Misplaced Pages

talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:30, 5 April 2012 view sourceJust Chilling (talk | contribs)55,421 edits →Contested Closes: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:07, 27 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,120 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 36) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected}}
{{tmbox|text='''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions given on the ]. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the ].}}
{{talkheader|search=yes}} {{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no|shortcut=|WT:RM}}
{{tmbox|text='''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions given on the ]. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the ].}}
{{notice|1=Please use the ''']''' process for contested move request closes.}}
{{central|text=most subpages of ] that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.}}
{{old moves
| list =
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''No consensus''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''Not moved''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, '''Not moved''', ]
*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, '''Not moved''', ]
}}
<!-- {{bots|allow=Cluebot III,MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II}} --> <!-- {{bots|allow=Cluebot III,MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II}} -->
<inputbox>
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=30 |small= |dounreplied=yes}}
type=search
namespaces=Talk
break=no
default=insource:move intitle:
searchbuttonlabel=Search for "move"
</inputbox>
<inputbox>
type=search
namespaces=Talk
break=no
default=insource:"requested move" intitle:
searchbuttonlabel=Search for "requested move"
</inputbox>
{{center|Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"}}
{{center|Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search}}

{{archive box|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|index=/Archive index|auto=short|
*] (2005)
*For why RM was created, see:
**]
{{cot|Archives by date|bg=#e0d2a3|bg2=#f8eabb}}
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
{{cob}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 225K
|counter = 22
|counter = 36
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
}}
|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>
== Reverting inappropriate page moves ==
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}
Is there any way to have inappropriate page moves reverted when an admin action is needed (such as a redirect page deletion) other than putting it in as a Request Move?<br>
In the case of an inappropriate bold edit to article text, it can be ]; with an inappropriate page move (which is arguably more disruptive) the page is stuck there while the RM process unfolds. The disadvantage of using RM is that .a) it takes at least 7 days to complete .b) it puts the onus on the editor who wants to fix it, rather than on the editor who caused the problem.<br>
This is prompted by the RM ], but it isn’t the first time I’ve come across the problem; what’s the remedy? ] (]) 13:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

:I notice this page has been fixed now (for which, thanks!) but I was actually seeking an answer to the question. Can anyone advise me? ] (]) 17:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
::The way I'd do it is to tag the target page with a G6 speedy delete notice (something like: <nowiki>{{db-g6|reason=Necessary for page move}})</nowiki> and then once the target is deleted, the source page can be moved. I guess you could also use ]. ] (]) 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

::There is some guidance for this at ], which says: "''However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name.''" That language is buried in the middle of a paragraph, and puts it in terms of "may" instead of "must" or "should". Maybe we could move it to this page and highlight it more prominently? ] (]) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

::Usually a page move can simply be reverted (moved over redirect). Perhaps this was not the case on this one? ] (]) 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the advice. Using db-move with a rationale like “admin assistance required to revert unexplained/out-of-process page move” seems the best way to go about this; I’ll try that if it comes up again. To answer the last question, I’ve been able to revert moves at times (like ]) but this one couldn’t be undone (It had a bot edit on the old page, IIRC); hence (presumably) the RM, and my query. I also wanted to get a sense of whether this was a reasonable thing to be doing. ] (]) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Also: On the point about no consensus, if a RM is lodged on a page that was boldly moved without agreement, and the RM is to move it back, I would say if there is a lengthy discussion with no consensus on the matter it indicates a lack of consensus to keep it at the new title, not a reason to not move it back. Leaving it where it is would be rewarding the out-of-process behaviour. If that isn’t spelt out in the guidelines anywhere, then maybe it should be: What do you think? But I also think if any like this are seen early enough they ought to be fast-tracked in the manner suggested. ] (]) 14:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I already had that argument recently, on a page that I had "boldly" moved at some point, and someone else "boldly" moved back, weeks later, which I then reverted as too bold, etc., etc., and there was a bit of an argument as to which title to consider "old". There was no resolution on the process, but you could try to bring it up again. ] (]) 22:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::If an editor boldly makes an undiscussed page move and you are unable to revert it back because of technical reasons, your best bet is to convince an admin to move it back, quickly. If an RM is lodged before that happens, trust me, it is the last thing you want because the whole thing could wind up like ] and ]. Fair warning, that discussion is so long it will take a spare day or two to fully grasp (it additionally spills onto several users talk pages), but it's an example of how RM can go horribly wrong.--] (]) 22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

== Link to village pump discussion ==

Possibly of interest to some of those who monitor this page and do a lot of moves, please see ].--] (]) 13:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

== Files for discussion (renaming) ==

Hello.

