth" are English characters after all. But that's a discussion for another day and another page.--Aervanath (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That was not the reason you pointed out when questioned about the closure of the proposal, clearly indicating that it was not your rationale upon deciding to move. The rationale you presented, as per the discussion on your talk page, was that the letter thorn "was not in the Latin alphabet". Now gripping on the common name argument presented above (which would definitely be better explored in the discussion if you hadn't closed it) and treating it as if it had been the motive behind your closure is not the least convincing. You closed the discussion in err, and now are trying to justify it with a rationale that you did not use. Húsönd 07:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to copy this conversation onto the talk page of the article as it seems to be article specific. Please carry on the thread there. --PBS (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not just article-specific, it is wider-feedback-needed-specific. That's why the discussion should occur here and not on the article's talk page where it would have virtually no effect. Húsönd 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Husond is right that this is a discussion that should occur here, since he's asking for a review of my closure by other editors, not just a new discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • After some thought, I can see Husond's point. While I think the result of my decision was the correct one, based on WP:COMMONNAME, that wasn't the rationale I initially judged the discussion on, and I can see that switching rationales when challenged could seem somewhat shifty. Therefore, I'll re-open the discussion there, and we can continue the move discussion so that a discussion can take place about how WP:COMMONNAME applies to the move decision. I still think the use of non-standard English letters should be discouraged, but that's a separate argument that should take place on the article talk page, as well as the talk page of WP:UE.--Aervanath (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"non-standard English letters should be discouraged" I don't think so. Their usage should neither be discouraged or encouraged, we should follow the usage in reliable English language sources. Just like we do [not] for Voßstraße. --PBS (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I applaud and commend Aervanath on his decision. Such decisions are sadly not as frequent as they should be. Húsönd 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, if the discussion was reopened, shouldn't the article be moved back to Teitur Þórðarson until a final decision is made by another closing admin? Húsönd 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep it where it is, and if the final judgment is "no consensus", then move it back by default.--Aervanath (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Disputed. If the closure of the discussion was undone, it is imperative that the resulting action be undone as well (doesn't make any sense otherwise for a move proposal if the proposed title is already in place, which often makes it de facto effective). I'll move it back to Teitur Þórðarson, it won't be wheel warring as the closing admin revoked his own decision. If the next closing admin decides to move the article, then he/she is free to move to Thordarson again. Last but least, the discussion was reopened but not listed at WP:RM as it should have, so how are other users supposed to know that there is an ongoing discussion? I'll list it back. Húsönd 16:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine.--Aervanath (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I know I'm a pain. Somehow I actually have friends in real life. :-) Húsönd 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Backlog subsections

Unless you are on a 300 baud modem, breaking down the backlog into sections would seem to just cause confusion - like does multiple mean it has been proposed more than once? I would recommend just keeping the backlog in one section. Just indenting the ones that are included works fine. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for it either. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. JPG-GR (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I had removed them without even seeing this thread. I was under the assumption that it was a temporary thing, just because there were a couple different multiple noms active at the time; once I closed them, I deleted the subsections. Looks like I wasn't the only one who saw no need for them.--Aervanath (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to move Summit Camp to Summit Camp (Greenland)

The reason I am requesting is another Summit Camp is a Summer Camp for students. I want to clarify it by making Summit Camp (Greenland) as the page for Original Summit Camp. Please do it or respond to my user account as quick as possible so I can create a separate page for Summit Camp (the Summer Camp). Thanks - [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by CircuitCityTeleVision (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Review of Alawites to ‘Alawi move

Review request of unilateral undiscussed move of Alawites to ‘Alawi move here. The move has never gained consensus in subsequent discussions. See previous discussion at Talk:‘Alawi.

I am requesting a move back to Alawites or at least a cleansing of its edit history so I can do it myself per WP:BOLD. — AjaxSmack 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

don't you think that after two additional RMs have been made and failed, this is a bit too late? Jasy jatere (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Too late for what? What has failed? There has never been consensus for the undiscussed controversial move and, even if there was, it could change. All I'm asking for is a reversion of the move. But if undiscussed controversial moves are acceptable, then clear the edit history at Alawites so I can have an equal chance to exercise boldness and conduct my own undiscussed move. — AjaxSmack 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for votes

How valid is such rationale? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, if I were to guess, it's a Eurovision concern; i.e., his concern is probably that the vote there is going by nationality block voting, Polish editors vs. Lithuanian editors (+ a few international editors), and that there's simply many more Polish editors. So simply the larger number of voters will ensure victory, irrespsective of the arguments (or quality of the song in Eurovision). Does that make sense? :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but explain this. Not a good analogy ;)
In don't care particularly which conspiracy theory a person may follow; I am asking if such theories, leading a user to vote with no concern to content, but with concern to who has voted how previously in a RM vote, represent a valid rationale for RM votes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a fair statistical trend. Using the information available from their pages or posts, according to my incomplete knowledge, one can see a clear parallel with Eurovision (accuracy not likely 100%)
Let's see ... those supporting ...
While those opposing ...
...conspiracy theory? Hmm. Eurovision statistical trend ... definitely! Not bad faith, it just happens that human beings form groups, one of which in the modern world is national allegiance. It's not anything against you or me or anyone else ... we're all human. So Ghirla has problems with this? I think we all would rather debates were settled by consensus and discussion rather than numbers. Surely, no? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deacon I would appreciate if you removed your assumptions about my vote and considered that I do have an opinion on the matter which I have clearly stated. Also my ethnicity is rather irrelevant I would gather? Thank you very much. --Avg (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. You agree with me, hence you are suspicous. If you were to disagree with me, you would be beyond doubt. Also, see this, rules #4, #8 and #9 should give you all the information you need :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer Piotrus's original question, no, the !vote rationale in question is not a valid reason for opposing, and will probably be ignored by the closing admin.--Aervanath (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of closing - any ideas on when that might happen? Novickas (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves are usually listed on WP:RM for at least five days before closure. However, if discussion is still ongoing, RM closers may let it run until either a) consensus (or lack thereof) is clear, or b) the discussion has died out.--Aervanath (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And I have now closed it as "no consensus".--Aervanath (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Caqueta Department

Dispute over recent move

An administrator User:Aervanath recently changed the name of the article "Nuclear program of North Korea" to "Nuclear power in North Korea." The discussion of the initial proposed move was inconclusive, and he has been essentially unresponsive to my subsequent objections to the move - that is, he has not responded to and does not appear to understand my objections. It's all laid out on the discussion pages Talk:Nuclear power in North Korea, User talk:Aervanath and User talk:NPguy. He suggested that I post here. I guess this is the Wikipedia court of appeals. Please help. NPguy (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the characterization of myself as "unresponsive" to his objections. I have responded to his posts on my talk page, I understand his objections, and I disagree with them. That said, I also invite other editors active here to review the relevant talk pages and give their opinions on my actions.--Aervanath (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There have been responses to my complaint, but none of them seem to address the substance of my complaint, that the old title of the article is a more accurate description of its contents than the new title. I was asked for references to justify my proposed name change. I replied that the contents of the article are sufficient to judge which title is more appropriate. NPguy (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem to think that I made a personal decision about which title was the correct one; this is not the case. I personally did not participate in the move discussion, I just evaluated the arguments I found there, both for and against the move, and interpreted the consensus. If there is consensus among other editors here that I misinterpreted the consensus, then I will happily move it back.--Aervanath (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What I find frustrating is that no one else seems to be paying attention. How do I get the attention of another editor? NPguy (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The other admins active here recently have been JPG-GR, Parsecboy, and Anthony Appleyard. If you don't object, I will leave messages on their talk pages asking them to comment.--Aervanath (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually have been keeping an eye on this, first on Aervanath's talk page, and now here (it just took me until now to comment on it). I think Aervanath's closure is perfectly fine; there was significant discussion from some of those who opposed renaming the article about whether to split the article into civil and military usage of nuclear energy in North Korea. When it became evident that nuclear weapons were covered in another article, it made the question of splitting the article moot. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I find this discussion increasingly frustrating. First, I feel like no one has yet responded to the merits of my basic argument. The article is about North Korea's nuclear program. Very little of it is about nuclear power. Therefore the previous title was accurate and the current one is not. It seems that this argument, by itself, should resolve the issue, but for reasons I cannot fathom no one bothers to address it, as if for some reason it is unworthy of consideration. Instead, the responses have all dealt with the merits of splitting the article. But that seems like a small part of the move discussion and was (appropriately) abandoned.
I'm also frustrated by the strange idea of "consensus" here. Apparently if two editors support a move and three oppose it, that is consensus for the change. In my line of work, "consensus" means "no significant dissent." That was clearly not the case here. NPguy (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, generally, when an admin or other editor evaluates a discussion and makes a decision on what the outcome was, the point of having others review the decision is not to re-argue the discussion, but to see whether or not the closure was reasonable. So, in this case, you have two options: convince other admins that my closure was unreasonable, or start another Requested Move discussion on Talk:Nuclear power in North Korea to get the article moved back. If you would like to get more admins to comment here and review my decision, I would recommend leaving messages on the talk pages of the admins I mentioned above, who have general experience with closing and participating in move discussions, and/or leaving a message at the admins' noticeboard asking other admins to read the discussion and then come here and comment.--Aervanath (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that you will see !vote used a lot. ! is not for emphasis, but is pronounced "bang" (or "not") and stands for "not", and is a Unix shorthand for inversion, see !#Computers. Consensus decision-making is always a complicated process - it took the Quakers 30 years to approve a resolution opposing slavery, and by that time it was moot because Lincoln had already signed the Emancipation Proclamation. WP:Consensus points out that in evaluating consensus, adherence to principles is more important than just vote counting. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me try this again. I think the problem is a false dichotomy. The editors who have responded to my complaint seem to believe that there are two types of nuclear program: a nuclear power program and a nuclear weapons program. Anyone familiar with the problem of nuclear proliferation knows that this is not true. In particular, the nuclear fuel cycle can be used for either civil or military purposes. It is inherently ambiguous. Because of this ambiguity, it is impossible in some cases, including North Korea and Iran, to determine definitively whether a country's fuel cycle activities are civil or military.
That is why the arguments about whether the article should be split miss the point. It must seem like an open-and-shut case to those who don't know the subject. But in these ambiguous cases it makes no sense to try to separate civil from military. Instead, we should simply call them a "nuclear program," a term that does not attempt to make that misleading distinction.
It is also why I keep insisting on the point that the title of the article should match its scope. It is also why I am so frustrated that those who have responded to my post have not only failed to address this point, but answered with an argument that strikes me as not just beside the point but maddeningly unperceptive about the substance of the article in question. I think this is a case where you need to know the substance to properly adjudicate the dispute.
Finally, I don't buy the statement:

Well, generally, when an admin or other editor evaluates a discussion and makes a decision on what the outcome was, the point of having others review the decision is not to re-argue the discussion, but to see whether or not the closure was reasonable.

How can you tell if the closure was reasonable without addressing the merits of the discussion on which it was based? NPguy (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Extension to seven days

Given that Afd has been extended to seven days, see Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days, does anyone object to lengthening the term here to seven days, due to the same reasons?--Aervanath (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No objections here. A longer discussion period wouldn't hurt. ƒingersonRoids 01:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
OTOH, please feel free to use much more liberal use of closing discussions early. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? What's the rush?--Aervanath (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that this page now looks unbearable... JPG-GR (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am curious how we ended up with eight days for discussion. Should the -8 in the backlog section be -7 instead? In comparison with WP:AFD, it looks like the procedure there is to use the eighth day in the same manner as the WP:RM backlog section - to take action on the items. I would suggest changing the -8 to -7, or just clean out the last day, but that would be somewhat counterintuitive, and confusing. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It's sort of a technical thing. When we had five-day discussions, we had the backlog set at -6. If it's set at -7, then a day moves into the backlog before requests from the end of that day have been open for seven days. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In other words, if we set it at -7, then requests move into the backlog after six days and change. If the idea is to wait until 7×24=168 hours have passed, then -8 works. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If doing it the other way, where requests 6 days + 1 minute old go into the backlog, will be more familiar to more people, then it probably makes sense to change it. I won't, like, fight over it or anything. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Somehow it looks less daunting if there are less sections, even though the number of articles is the same. One way everything is supposed to hit Backlog, the other way nothing. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving the Backlog marker once a day is quite sufficient - calling it an older than seven days marker would require moving it, or checking it, every ten minutes or so. Not practical. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of renaming the "Backlog" section. As for the timing, if we set it one way, discussions may enter the backlog as early as 6 days and one minute after beginning, and if we set it the other way, discussions may enter the backlog as a late as 8 days minus 1 minute. I don't think it'll take a dollar out of anyone's pocket or bloody anyone's nose either way. That said, I think the bike shed should be blue, with diagonal orange stripes. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't see the advantage of seven days. It has been five for years and that number works well. Just because AfD change their methods is no reason why RM has to follow their lead. I propose we go back to five days. -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not simply "AfD did it, so we should, too." It's the argument behind it: Some editors can only edit once a week. If a move request is closed after five days, an interested editor wouldn't get the chance to contribute. That's why the extension to seven days.--Aervanath (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Aervanath (and PBS). That reasoning makes more sense for AfD than for RM. For one thing, there is a lot more potential for damage at AfD. A crucial once-a-week editor might be able to say something that could make the difference between article existence and demise. At RM, the worst that can happen is the name of an article changes. But, like PBS says, 5 days works well. Many editors don't check in for weeks or even months at a time. That's no reason to extend the time to 6 months. I think 5 days, for RM, is very reasonable. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about extending it by months. I'm talking about extending it by a mere 2 days, to accomodate a significant number of editors. Is there a reason that we should shorten it to 5 days, other than "we've always done it this way"?--Aervanath (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Aervanath. Seven days is not unreasonable. In cases of snowballs, admins should have the leeway close earlier without any repercussions, but for potentially controversial moves, there is little harm to waiting a little longer. Repairing the effects of ill-advised moves can be a pain to sort out. older ≠ wiser 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath, I did not mean to imply you were talking about extending it by months. I was simply applying your logic... never mind. There are really a significant number of editors who can only log on once a week? How do you know? Anyway, it seems to me that a lot more editors are inconvenienced by having to wait for a move for 7 days instead of 5 days than are inconvenienced by a 5 day vote because they can login only once a week. The inconvenience from 7 days is that other work associated with the move cannot commence until and if the request succeeds. While time is not directly money on Wikipedia, I think it still should be valued - in that sense there is a greater "time cost" associated with a 7 day delay than with a 5 day delay. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The cost of repairing the effects of bad moves is also not trivial. While I often steal some time during the week to edit Wikipedia, I generally only take the time to look closely at all WP:RM on the weekends. I'd be very surprised if there were not quite a lot of other editors with similar constraints on editing during the week. older ≠ wiser 03:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's a much more compelling argument, because I think that aspect potentially benefits many more editors. What 7 days facilitates is the ability to only have to check WP:RM once a week (even if you login to WP every day) without worrying about missing an important move request. I'm cool with 7 days. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad there was someone who could explain it more convincingly than I did. :) --Aervanath (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Editors have also been complaining about things that have fallen into the backlog under the current setup. I understand their frustration when their requests, often without objection, have been sitting on the page without any action having been taken for ten days. If we're going to leave things at seven days, we need to be able to keep up with the backlog. As it stood, most of the more complicated discussions were already being left open for seven days. Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
We'll do our best. Unfortunately, compared to real life, Wikipedia is not That important. :) So let's keep it in perspective. *Grin*--Aervanath (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Part of the backlog seemed to have been better located in the uncontroversial section - I was pretty surprised with some of the entries that had been there a week... Besides nobody ever even uses Wikipedia. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste move - how to fix

A cut and paste move was done [2] The article has been moved a number of time to various versions of its name. What is the appropriate way to get the content linked back appropriately to its contributors and then land on a consensus article page name? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you caught this one before there were any subsequent edits to the copied page, there's no need for a history merge. Simply reverting the redirecting of the "real" article is the way to go (which I've done). If there had been other edits to the copied article that would need to be retained, you'd have to delete the "real" version, move the copied article there, and then restore all of the revisions, which would graft the two together. Parsecboy (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I have left a note at the cut and paste mover's talk page to use the "request a move" process. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
For more complicated cases, you can post things like this at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, where an admin can merge the histories.--Aervanath (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that from time to time, people bypass this process by making a cut-and-paste move, and then requesting a histmerge, when such a move is not normally possible, such as swapping the location of several pages around. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