Where does one propose files ("File:xxxx") for discussion/renaming?

] (]) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

:You can list files here (at RM), the same way you would for basically all namespaces except categories. ] (]) 15:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

::I have subst-ed the template on the file talk page, but the bot isn't picking it up. ] (]) 18:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I {{diff2|480706078|added three magic colons}}, which at least avoids including the image on the talk page. Let's see how the bot likes that. ] (]) 18:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Whoa! The file is at Commons, so renaming it is outside our jurisdiction. Guess I have to close the request. Sorry! ] (]) 18:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Ok. Thanks for trying. ] (]) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

== Non-admin RM closures ==

] this was brought up it got messy, but it's something I think should be re-visited. When I started closing requested move discussions, I wasn't an admin, and it wasn't a big deal then. The first editor to assume stewardship of this process, ], while now an admin, wasn't when he started, either. And, since adminship is officially ], I'm not certain why it should make a difference here. Now, there are some moves that a non-admin will not be able to make for technical reasons, but I don't see why there should be any other restriction. The non-admin closure guideline for requested moves at ] currently reads:
<blockquote>Non-administrators should restrict themselves to moves:
*Which result in unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);
*Where there is no contentious debate among participants;
*Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and
*Which do not have large numbers of subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the project page, such as voluminous archives (administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click).</blockquote>
I propose we strip out the first two requirements. (For what prompted this proposal, see ] and ].--] (]) 12:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:I agree completely, there's no need to be an admin to determine consensus in most cases. It's not as though there's a clue switch that gets flipped when we get the bit. ] (]) 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::The problem is that some people have their clue switch set to off. This is more likely to happen in new users and less likely for admins, who have undergone a clue switch testing procedure (RfA). Allowing people with unknown clue switch states to resolve contentious debates might not be very clueful.--] (]): 13:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:::In my opinion, that's less likely than the alternative. And in the event that an inappropriate move is made, we can always reverse it. ] (]) 13:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' I am the editor who asked for reopening this RM after a non-admin had closed it against the two guidelines that are now proposed to be removed. Aervanath then closed it again before the debate could resume, as I had requested. Does that mean these two guidelines are unnecessary? On the one hand, I have on several occasion moved pages without even creating a discussion for it, just being bold. So, that's an argument pro letting non-admins close RM discussions, also letting them be bold. On the other hand, I think the given example shows why these two guidelines are still useful when there is a contentious RM debate. People can read the discussions if they want, but basically there were only 7 oppose votes to a RM of tennis player to his non-diacritic name. These 7 voters produced exactly 1 English source that spells this player's name with diacritics. Editors who favor the move found 116 English sources that spell the player's name without diacritics. On top of that all official tennis sites, drawsheets and results published by ITF, ATP and Davis Cup site spell his name without diacritics, because a tennis player cannot even register to play with a diacritics name. Nobody can play professional tennis under a name that has diacritics in it. Still neither the non-admin, nor the admin could see any concensus to move. If 1 to 116 in English sources is not concensus, then I wonder how many sources does it take until we can see a concensus? Because per ] , section 'determining concensus', votes are to be negated if they ignore rules or naming conventions (since these are based on a concensus in the broader community). If that guideline is not used anymore, then also that section should be rewritten. Because afaik we still use ], which demands that we use the most common name found in our English sources. If 1 to 116 is not enough, then how many does it take?
:If even admins count the concensus of voters rather than the concensus of sources, then can we do away with those two guidelines and just let any editor close contentious RM debates? ] (]) 14:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::As has been quite sensibly said elsewhere, the issue of diacritics in titles is something that needs to be resolved by an RFC on a project-wide basis. It is only tangentially related to the issue at hand.--] (]) 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Sure, but that's not my point. I am using it as an example to show what will happen when we remove the two guidelines per your proposal. Then non-admins can close even contentious RM debates. So that can also be any non-admin who is somewhat active around the project tennis and wants its guideline to be used. And they can come in quick without letting 24 hours go by since the last comment, as Jenks24 did in the given example case. Would be very convenient. It's fairly easy to predict what that will lead to. Non-admin comes in and closes the example RM as a clear concensus to move. And he can easily motivate his decision based on 'determining concensus' section in ]. I'll quote from that section: ''"Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Misplaced Pages community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions."''
:::So our friendly non-admin will simply say that he has weighed all these elements: the participants in the discussion had a small majority in the vote, but we are required to also give weight to the existing policies and guidelines that exist in the community. The project tennis has a guideline to only use the non-diacritics player names as found in the official source at ITF. This is a guideline that has long standing concensus in the project, so we are also to give it some weight, don't we? Project tennis has maybe 40 active members, so do we give them perhaps 20 votes? Then there is the even broader community guideline that asks us to use the name that is most commonly found in English sources. That goes 116 to 1 in favor of non-diacritics. How many votes we will give to that?
:::Bottom line: our non-admin will be perfectly able to motivate a clear concensus to move decision in this case that you closed as non-concensus. If we weigh the factors that the RMCI guidelines asks us the weigh, then 7 voters with 1 diacritic source do not weigh up against a guideline at project tennis and the broad concensus of the community that asks us to use the spelling most commonly found in English sources.
:::So, your proposal would lead to problems, because contentious RM debates will then become a question of who comes in first to close it. The existing guidelines for determining concensus give the closing editor a lot of leeway in how much weight he gives to the various factors that he is required to weigh. And with the idea of not making it as easy to ask for unclosing a non-admin closure, it would become even more a race of closing it first. That will become a beauty to watch. ] (]) 08:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I think you may be ] the prevalence of editors who are going to be monitoring requested moves just so they can ] in the manner which you describe. Note that I agree that such editors exist; I just feel that any editors (admins included) who abuse the system in favor of their own view are likely to get censured rather quickly. Perhaps adding a line such as the following would assuage your concerns? "Non-administrators closing requested move discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought." (Altered slightly from ].)--] (]) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I like that wording. By "disclose their status", do you mean adding "(non-admin closure)" or some such? ] (]) 04:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::It already does that. When you closed the RM at ] it showed "non admin" next to your name, otherwise I wouldn't have known.
::::::@Aervanath. I am not saying there will be many abuses, I am only saying that removing these two guidelines will open the door for it. Most RM do not lead to long debates. But for those that do get contentious debates, allowing anybody to close them will lead to ]. Is it worth it? ] (]) 06:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It doesn't say that already. I add "(non-admin closure)" to all my closures because I think it's the right thing to, not because the guidelines say I must (or even should). To answer your question to Aervanath (hope he doesn't mind), what potential for abuse is there? If a non-admin makes an incorrect decision, you can bring it here, to ], to any uninvolved admin's talk page, and (according to Aervanath's proposal), if any admin thinks the closure is incorrect it will be reopened by an admin. How will that be abused? ] (]) 08:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::And how will that reduce the workload for the admins? If non-admins can close any RM, then there is a bit less work to do for the admins here, but if just a few cases go to AN then they will have more work to do there. Then what will have been gained by this proposal? ] (]) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Why not just use similar guidelines to what XfD does for non-admin closers? If the result is "no move" (keep) or "no consensus", then non-admins can close the discussion, regardless of how contentious? Otherwise leave the two clauses in place. I would presume that would be a decent compromise? - <b>]</b> 20:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:Er, that may be the case for CfD, TfD, etc. (I wouldn't know), but it's definitely not true for AfD. Any non-admin who closes an even slightly contentious AfD will get torn to shreds if it gets brought up at AN (especially if they close as "no consensus"). ] (]) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::Here's the link: ]. Looks like it is ''suggested'' that non-admins avoid controversial closures. - <b>]</b> 01:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
*{{ec}} Thanks for starting this discussion, Aervanath. Honestly, I'm a little conflicted about this. I think most non-admins have the intelligence to know whether or not they can make a good closure or leave it to an admin. The problem is the small minority of non-admins who do not have that clue, and I have seen some pretty poor decisions from (generally younger) non-admins. Maybe the solution is to just weaken the points slightly.<p>Off the top of my head, maybe change the first point to something along the lines of "when the consensus is clear to any uninvolved editor" (I'm sure that wording could be improved). I think the second bullet could be removed – just because one or two editors have argued very stridently does not mean consensus can't be clear. I would also suggest adding two notes: one about ] and that you shouldn't contest a closure ''only'' because it was by a non-admin; and secondly a note that non-admins should reopen the discussion if there are good faith objections to their NAC. ] (]) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::I was surfing and noticed this thread. I point out that just because a closer is a non-admin doesn't mean their choices are better or worse. There are times I would wish a new editor would close a rfm rather than a couple of long-time administrators :-) I mean look at ] that was done as a simple head count (majority wins). And there was an oppose the day it was closed. Totally wrong by wiki standards and I think by an administrator (who I have no problem with by the way). I was more ignorant at the time about these were handled but now after being involved in scores of these I feel most closers would have treated this as no consensus to move or maybe extended the session. Sure I wasn't happy when it was moved, but I bring it up now because, assuming he was an administrator at the time, an error was made and by an administrator. I think I've been equally happy and upset by admin and non-admin closures. ] (]) 09:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
From what I can see, everything is a actually working quite well. In the first instance the first non-admin closure was fine but perhaps a little ]. MakeSense64 was perfectly entitled to question the closure, so the debate was reopened and then closed by an admin. In the second case the admin closure, by a long term admin who has particular experience in closing requested moves, looks right. As well as numbers the argument were better made and stronger. --] (]): 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
===Summing up the above, and an alternate proposal===
Parsecboy agrees with my original proposal.
Salix thinks the system is fine the way it is.
MakeSense64 thinks relaxing the system would lead too easily to editors gaming the system.
Jenks24 supports the proposal with some additional tweaks in wording.
Jc37 supports the proposal with slightly different tweaks in wording.
Fyunck(click) supports the proposal.