History of the Assyrian/Syriac people

Could somebody review what happened here? The survey was close, the move implemented, and then reverted unilaterally (although the survey remains archived) by another adm! Something is not going right there!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically that is a WP:Wheel war, but it was actually a change to a slightly different name, at 06:00, 22 April 2009 User:Aervanath moved History of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people to History of the Assyrian people and at 06:07, 22 April 2009 User:Dbachmann moved History of the Assyrian people to History of the Assyrian/Syriac people. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Helldorado Days

Looking at the dab page for Helldorado, imagine my surprise to find that Helldorado Days are now defined as the festival by that name in Las Vegas, Nevada. Not the longer-running festival in the actual Western place nicknamed Helldorado, which is Tombstone, Arizona. This change in the product of relentless Las Vegas booster user:Vegaswikian. I created a new page for Helldorado Days noting that it's a festival in both places, but Vegaswikian will have none of it. If you google Helldorado Days, the first two things that come up is not the festival in Las Vegas, however, but the one in Tombstone, as is proper. Thus, here I am to help you talk some sense into somebody whose enthusiasm for Vegas themeparking of the rest of the world has gotten away from him. If you don't stop him now, you'll find that New York, New York directs to a casino. SBHarris 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As it looks like you've already filed the proper move request on WP:RM, this'll get taken care of in due time. You'll get more mileage on Wikipedia if you refrain from making comments on other users directly, and instead focus on what the proper action should be.--Aervanath (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Hillary (North Pole)

I came across the article Barbara Hillary (North Pole) and feel that there should be a better disambiguator for the article. The one it has now seems strange. I'd take this up on the talk page but the article is an orphan and it likely doesn't get too much attention. So, I'm bringing my question here... What would best suit the article? Should it be "Barbara Hillary (explorer)"? "Barbara Hillary (businesswoman)"? Any ideas? Dismas|(talk) 10:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Either one would be better than the current title. Be bold.--Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Automation of requested moves

PBS and I believe it would be a good idea to automate the requested moves process, similar to the recently-simplified WP:RFC process. —harej 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What would that look like? I mean, how do you see it working out in this case? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be a lot like the current system in place, except people only need to tag the talk pages in question instead of adding to a centralized list. The centralized list would be updated by the bot, and I am assuming that the new list would look a lot like the old list. —harej 01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If it would simplify the process, it's got my support. Could you point us to the place you and PBS are discussing/have discussed this? Or, better, copy the discussion here?--Aervanath (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
User talk:harej#WP:RM and User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Re: WP:RM. —harej 23:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say that as long as it could keep the WP:RM page in the current layout, that would be fine.--Aervanath (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Any other opinions? —harej 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Aervanath; as long as the format stays the same, I see no problems. It'll be much easier to monitor this page if the nuts and bolts are automated. Parsecboy (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose then I will get to work on the automated WP:RM process as soon as time permits. —harej 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, David Levy. Time for me to explain myself. I figured that since the automation process requires the template to be inline with the conversation, I should adjust the template to look more natural. Using {{rfctag}} as a guideline, I made the changes. —harej 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Before reading the above, I deduced the connection and adjusted Template:Rfctag to conform to the standard talk page style as well. This is something that I meant to do a while back but never got around to (because of the number of RfC tags that existed at the time) and forgot about. —David Levy 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. —harej 03:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone now needs to update the steps at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that like the RFC it would be better if the template was placed in the section to be discussed rather than at the top. Two templates (or an argument would solve the problem of controversial/noncontroversial) so that the instructions were the same for all requested moves. The bot should be able to pick up the section heading, an include a link on this RM page to that section heading automatically. It is important when the template is removed from the talk page of the proposed move that old-name to new-name and the reason for the move remain at the top of the talk section on the talk page of the page for which the proposal was made (as it is the only record of the requested move). --PBS (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RFC bot is going to be ascertaining which sections discussions take place by the templates being placed in said sections. A template for the top of the talk page is a fine idea, too, but it wouldn't be the only record of a page move. The talk page discussion and subsequent archive would be the best record. —harej 19:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An issue with the migration process

Because WP:RM is such a procedural mess, there are plenty of pages that still transclude {{move}} even though the discussions ended a long time ago. I will have to sort through these and remove templates where appropriate. Meanwhile, I am going to have the bot record its output on User:Harej/wprmtest, so I can see how many pages I will have to fix. —harej (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have overcome this for now, and now I have the bot working the list. Mission accomplished. —harej (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There is still duplication going on. Also, I'm doing my best to go close the really old ones where possible. Glad to have been on on a day when it turns out I can do something a bit different to help out. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the issue with duplication has been resolved. If you see it happen again, please let me know promptly. —harej (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your work here. I think we are well on the way to a more streamlined system, which is just great news. Dekimasuよ! 09:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue

I forsee problems whereby editors who dislike the idea of moving a given article just remove the move template, and it is removed from this page by the bot. That would be noticed by other editors a certain percentage of the time, but certainly not all the time (say, when an IP editor suggests a move and then disappears before the request has attracted attention, or when the commenters haven't added the request to their watchlist). Would it be possible to make adding entries to the page automatic, but keep removing entries from the page manual? And personally, I also tend to give a summary when I remove an entry that says whether or not I moved the page, or which entry I closed, which lends an extra layer of accountability and visibility to the move process. When being lumped together with other removals by the bot, that who-did-what-when aspect of things sort of goes away. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a fair point. I would also like the bot to place the name of the current page and the proposed page, below the template and above the comment on the talk page so that when the template is removed the "from" "to" is permanently recorded, because if it is not automated then the closing admin has to do it. --PBS (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point as well. I've already noticed a few cases today in which closers neglected to make a note on the talk page of what move they performed. Dekimasuよ! 09:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I support Dekimasu's point that the RM entries should be removed from the page manually, not by the bot. However, I disagree with the need to log the outcomes in the page history here. The only place it needs to be recorded is on the page history of the article and on its talk page. This isn't like XFD where everything must be recorded here. WP:RM is an optional process, after all.--Aervanath (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't actually state that it was necessary to log outcomes here, only that I do it personally. And just to make sure that we don't get off track as far as what PBS was saying, it would still be preferable to alter the procedure so that the only indication of the request is not within the move template. Some people are neglecting to note them on the talk pages of the actual pages in question. Dekimasuよ! 16:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The ability for page move requests to be listed until a human removes them may not be a part of the bot for a while, but it is probably doable. The reason why I have been removing non-template mentions of the move procedure is because in the listing, it would appear redundant. The bot could place a template on top of the page, similar to {{moveheader}}, that notes that there has been a discussion on what to rename the page. The difficult part is how to arrange it so that it doesn't become a dispersed mess on the talk page. After all, the point is to make the procedure simpler. —harej (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than the top of the talk page (as noted below, since that's not being stated as necessary, it is a bit of a hassle to check and see whether or not it's been added), I think we were referring to something like what you can currently see at Talk:Dêgê#Requested move. Although I understand why it might appear redundant while the template is in place, it is a great help in closing the discussion to not have to restate what the original request was. I suppose an alternative would be to format the move template box in such a way that we could subst: it and leave it within the poll box when closing the request and not have it look like the request was still open. Dekimasuよ! 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the syntax so that you subst the move template. This transcludes a different template, movereq, and it leaves a lasting record on the talk page of the old name and the new name (or the current name and the proposed name, depending on the point of view you're coming from). —harej (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks perfect from here! Dekimasuよ! 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Multimoves

Yet another issue: the recent reworking of the instructions has wreaked havoc on the procedures for requesting multiple moves. Can the bot be tweaked to handle the {{multimove}} template, and instructions to use it re-added to WP:RM? Currently, people are adding the {{move}} template to two or more different articles which are all part of the same move, resulting in the bot --Aervanath (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Support for multimoves will ultimately come, as will support for moveoptions (and multimoveoptions). First, I would like for its most basic operation to be as close to perfect as possible. —harej (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not parsing sig timestamps correctly