If that's a fair summary of the above arguments, then I'd say we have consensus for a limited relaxation of the guidelines; not a total removal of the two lines that I was pushing for, but a compromise wording of some sort. Perhaps this:
<blockquote>Non-administrators should declare that this is a non-admin closure when closing moves, and restrict themselves to moves:
*Where they have not participated in the discussion in question, nor recently participated in similar or related discussions;
*Where the consensus (or lack thereof) is clear after at least a full listing period (seven days);
*Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and
*Which do not have more than a few associated subpages which need to be moved along with the move of the project page - such as voluminous talk page archives. (Administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click).
Non-admins are reminded that closing a discussion is the determining of the consensus of the policy and guideline supported arguments of the editors in the discussion (while keeping broader Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines/consensus in mind). If the editor wishes to express an opinion on the requested move, then they should join in the discussion, rather than closing it.
In addition, non-admins should also be aware that many editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates, so it is suggested that non-admins not close discussions where there has been significant contentious debate among participants. All non-admin closures are subject to review by an administrator. However, the mere fact that the closer was not an administrator is not sufficient reason to contest a closure of a requested move discussion.</blockquote>
Thoughts?--] (]) 17:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


== Move cleanup ==
:Edited it some for some clarity, and to reaffirm what a closer (non-admin or admin) should keep in mind. Obviously revert if you want : ) - <b>]</b> 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::Given the lack of objection here, I've gone ahead and made the change.--] (]) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I have edited the altered section for clarity, grammar, and conciseness. I have also firmed up a few points, without significantly changing the intent of Aevernath's draft. If that is questioned, let it be discussed here, of course. We have to make the provisions crystal clear; this has been a muddy area for too long.


{{section link|Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Cleaning_up_after_the_move}} reads: {{tq2|You should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks described at ]}} Maybe I just more notice and remember the cases where this isn't done, but to what extent does the community consider this a closer requirement versus some ] laundry list that anyone can volunteer to do, not necessarily the closer. I'm trying to have the proper perspective on this. —] (]) 04:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


:The line is pretty clear, if an editor wants to close a move, they should be willing to do the postmove cleanup, such as fixing bypass redirects in templates or retargeting links and cleaning up leads.
:This looks clear and consistent to me. A question though: why do we still ask editors to manually fix double redirects? I always just let the bot get them when I move things, which is usually does fairly quickly. Do they actually hurt anything anyway? ] (]) 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::If there are a large number of links to one of these redirects, then those are broken until the bot runs. I usually do those with a large number of inbound links to avoid reader problems. ] (]) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC) :The only general exception I'd see to that is if some editors in the discussion have volunteered preemptively that they will do some of the cleanup if it's not just ordinary cleanup. Like say an alternative result of a split or so that requires more than routine cleanup. ] (]) 04:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:My perspective has been that editors should avoid closing articles if they cannot complete the task within a reasonable amount of time, say an hour or so. The exception to this that I can think of have been in RMnac situations where sometimes an experienced editor can perform most (but not all) of the necessary close steps (such as a delay such as waiting for a CSD to make room) or they might be closing the discussion, and then asking requesting a technical move, etc. But in these cases, they should be monitoring for those changes to take place and promptly go about finishing up any cleanup work, which I'd AGF and gracefully give many hours (but not multiple days) for this to be accomplished (e.g. an Admin performs their action while the closer is now asleep). However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks. However, if any RM closer is consistently dropping the ball with regards to cleanup tasks, do AGF and use their talk page. ]&thinsp;] 08:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Noetica, thanks for the edits; they did make things much clearer and more concise overall. I did tweak a couple things:
::{{tq|However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks|q=yes}}: Yeah, I'm sure nobody would mind if a non-closer volunteers to help cleanup. But my original question was about the expectation of closers to cleanup their moves, such as old titles that got usurped or links in navboxes. —] (]) 13:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
#I changed "where consensus is not in dispute" back to "where consensus is clear", because I think "not in dispute" would be too open to wiki-lawyering. (E.g. "You have to reverse it, because I don't agree with your close, therefore it's in dispute, just like the guideline says.")
:::Right, I think my initial statement that if you cannot commit to doing the cleanup tasks, then you should avoid closing an RM. ]&thinsp;] 05:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
#I changed "Only admins should close to discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved." to "Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved." Since any admin can reverse a non-admin close, I don't think an absolute ban on contentious closures by non-admins is strictly necessary. Cheers, --] (]) 07:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


== Participating in a RM after relisting ==
== SOS: Requested Move summarily closed by editor with clear conflict of interest, Pan-Misplaced Pages RM cleanupéself-consistency ==


These texts don't seem to align:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


*] - "While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote."
:I have no idea what the second half of your heading means, but the discussion you linked to was closed almost a month ago by {{user|Edokter}}. Why do you think he has a "conflict of interest" on discussions about ''The Big Bang Theory''? ] (]) 04:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


*] - "A relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey."
== Uninvolved admin needed ==


Should either or both be removed/changed to become aligned on whether participating in an RM after relisting is allowed/not allowed/encouraged/discouraged/etc? ] 14:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It has been requested that the authority of three uninvolved admins is needed to resolve the closure of the ] requested move debate. We have two, we need a third.--] (]) 15:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
:] stepped up to help.--] (]) 16:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