See this diff]. You'll note that there are three "From Russia with Love" move requests filed; one in the correctly dated section, and two added directly to the backlog, even though all three were done at the same time (look at the article talk pages and you'll see they're all dated May 31).--Aervanath (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot ascertains a timestamp based on looking at the first paragraph beneath the template while expecting there to be a timestamp at the end of the paragraph. This methodology falls on its ass when the section goes for more than one paragraph without a timestamp. WP:RFC is afflicted with the same glitch. This issue has baffled me for a while. If there are any regular expressions experts in the house, the expression for this is /\{{2}\s?(move|moveto|rename)[^header]\s?[^}]*\}{2}\n*.*([0-2]\d):([0-5]\d),\s(\d{1,2})\s(\w*)\s(\d{4})\s\(UTC\)/i – if someone could figure out a suitable replacement, plenty of thanks. —harej (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about regex, so I don't know how I personally would modify that regex string exactly. Maybe if instead of only searching at the end of the first paragraph, it just kept rolling until it hit either a) a timestamp or b) the end of the page?
The regex has since changed. The problem is not solved, as far as I know. I will post the new one soon. —harej (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Backlogging one day too early

The bot should wait one more day before moving discussions to the backlog, to make sure they have received the full seven days before being processed.--Aervanath (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your request to alter how the bot moves things to the backlog, but you'll have to wait six more days before we process it. </snark> Dekimasuよ! 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
That was just simple oversight on my part. I've added support for another day. —harej (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacing Issue

Can we maintain the additional line break between move requests? It's not especially readable without it... JPG-GR (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. —harej (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you remove the em-dash after the (Discuss) links? I found the move to the front visually jarring at first, but I think it might just be because I was so used to the other format. Since the "discuss" link is already in parentheses, though, I don't think the em-dash is necessary. Dekimasuよ! 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I am on record (in the archives) for arguing strongly for having the discuss first (as it was in the good old days). I think it is much better as it makes navigation to the discussions much easier. --PBS (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gotten used to this format already, in terms of having the "Discuss" link first. Still don't think we need the em-dash, though. Dekimasuよ! 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as the "Discuss" link is somewhere prominent, it's fine. Having it bold and in front, as it is at the time I'm writing this, is probably the best way.--Aervanath (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As you will notice, I have been reformatting them properly, with the page name first, in bold. It was just too hard to look through all the Discuss pages that had move requests to find the names of the pages that were actually being requested moved. Maybe some of you can skip over Discuss, but I can't - that's all I see, is a long list of pages named Discuss that need to be moved. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To cave into 199.125's peer pressure, and because I never meant to change the layout to begin with (it was only out of necessity), I brought back the old syntax. For those who fell in love with the old system, if I could somehow manage to have both systems existing simultaneously, then that would just be great. —harej (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. In retrospect, the version with the discuss links in front looked clean and professional compared to this. I know we can't please everybody, but most people seemed happy with having discuss in front. Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's vote on it. —harej (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue

Is there a reason we have two requests in the backlog that only contain a discuss link and nothing else? [3] JPG-GR (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one has the template outside of the section where the move is being suggested, so there's no data for the bot to use to list a reason or get a timestamp. I don't know what's going on with the second one. Dekimasuよ! 09:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "most recent stable title"

There is a discussion on my talk page (User_talk:Aervanath#Military_history_of_the_peoples_of_the_British_Islands) that followers of the WP:RM process would probably be interested in. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An optional template to put on top of talk pages

Since {{move}} has been relegated to whichever talk page sections are holding the discussions, I have created an optional template that can be put on top of the page. {{moveheader}} does the simple job of pointing out (a) there is a discussion to rename the page and (b) where it is happening. Right now, someone with AWB could have this template slapped on top of all the talk pages that are transcluding {{move}}. —harej (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary and as it complicates the instructions, and it means the closing admin job harder as the admin has to check for it and remove it if it is there. (just editing a section is an easier edit than editing the whole page). --PBS (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a version taking place on the article page should be implemented then. Previously, the placement of the move template at the top of the talk page was clearly visible when you moved to the talk page, now with it placed in the section, it is no longer so, especially on articles with fast moving talk sections. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Myself I find it very helpful to have the {{move}} template at the top of the talk page. I know that some of that admins closing moves have failed to remove it, and one of the constant follow up tasks I have been doing is checking to see if moved pages have had the template removed, and have had the new page title changed in bold in the article. Why helpful at the top? Because when you are on dialup it can take forever for a talk page to load, but you can at least see that there is a proposal to move the page. I would suggest changing the wording slightly to make adding the move template at the top of the page optional, but not discretionary. Also, for consistency I would name the template that goes in the section heading {{movereq}} or something like that and the one at the top of the page {{move}}. I feel a little bit like Andrei Codrescu - the expert on the Soviets, who was on vacation the week the Soviet Union vanished and completely missed the whole thing. It does however, point out the reason that changes to Wikipedia are not normally done hastily, and are given plenty of time for discussion. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There's the additional problem of bot archived talk pages that archive WP:RM discussions that are still open, if there was no activity in say a day... because of a fast moving talk page. - Perhaps we should have dedicated subpages like the XfD processes do, and only leave the template on the talk page or article page itself. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Occasionally RM's die because they get archived. The bot will try to point to the archive, but it is trivial to spot it and remove the moverequested template from the archive. It would be a horrendous complication to use subpages. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The XfD processes have dedicated subpages so that a record of the discussion will still exist if the page is deleted. That's not a concern here.--Aervanath (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting uncontroversial moves

Requesting uncontroversial moves should also be done on the talk page of the article. (I'm personally against making the distinction between controversial and uncontroversial moves but that is for another discussion)

The reasons for this are:

  • If the move is in fact controversial it lets the people watching the page know that the request has been made.
  • It also means that the process can be automated in the same way as the controversial moves.
  • It places a permanent record onto the talk page of what was requested and by whom. (This can be useful if at a later date someone requests another move).

The template used can either be the same as that used for controversial moves with an additional flag, or a similarly named dedicated template. If this was done, then it would simplify the instructions on the WP:RM page as the two processes would be similar. What do others think. --PBS (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, a move performed on a watched page shows up on the watchlist (the new title is added to the watchlist automatically, and the move itself shows up as the creation of a new page). I'm not sure I agree with this particular proposal, because the volume of uncontroversial moves is quite large, and for any move that's unblocked, we don't require editors who move pages on their own to note such things. Dekimasuよ! 09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes but for an ordinary move it is possible to look through the history of the article and see who moved it. If there is a record on the talk page of a request for an administrator to move a page another editor to enquirer why the proposer asked for a WP:RM, otherwise the inquiring editor has to contact the administrator, who then has to look through their edit history ... most administrators have better thinks to do. --PBS (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
But I think that by the same token, writing on the talk page after every uncontroversial move request would take up more of the administrators' time than looking through edit histories in those rare cases. Dekimasuよ! 16:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, uncontroversial requests flow through here like water. I would oppose slowing that process down or making it any more work to carry out uncontroversial moves. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not just ask administrators making uncontroversial moves to annotate them "Requested by X"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Annotate where? In the move summary? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
That's doable. Best would be if the {{RMassist}} template subst'ed a "move" link onto the page that would give an admin a one-click method to move the page, complete with standardized move summary.--Aervanath (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow. That would be best. Do you know how to do that? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Not at the moment...off to the sandbox we go!--Aervanath (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Or, actually, WP:VPT, since I couldn't figure it out on my own. (sadness)--Aervanath (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC) — section "link for admins to move pages with preloaded reason" (makes it easier to find when its archived) --PBS (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I usually use the move summary "per uncontroversial request listed at WP:RM"... I suppose I can use "per uncontroversial request listed at WP:RM by User:Foo" instead until something along those lines can be automated. Dekimasuよ! 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In the move I just made, I used a standard summary-type: "Consistency with similarly titled articles; requested at WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals." I do like summarizing the reason, as well as noting where it was requested. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If there's enough space, I agree. Has the bug that causes summaries to be cut off midphrase when titles are long ever been fixed? Dekimasuよ! 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Without reading this section, I would say that uncontroverial moves should just appear on WP:RM only, because most of them are so trivial that there is no need for any entry on the talk page. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If anyone, including the moving admin, feels that there should be more notice, then that is grounds to treat the request at least as potentially controversial, and move it to the main section. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Progress on automation