:I think the current guidelines are good enough as they are.
== A problematic close pending ==
:While it's rare, sometimes someone clerking at RM may be relisting something neutrally and thereafter some arguments are made by editors and the person who relisted it will often be following threads as well a week later to potentially close it, but sometimes new arguments are made since relisting (since that's the point) and as experienced editors, sometimes then instead of closing a discussion as say no consensus based on the presented arguments, that editor may instead decide to become a party of the discussion and present new evidence as a participant, which, while rare, is not entirely unheard of, since the people that relist/close sometimes have more experience with regards to ] policies and if such evidence wasn't presented in an RM, it can be useful to present it instead of just letting an RM play out resulting in potentially a wrong move. ] (]) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:They seem to say the same thing. Many editors consider many acceptable things inadvisable, but PAG is based on consensus. But the way the first sentence is structured implies that the opinions of many editors outweighs the lack of editor consensus. Perhaps it could be changed to read, "While many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote, there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it." ] (]) 17:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::The first sentence discourages against participating after relisting, the second one says it's allowed. I think some clarity, on both pages, is needed if it's allowed, discouraged or both. ] 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:The lines from ] about supervote are wrong and should be '''removed'''. A supervote is when a closure reflects the closer's own preference, which should have been a vote, but instead is a super-powered vote that gets the last word and shuts down rebuttal. A relist does none of that. It doesn't stop other people from discussing. It doesn't stop other people from closing ("there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion"). All it is is one person's non-binding opinion that a discussion wasn't ready for closure at a particular time. Participating after relisting is no big deal. ] (]) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:The underlying idea is that there are always enough participants for a discussion without relying upon the input of involved editors. The lines effectively discourage adding a !vote at the same time as relisting, which would usually be disruptive in practice if not in theory (most closers wait for resisted discussions to expire even though that is not required). With that in mind I think it is best for both lines to be retained. The general practice should be discouraged, and it is noted that it is not explicitly forbidden in special cirumstances. ]<small>]</small> 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:While I can see what you bring up, they're not exactly conflicting, but they could introduce confusion, especially for those who never look at the closing instructions so regular participators in the RM might feel that it is inappropriate. However, at the end of the day I believe that most closers properly understand how much weight to place on the relisting editor -- which is basically almost zero. However, we still want to discourage the general practice of people relisting and !voting, as it might give the appearance of trying to game the system, especially when their !vote is running in contrary to what otherwise might appear to be consensus forming. ]&thinsp;] 05:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Best way to handle a complicated move? ==
I see the pending close of ] as being problematic. As I count votes they are clearly opposed to the move. However if you read the discussion, it seems that the discussions to move are based in policy and hence are stronger arguments. That says the article should be moved. Since this is going to be controversial no matter which way it is closed, I'd like to have a few other admins comment on this before it is closed. ] (]) 19:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''The ayes have it'''. The guideline cited by the supporters says "Misplaced Pages normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them.". The supporters base their case on such findings as that 95% of GNews hits drop the diacritic, the official F1 site also drops it and even the subject's English-speaking site doesn't use it arguing that this shows that this "is a well-established English spelling". The opposers call to their aid the patent inaccuracy of having no diacritic. However, the guideline is predicated on usage rather than accuracy so, in my view the supporters have the stronger argument, therefore '''move'''. ] (]) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
:*"Nico Hulkenberg" is ''not'' a "well-established English spelling"; the ] example from the guideline is clear (as he is almost always spelled as "Paul Erdos" in newspapers). Misplaced Pages is not written in the news style (]), Formula1.com is not a reliable source on spelling (]) and the subject clearly prefers the spelling that is correct in both German and English (Hülkenberg), and not the spelling that is (per ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' and others) incorrect in both (Hulkenberg); ''some'' of the text on the English-language version of his official site omits the umlaut, but his Twitter and Facebook accounts retain it. ] (]) 10:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Follow the arguments'''. The best argument from the opposition is that we should ] to use English usage because there's no harm in leaving it where it is and it's "correct". This is not a convincing use of ]. (Ok, they don't cite that policy, but that's still what they're saying.) We really need to have an RFC (have we done one before?) to gauge wider Wikipedian consensus on diacritics. Until then, '''move''' the page.--] (]) 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