Considerable process has been made on automating Requested Moves since it was originally implemented. I have addressed the biggest issue: that of a record of the name change. By modifying {{move}} so that it is substituted instead of transcluded, a record of the proposal is placed in the talk page discussion. This record stays even once the template is removed. I consider this to be great progress, though there is still much work that needs to be done. {{moveoptions}}, {{multimove}}, and {{multimoveoptions}} have yet to be implemented. What else needs to be implemented? —harej (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'd like to take this chance to say Thank You for doing this, to everyone who has been helping. This automation stuff promises to be very helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you along the same lines. We all know how uncommon it is to get anywhere close to a consensus to change an entrenched process around here, even a less official process like this one. And the previous attempt I'm aware of to implement a little automation around here -- just trying to get the backlog tag to update automatically -- ended when I had to block User:Gnome (Bot) for repeatedly blanking the page. Great job. Dekimasuよ! 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that I have seen it for the first time, I have to say that I would like to see Discuss come after the title changes, and make the titles bold, and Discuss in italics '', and not bold. It may have been this way ages ago, but it is far better to have the titles first, followed by the Discuss link. Another correction, is that the moveto page should be formatted as a noredirect (see Administrator instructions). 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be making another request, but can you have the bot comment out the "Backlog" and "Malformed requests" sections when they're empty? Dekimasuよ! 16:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Section renamed

The section "Incomplete and contested proposals" has been renamed to "Contested uncontroversial proposals". Formerly it was a catchall for items that were either contested or incomplete proposals. Now it makes no sense to move something from the other section to the incomplete section as the bot will just restore it into Other. Instead there is a malformed section, and presumably that means that the bot spits them there if it doesn't like them, and the remedy is to fix the request on the talk page, not make any edits to WP:RM. How does that section work? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How it is supposed to work is by positing requests where it cannot interpret the timestamp. But it does not appear to be doing that. —harej (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that someone did fix move to movereq in the bot, but I would strongly request that the template now named move be used at the top of the page and that movereq be edited to contain the current contents of move (see above), though I am not sure how to make it so that it has to be subst'd and yet leave {{movereq}} behind on the talk page - although you could leave behind {{moverequested}}, and ask that to request a move, subst movereq, and to delist a page remove moverequested from the talk page. I also noticed that if a timestamp is not found the bot puts the request at the bottom of backlog as only a discuss link, instead of into malformed where it should have been. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Since contested proposals are not uncontroversial, I've again shortened the section name to "Contested requests", with a clearer and bolded link in the uncontroversial section. Dekimasuよ! 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was sort of an oxymoron. By the way RMinc is hopelessly out of date, and should just be retired. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not transcluded anywhere at the moment. I suppose we could just deprecate it. Dekimasuよ! 02:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
While it could be useful to have a template, with the bot, the most likely requirement is for RM contested. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Auto archive

Any objection to having a bot auto archive this talk page? I'll probably set this up for 30 days after the last post on a topic, if there are no objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we make it 60 instead? Especially since we're doing a lot of procedural changes right now, it'd be nice to keep what we've been doing visible for a while. Every day people are posting new requested moves using the old format. It'll take some time for everyone to notice what's been happening. Dekimasuよ! 00:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think that is too long, but since it was the only comment, it is installed that way. It is easy to adjust as time goes on. Remember that this is controlled by activity in each section, so as long as the section has activity it remains. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Normal period for archiving is 7-14 days. I would recommend 14 at the most. As mentioned, what this means is no response in a given section within that many days. It is only one click away to read the archives. I could be wrong, but I believe that subsections do not get archived until there is no change anywhere in the section for the full 7 (or whatever) days, so the very long "Automation of requested moves" section will remain unarchived for as long as any comment has been added to any section. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Anywhere from 14-30 days would be fine with me.--Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Then hopefully, 14 is acceptable both to those who want it from 7-14 and those who prefer 14-30. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why things need to be one click away from the normal talk page when the page itself isn't long. I really don't believe the normal archiving period is 7-14 days. Although we've had a lot of comments here recently because of the procedural changes, this page does not usually get a large volume of input. If this was a page filled with perennial topics, I would understand. But this isn't WT:RFA or Talk:Main Page. Many people only come to RM when they have to, and the period between visits is likely longer than two weeks. If people are confused by changes to the process, they should have ready access to that on the talk page without having to go through the archives. (Frankly, I don't understand why the archiving has to be automated at all, and I suggested 60 as an attempt to compromise.) Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Conversely one could ask why anyone would want to have to do the task when there are bots that handle this menial work just fine? As seen from the discussion above, clearly there is support for the auto archive. I am surprised about the desire for keeping material for less then 30 days. I think that 30 days is reasonable given the amount of activity here. I'd take exception with the position that there is a normal archiving period since this is really based on the likes and dislikes of editors on the various pages. If the talk page is not excessive in size, then a longer retention is not necessarily bad. As to why keeping older material is bad, there are more and more new users jumping in to discussions that have not been active for months and making comments that are of no current value. I guess the thinking is, if the item is still there we want comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The key question seems to be: what is the period of time after which a thread on this thread is considered dead? This varies from page to page, as Vegaswikian pointed out, so what is the proper value for this page? Personally, I think that if no one's posted to a thread here for two weeks, then people probably aren't interested in it anymore. However, I can see that occasional editors might come by and see a topic that "died out" three weeks ago that they feel should be commented on. I know that on other (far, far shorter) talk pages, I've seen threads restart months, even years, after the last comment. However, on this page that length of time just isn't practical, and it's far easier to have a bot archive things then wait until a human editor comes along and sees that the page is too darn long. I have my own user talk page set to archive threads after 14 days, and that's worked pretty well for me. On the other end of the scale, WP:the admin noticeboard is set to archive after 48 hours, and the incidents noticeboard after 24, because of the sheer volume of posts that are handled there. For this page, I would say that Vegaswikian's original suggestion of 30 days is the most reasonable, as that will mean that threads won't be archived until a full month has passed since the last comment in that thread.
tl;dr summary:
Reason to automate archiving: easier on human editors
Important thing to remember: if the length of time before archiving is set for 30 days, that means 30 days after the thread stopped, NOT 30 days after it started
I am not married to any particular number, personally, but I would argue for 14 as an absolute minimum, 60 as an absolute maximum, and 30 as probably the most reasonable.
Oh, and the bike shed should be orange, with blue octagons on each side.--Aervanath (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Multi-moves

The wording "Be sure to follow the above procedures for every page being moved. To make discussion more focused, be sure to link to all the other related discussions." could be improved. I would suggest instructing to use the word "multi-move" in the move reason, and adding a template to the top of each page to be moved, linking back to the centralized discussion. For example, for Victoria line what was done was to add the move template to the top of each page with a link back to the centralized discussion. Unfortunately it had to be subst'd and edited because there was no way to get it to link to a different page. This can trivially be corrected by editing the move template that goes at the top of the talk page to look for a # sign, and if does not find one, insert one at the beginning of the requested text. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Even simpler: if it is on another page, then there is an optional page parameter that people fill out in addition to the page parameter. —harej (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Update has been made to the template. If the moveheader needs to point to a different page, then be sure to include the parameter "page=Page title". —harej (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Entry format poll

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Compromise format with italicized Discuss link --PBS (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple poll on what the entries on the Requested Moves page should look like. Before I restored the traditional way, I created a different format (out of necessity, as a result of quirkiness with the programming) that people fell in love with. To settle on the format that is to be used until future consensus challenges it, I have decided on a poll. You may vote for one of the two options, or you could create a compromise (or a totally different format) and vote for that one. The one with the most votes wins. —harej (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, 199.125, I'd be willing to create an alternative page that maintains the oldschool format for your viewing pleasure if it ends up getting defeated in the poll). —harej (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss after the name links

Support

  • Excellent. I moved the <em> to inside the parentheses, though. It has been like this for who knows how many years (since 2006, actually), no reason to change. I also added the colon inside the bracket. I do not believe it has any effect. See {{RMlink}} to see how they used to be formatted. A better format is to use → {{noredirect|NewName}}, which is the format created by {{RMtalk}} now. This edit[4] says that the colon is needed in some namespaces, though I am not sure which ones are problematic. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ain't broke, don't fix it. JPG-GR (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Third choice.--Aervanath (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was not the original format after it was agreed to move discussion off this page onto the talk pages of the articles. I objected when the change was made to this ordering (see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 4#Formatting the request line) and I still think it is best to place for the link to the discussion is next to the bullet point. --PBS (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. You are referring back to a discussion that took place in 2005 about a change that took place in 2006 and has never been brought up since, until now? 199.125.109.135 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't be confused. The change did not take place until the end of March 2006, but it was made at the time because the majority of editors who contributed to this page at that time approved of it (see /Archive 6#subst:WP:RM|PageName|NewName|reason for move). I bought it up again about a 6 months later but did get any support, as it is a relatively trivial matter, it is not something that needs raising frequently. However if as now it were bought up again by someone else, then will I support going back to the older format for all the reasons I gave at that time of the previous change. If someone else suggests scrapping the uncontroversial moves section I would support that as well for the reasons I gave when it was originally proposed. --PBS (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • My point exactly. a) it did not get any support b) it is relatively trivial - The point is, that if it has been acceptable for three years it is much more likely to be better than any other choice. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss in bold first format

Support

  • Second choice. Dekimasuよ! 09:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My least favourite.--Aervanath (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, Don't care if it is in bold italicized or not. This was original format after it was agreed to move discussion off this page onto the talk pages of the articles. It makes it easier to navigate to the talk page where the move is being discussed, because the link to the talk page is always in the same place. If it comes after the name of the article and names vary in length it takes longer to navigate to where the important conversation about a move is taking place. --PBS (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromise format

Support

  • —harej (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good compromise. Still looks clean, but has the titles emphasized. First em-dash doesn't seem too necessary, since the discuss link is already in parentheses. Dekimasuよ! 09:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Second choice.--Aervanath (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, Don't care if it is in bold, italicized or not. --PBS (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromise format with italicized Discuss link

Support

  • First choice.--Aervanath (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, Don't care if it is in bold, italicized or not. --PBS (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Acceptable alternative, as shown, with Discuss and Article Names as such. JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support First choice. I like the idea of putting the Discuss link at the front, and this one just looks the best. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like both. —harej (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Close

The poll has gone on long enough, it seems to me that the general consensus is (discussion) before and that "Compromise format" is marginally preferred. Unless someone other than IP 199.125.109.88 objects soon or supports the IP's position, can this poll be closed and that version implemented. --PBS (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's moot, because the bot spits out both versions, so anyone can view it either way. As I see it there are three options, each with one supporter, other than the original which has two. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As I have pointed out to you it is not the original so why do you use that term? It happens to be the one you prefer but you are in a minority on this issue. As I have supported several options non of which have I supported alone how can you say "each with one supporter"? The one I have highlighted has the most support further taken overall there is more support for before than after the other links. It is time that the change was made. If the bot spits out both then the one before should be included on the WP page, the other will be avaibale for you 199.125.109.88 to view.
As B2C has now expressed an opinion it now looks as if the "Compromise format with italicized Discuss link" is now the preferred solution. Can this poll now be closed and that version implemented. --PBS (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There have been very few who noticed or cared to express an opinion. The best solution is to keep it the way it is. Keep two versions, and you can tweak each to your hearts content (harej willing). That's the best of both worlds. There is no reason to impose a solution on anyone, particularly if it is distasteful. I will continue to manually edit both as needed. The bot happily clobbers all edits every half hour, though. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep two if you want, but the version for which the majority have expressed a preference, should be the one on this page. -- PBS (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me, and without even checking to see which has the majority (last I checked it was 2-2), I'm switching them for now. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Automated Moveheader Removal

The bot is now running a new script, headerdelete.php, which removes {{moveheader}} from a talk page when there is no {{movereq}} to accompany it. —harej (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've finally put me out of business. :) JPG-GR (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Harej, do you ever sleep? :)--Aervanath (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm probably missing something. How is an editor supposed to know to use {{movereq}} in conjunction with {{moveheader}}? Only {{moveheader}} is mentioned in the general instructions at WP:RM; {{movereq}} is only mentioned in the instructions for Contested requests. And what if someone uses {{moveheader}} but intentionally creates the discussion section manually without using {{movereq}}? The bot will simply remove the {{moveheader}}? That doesn't sound right. Seems to me that with this bot running around, the WP:RM instructions need to clearly state that use of {{movereq}} is mandatory, not optional, at least if {{moveheader}} is also being used. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The instructions do not give any sort of indication that subst:move is optional, whereas it is stated that moveheader is optional. —harej (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If the bot is look for {{movereq}}, what difference does it make whether subst:move is used? Or does subst:move include {{movereq}}? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
subst:move includes movereq as well as the pagemove proposal (Old name -> new name). —harej (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I knew I was missing something. Where can I look at subst:move? --Born2cycle (talk)
Template:Move ? —harej (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a whole lot simpler to use the format {{subst:move|NewName|Reason for move}}. It would also help to remove some of the malformed requests. Except I would prefer movereq, and use move at the top of the page. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a very specific reason for not making the description/reason a part of the template. The RFC bot used to work that way, and as a result, there were "forbidden characters" that could not be used in descriptions, lest it would confuse the bot. Internal links that were piped could not be used, as vertical pipes are used in separating template parameters. That was fixed by using "!!" instead, which is non-standard. Then external links proved to be troublesome somehow, as the bot randomly cut them off. Enough is enough, I declared, and I changed the function of the RFC bot so that templates are as minimal as possible. There are no longer any "forbidden characters", though sadly, I have not found a way to accommodate descriptions longer than one paragraph. Still, that is less of a problem than not being able to include links for arbitrary reasons. —harej (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking back through the archives, I see that there were complaints that some entries were too long. So having the length at one paragraph is probably better. After all it is only meant to be an introduction to the requested move on the WP:RM page. However if a multi-page move is being suggested, those are usually laid out with an intro and then a list of bullet points. Will the bot chop the conversation before the first bullet point? --PBS (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset) Yes, and not because I want it to. The issue is not that people have been expounding too much on the request, but that people will have, say, a brief paragraph, then some bullet points. This constitutes multiple paragraphs, as paragraphs are considered to be separated by newlines. Also, the current regex that picks out the description is /\{{2}\s?(movereq)\s?[^}]*\}{2}\n*[^→]*→.*(.|\n.)?([0-2]\d):([0-5]\d),\s(\d{1,2})\s(\w*)\s(\d{4})\s\(UTC\)/i if that means anything to anyone. —harej (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently did an epic upgrade to the RFC bot which got rid of this cutting-off-after-one-paragraph problem. I will be implementing it here shortly. —harej (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that epic upgrades are not very straight forward to implement. Is there any way of making the bot put identical time stamp entries in the same order each time? I'm on the verge of editing each so that it will quit moving them around each time. Any chance of fixing the page name, discuss link order again, so that it is the way it has been, again? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what causes identically timestamped entries to switch order regularly. A fix may involve some kind of tiebreaker; for example, it could go alphabetical if the timestamps are the same. As for the order of links in each entry, that is a feature not a bug. As I said, I am willing to create an alternate list which is updated in tandem just for the sake of the old way of things. —harej (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Are move discussions popularity contests?

Are there any guidelines for how move discussions are evaluated? Or is it pretty much the discretion of the admin?

I'm wondering about discussions in which participants are clearly ignoring naming policy and guidelines and simply treating it like a popularity contest... the most popular name wins, period, regardless of why people prefer it over the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion are just that - discussions and are closed when a consensus is reached (or no consensus is reached). JPG-GR (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring all rules is a valid option and it is insulting to many editors to disparage those who take that option. That you choose to reject the reasons they gave you doesn't mean their input doesn't count. See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.--Dbratland (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mention anyone in particular in my comment, and did not mean to disparage anyone, especially not anyone in particular. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I don't "reject" any reasons. I was just wondering whether in the consensus-determining process opinions based on following established policy and guidelines were weighed more than opinions that didn't. I thought I read something to that effect somewhere once, but can't find it now. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I read WP:IAR. Don't forget:
  • "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.
So IAR might be a valid option for ignoring all of WP:NC when discussing the reasons to change or retain an article name, but only if a good reason for ignoring WP:NC is provided, when asked. I don't know whether simply referring to WP:COMMON would count for most as a good reason in such a context. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Generally, I review moves under similar considerations one would expect an admin reviewing XfDs to exhibit. I have no problem with ignoring rationales that boil down to WP:ILIKEIT\WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and other oft-cited arguments to be avoided. Arguments need to be based in policy and guidelines for them to carry any weight. Wikipedia has never been a democracy, and simply stacking the polls to achieve majority should not be a valid option for those who want to "win" discussions. That's just my 2 cents though. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Great, so it is totally up to admin discretion? Can you please be the closer for the Ford Motor Company → Ford RM? ;-) I think there are only 2 votes in favor of the move right now, but they both cite arguments based in policy and guidelines, while the 400 or so opposes either wrongly assume the article is only about the company (and not the brand), or are essentially variations on WP:ILIKEIT.
Seriously, any interest in making this approach more formal? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle, the many editors who have happened to see issues differently than you have given explanations beyond simply mentioning WP:IAR and WP:COMMON. The problem is that you are pretending those reasons don't exist. You are pretending that on the flimsy grounds that those reasons differ from your opinions and interpretations of what various policies and guidelines mean, and they are based on different opinions than yours as to what constitutes and improvement in an article. One can hardly filter out every opinion which is based on a different understanding of the underlying policy. Not without abandoning the principles of openness and consensus altogether.
There are those who have given up on Wikipedia entirely in favor of other repositories of knowledge with a more authoritarian approach that gives greater weight to people who have demonstrated they have mastered the rules and give "correct" interpretations. Perhaps you feel they are right.--Dbratland (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussions are purely optional, yet a very good idea when a page move that could theoretically happen is contestable. The point is that pages should be complying with page name guidelines, which are based off of a general agreement of how pages should be titled. Page titles which are clearly against the convention could be moved with no discussion because it's not as though there is going to be a substantial objection. But when the violations are not as outstanding, it's a good idea to talk it out. Ask around, and figure out the different insights from people. WP:RM is the infrastructure in place to coordinate these discussions that are happening all across Wikipedia. —harej (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I pretty much agree with Parsecboy; as with all discussions, you have to take the weight of the arguments into consideration. However, as I said to an editor the other day, WP:CONSENSUS implies that you have to be able to convince others that your view is correct. If a lot of people disagree with you, then they may have good reason to. Anyway, here's my general method for evaluating discussions:
First, I read the discussion, trying to ignore the various bolded "support"/"oppose" votes and focus on the actual arguments. Once I've finished reading the discussion, I make a tentative decision based on my impression of consensus. Once I've got that in mind, then I go back and look at the numbers. If they reflect the same impression I've already formed, then my decision's done. If the numbers are close, or are weighted in the opposite direction from the consensus, then I have to re-read the discussion and determine exactly how to weight the arguments versus the numbers. For a discussion I closed relatively recently that went against the numbers, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_18#Normal_114788_6298_ful.jpg, which resulted in a delete closure, despite the numbers being 6-3 in favor of keeping the image. I've seen even more lopsided decisions in the past. So, in sum, while it would be a lie to say that numbers of !votes are meaningless, they can certainly be ignored with a good enough rationale. However, you do this at your peril: very few closes against the numbers go unprotested. This is one reason I hate high-profile, controversial closes, since there's always drama afterwards, and no one's ever satisfied. See the current state of my talk page for the fallout from my close of the Military history of Britain requested move. Ugh.--Aervanath (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Need for /documentation becoming more apparent

Something that still needs to be done - /documentation pages for all the modified templates, so you don't have to go to WP:RM to figure out how to use them (if you can even figure out to get to WP:RM in the first place...). JPG-GR (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How many templates are we talking about? I would think that all of them should have a link to WP:RM. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
{{move}}, {{movereq}}, etc. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another request for documentation, as I'm curious why my serious (but test in nature) move request here isn't showing up. JPG-GR (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot has stopped. This was it's last edit, at 0:00 16 June 2009.[5] Have manually added all, except for the three relatively frivolous ones (moving automobile to personal transit vehicle or something like that), by the same IP user. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Multimove?

Is there a way I can do a multiple move proposal, given the new template automation? --Una Smith (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would recommend including the word multimove in your short description. You will not be able to list the pages on WP:RM. Pick one for the location for discussion, and subst' move there. Add {{moveheader}} to each of the other pages to be moved, using the page= link back to the central discussion location. Make sure you add a list of all the pages to be moved at the central location, but do not try to get the bot to list them:

subst move for one page Multimove blah blah. sig 199.125.109.126 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • This
  • That
  • The other
  • Like this with a second sig here. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reformat question

Why have we switched from the well-known wiki-markup for bold and italics to the rarely-used-on-Wikipedia <strong> and <em> tags? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't feel comfortable filling up my code with single-quotes that are not used to put something in quote marks, but I will try it out. —harej (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • At the same time can you move the italics inside the parentheses for the discuss link, like this (Discuss)? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That looks really bad, at least on Firefox on a Mac. The last S is in the parens. Dekimasuよ! 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It looks ok to me (Firefox on a PC). Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • That is the way it has been since 2006, until the bot took over just now. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves/current-oldstyle. —harej (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current

Why has this redirect been put in place from quite an active discussion page, I suspect something is going on that some one does not wish to be seen. Or could I be wrong.dolfrog (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to discuss in two places. /current is a subpage of this page, which is (normally) updated by a bot. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been throwing me off lately that when I edit the main RM page, after I save I find myself at the /current sub-page, and in my contributions and watchlist, the edits aren't where I'm used to seeing them. I'm assuming there's a good reason for that change, that's probably explained on this very talk page, and that I'll get used to it.

My initial impression is that the system has become more confusing, and I'm not sure why. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if something changes, and you think that the cause is that "something is going on that some one does not wish to be seen," you'll be wrong roughly 99.9% of the time. See Hanlon's razor for one side of the explanation - although not the one that applies here, because there's nothing stupid about a redirect from a completely empty (and not "quite active") discussion page, to the active one right here. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
what really annoys me (or my pet WIKI hate) are those who use numbers instead of names or letters to mee they could all just be the same person with multiple accountsm trying to hide their real identity from everyone else to operate anyway they wish. They all appear to be the same to me, but that could be due to my information processing disability. They do not inspire confidence that tyey know what they are doing, and from my experience never want to really understand or research the issues involved before they rush off like butterfly to the next issue. dolfrog (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, 199.125.109.xxx is always the same person. Dekimasuよ! 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Not even close. It's an ISP and I have no way of knowing how many others are using it, both as IP users and as registered users. There are also both dynamic and static IPs from the same ISP, and there is no way of knowing which is which. It's safe to say that most of the edits to this page from this ISP are from the same person, but not for other pages. But everyone should also realize that IPusers are far less anonymous than registered users. Not liking people to edit using an IP address is something that one really needs to get over in a hurry, though, as anyone can edit is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. By the way I see that someone finally cleaned up that page. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course I was referring to this page. Dekimasuよ! 06:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, then it is most likely correct. In fact if I did see someone else from this ISP edit this page I would likely go work on something else, and let them carry on here, just to avoid the confusion. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(commented on user's talk page) -kotra (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with IPusers editng articles, but when a user gain administrator status, as part of becoming an administrator they have to use a registerd account for all their activities. If as an administrator they persist in being an IPuser then their adminsistator status should be withdrawn until tyey use a registered account.

dolfrog (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? No IP has admin tools....as for admins using IP addresses, there are legit reasons to use alternate accounts (I use one for example). Whether or not they are an admin makes no difference to those rules (Nor would it make a difference were they socking). --Narson ~ Talk • 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm an administrator, and I sometimes edit without logging in. I see nothing wrong with that. If I'm doing anything significant, I log in. Our friend 199.125.xxx.xxx is a very helpful contributor here at Requested moves, and I don't care whether he or she has an account, is really seven people, or anything else about his or her identity. Unless he's registering opinions in discussions and then logging in to agree w/ himself (abusive socking), I see no problem, and I'm pretty confident that the person in question here is not abusively socking. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is probably an innocent explantion, but what aroused my suspicions is the history of the move I have requested. I am currently editing the Dyslexia Article, and the support dyslexics recieve varies from one country to another, which can be due to the variation in Writing systems and the neurologicla skills required and the neurlogicla deficts a dyslexic may have( see Management of dyslexia ) So to provide moreinformation regarding the special education support that dyslexic will need will again depend on the staturory and support structures in each country. So what My move is trying to do is to create Special Education or Special Educational Needs articles by country. So each article should state which country the content refers to. I first made this move myself back in May 2009, but this was reverted by WhatamIdoing . So this time applied via the WIKI channles which has led me hear. On the Talk:Special Educational Needs There have been comments very similar to since i made the application by both User talk:199.125.109.102 and User talk:199.125.109.126 and all three use the same type of langauge and refuse to have a potentially friutful discussion about resolving any problems. As I said at the start there could be some innocent explanation, but as an ordinary user something does not appear to be quite right. dolfrog (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, my first edit was in 2006, as a registered user, as I mistakenly thought that usernames were required, as they are in many Internet forums, but since I had forgotten both the username used and the password used (and have still been unable to find it, despite a very concerted search), I decided that since it was not required to use a registered username, I would push the envelope and see what could be done as an IP user. However, about a year later, I registered 199er as a username, just in case the requirements ever changed. As it quickly became apparent that would never happen, this username was never used, other than for this one edit. And now I will log out and continue on as before. I would, however, like to become an Admin someday (soon), but not under this username. 199er (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, your initial question was, "Why has this redirect been put in place from quite an active discussion page?" Which "active discussion page" were you talking about? There is no edit history at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current; nobody has ever used that talk page for discussion.

Now, which page are you asking about? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus until I started this thread here i was under the impression that i had been participating in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current hence the title of the thread. And the reason for this thread was to find out why there was suddenly a redirect from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/curren where i had been discussing this issues regarding the move of -Special Educational Needs → Special educational needs in the United Kingdom — dolfrog (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC) and thne when i went to my Watchlist on the 16 June 2009 there was a redirect to this discussion page, as I understood it for no apparent reason. Whether i had been on a mirror discussion page i do not know. The main contents of the now unaccessable discussion were similar to the content of Talk:Special Educational Needs disussion page regarding the requested move.
I hope this explains the issue
And on another issue which has cropped up on another issue, can you tell me waht the power structure of WIKI is how many levels are there? are their different graded between ordinary user and administrator, and how does the ordinary user know who is who, and who can do what.
I do have a communication disability, but trying to understand how WIKI works is like trying to spin a complex spiders web without any instructions.
dolfrog (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Where have all the comments gone

Where have all the comments gone (long time passing) ...? I put in a requested move (10:32, 16 June 2009 ) which at first was listed here with its comment now the comments have gone why? --PBS (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at how the bot looks for the comment, but it may have to do with using an mdash before your sig. I tried taking it out to see if it finds the comment. It was first listed here with the comment because all of the RM's on the 16th were manually added[6] while the bot was down. When the bot started updating again it followed it's own rules, and dropped the comment.[7] [8] I have been more concerned about having RM's be listed than how they are listed. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, that worked. There are a few common sig formatting types that cause problems for the bot - using an mdash, using span, or small, and I think also checking to see if the sig is included. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the regex I put in to detect descriptions, either. It was from when the bot operated differently and I abruptly changed the format of entries. I'll make it better soon enough, I promise. I have a lot of free time now. —harej (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Undoing moves for purely procedural reasons...

...is a bad idea. I've just been informed that it's "SOP" (Standard operating procedure, I assume) to move pages back if they're preemptively moved before discussion has reached a consensus. I strongly disagree that this is appropriate. We should refrain from doing anything for purely procedural reasons.

I therefore suggest that we renew what I believe used to be our policy: Leave the thing alone. If someone moves it, leave it there. If no one moves it, leave it there. In the spirit of Wikipedia:The wrong version, I strongly oppose a policy of insisting that a page be moved back to the prior title, as if that is somehow necessary in order for the discussion to continue. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that moving things back and forth is a bad idea, but there is a procedural issue with the bot - it reformats the move request using the current page name, so you end up with the request saying Page → Page. In the old manual insertion method that wasn't a problem, because WP:RM would still say Oldpage → Newpage. Come to think of it, the problem is introduced because the bot is picking up {{movereq|Newpage}}, where instead it should be picking up the static Oldpage→ Newpage that is right below that (and if it isn't there it should be). That might also fix the other problem above where the bot strips out everything up to the last mdash it finds, stripping out the move reason if mdash is used as a prefix to a sig. I see that RMtalk was causing part of the problem because it used two mdashes. That has now been corrected. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, reverting a bold-ish move fits exactly in the WP:BRD cycle. Furthermore, moving an article in the midst of discussion is really bad form and smacks of a total disregard for consensus. Being able to work together well is a key component of the collegial atmosphere that makes a project like Wikipedia run smoothly. Doing anything that detracts from that only increases incivility and causes problems.
Unless the discussion results in a decision to retain the "new title", it absolutely should be returned to the previous one (or a different name, if consensus decides so). Even a "no consensus" closure should result in a move back to the last stable name (since, if the page had not been moved unilaterally, the "no consensus" would have left the page at the "old title"). Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that moving a page in the middle of discussion is a bad idea. That doesn't make moving it a good idea to move it right back. I know about the BRD cycle, but I tend to be more of a 0RR kind of guy. If the new title ends up being preferred, then the move back was purely procedural, and there are three moves in the history instead of one. Not a great loss, I know, but silly nonetheless.

I agree with you about closures, but that doesn't change how I feel about procedural moves. In a case where the consensus isn't leaning towards the new name, I'd be much more inclined to move it back, but I object to the idea of doing it automatically. If consensus is leaning towards the new name, then moving it back seems overly... procedural.

Any issues with the bot can surely be fixed by adjusting the settings. I can't imagine that we're somehow a hostage to one particular implementation of code, not on Wikipedia in 2009. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be disruptive to ask what page you're discussing here? I moved a page back during a discussion yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I had a good reason. Hoping that's not the one you're talking about. Dekimasuよ! 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It is, but only indirectly. The page in question is Designer baby, now nominated for AfD. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it came up with Designer baby, but I'm more interested in the general case. I just didn't think it should have been listed as an uncontroversial. Moving it back could be a good or a bad idea, depending on the specific case. I just don't think it should be automatic. Maybe it's not. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators#Determining_consensus touches on this a little bit. The reasoning that led to the "procedural reversal" was that there is often a bias in discussions against making a move, so that editors may !vote "leave it where it is now", which supports a new title which doesn't have consensus. The compromise we reached before was: let the discussion run its course, and then, if the discussion reaches no consensus, revert the move.--Aervanath (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Death by Stereo

I'm not sure where to request this, but this seems a likely place. Until recently there were 2 articles: Death by Stereo, about a Filipino rock band, and Death By Stereo, about an American rock band. 2 different topics, but somehow had wound up at nearly identical titles (the only difference being the capitalization of "by"). On June 15 "Death By Stereo" was moved to "Death by Stereo" after a requested move was filed here. I believe that in the process the article about the American band was overwritten. I didn't notice this until today, when I recalled having come across the 2 articles a while back and decided to disambiguate them. I moved the article on the Filipino band to Death By Stereo (Filipino band), and wanted to move the other to Death By Stereo (American band), but can't find it. In looking over the various redirects I came across a notification of the requested move, which is what leads me to believe that the article on the American band was deleted or overwritten in the move. Is there a way that it could be restored to the dab'd title? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the article that was deleted was Death by Stereo, on the 15th. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
To further complicate the issue, it looks very much like during the move the article on the Filipino band was attached to the talk page about the American band, so now the talk page doesn't even match the proper article. If someone could restore things to how they were before the delete/move on June 15, this whole mess could then be sorted out. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Because the American article was deleted as G6 (uncontroversial cleanup for a move) it seems clear to me that the deletion was accidental and I've restored the article. I also placed a deletion tag on the Filipino band because it's not clear to me that it's notable (the one on the American band seems to have some problems too, though). Dekimasuよ! 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
So, there's one article now, at Death by Stereo, and it's on the American band. There is a talk page that's been deleted, and I suppose I can undelete it, although there's not much of use there. Dekimasuよ! 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And what happened to Death By Stereo (Filipino band)? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It was speedy deleted under A7 meaning that the article did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.--76.66.182.47 (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_15&oldid=1090635159"