**Yeah, we had one last year because we were having the same problems. See ]. It can be summed up in two words: "no consensus". ] (]) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
***Then surely if there is no consensus, the article should have been left where it was? ] (]) 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
**How do you see IAR as "the best argument from the opposition"? My comment was in reference to ] (local spellings for non-anglicized names) along with ] and ] (which call for encyclopedic considerations). I did not have this talk page watchlisted and there was no note on Talk:Nico Hülkenberg, so I did not know I had to clarify my position. The move was seemingly never going to happen. One shouldn't have to spew alphabet soup in every identical debate to have his opinion count, however. ] (]) 10:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
*You have a clear on the diacritics debate and should not be closing RMs based on your personal policy interpretations that reflect neither the practice nor the opinion of the community. Let's look at policies: WP:BLP requires that we get our biographies of living people ''right'', WP:NOT notes that we are an encyclopedia and must maintain the relevant standards, WP:V requires that we use sources that are reliable ''on the issue at hand'', WP:UE supports anglicized spellings but not common misspellings and WP:COMMONNAME, which is not about spelling, notes that we often avoid inaccurate common names. Furthermore, even the evidence for a common spelling was weak. The user who again brought up Google Books hits has previously been told that the Books search is not reliable on the issue of diacritics. Only two results can be previewed and both actually use the umlaut. The only thing established in the discussion is that Google News gives more hits for the diacriticless spelling. As noted in '']'', newspapers are often "unwilling to spell correctly" if it requires the use of diacritics. ] (]) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
*I'm of the opinion that an overarching RfC on using diacritics is needed. It should probably distinguish various places diacritics are used (people's names, album titles, etc.) as there may be good reason to use diacritics in some circumstances and not in others. - ] ] 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
*F1.com drops ''all'' diacritics as a matter of course, as I suspect do many English language sources. This is not necessarily an indication that names without diacritics are common usage by design. ESPN , GP Update , the Driver Database , Crash.net , the official GP2 website , gpnow , autoracing.com , Final Sector , The Guardian , F1 Fanatic , Auto Evolution , SpeedSport all use the umlaut, as well as Hülkenberg's official twitter and Facebook accounts. Where is the clear evidence for a common spelling without the umlaut? Furthermore, dropping the umlaut changes the pronunciation and is thus misleading. ] (]) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
*The only reason that most websites don't include the diacritic is that they were made using QWERTY keyboards and these don't have keys for inserting diacritics. In any case, if the diacritic was to go then the page should have been moved to '''Nico Huelkenberg''' as this uses an acceptable interpretation of the diacritic. '''Nico Hulkenberg''' is just plain wrong. We have a ridiculous situation in that we lost accuracy. ] (]) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
*The standard racing reference works are put out by Formula 1, which does not use the diacritic, as you can see . Many of these diacritic debates revolve around the subject's preference. In this case, is diacritic free. The "well-established English spelling" standard (]), quoted above, applies to running text. The guidelines for titles are less diacritic friendly:
:#"follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" (])
:#"The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" (]). ] (]) 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:*Hülkenberg's website is not diacritic-free; ''some'' of the text on the English-language version is. Since his Twitter and Facebook accounts retain the umlaut as well, his preference is clear. WP:UE is clear too, especially if you look at the examples: "]" and "]" are common but not anglicized spellings, and should therefore not be used, and you can't seriously compare "Nico Hulkenberg" to Florence and Nuremberg. ] (]) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:*The Formula 1 website contains many inaccuracies, as WikiProject F1 has previously determined. It's not a website I would place much faith in over other sources. ] (]) 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


I need help with something, if you don't mind. I came across a weird situation with ] and ]. The original list has been pretty static for a long time, and the sorted list is fuller, better cited, and better maintained. I proposed merging them and have ], but it's not really a merge, because other than a couple of citations that needed to be copied over (which I've already done), all of the content will come from the sorted list. So it seems counter-productive to copy and paste it over the original list--the history should be with the content. How is this sort of thing handled? Move the original list to a subpage to preserve ''it's'' history, maybe, and then move the sorted list to ]? Thanks! ] 02:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*Wow...I am not sure what to say. I thought he had made biased closes on this topic in the past, but this is the most blatant biased closed I have ever seen on this wiki. Clearly you have an opinion on the topic and have a number of the times in the past closed opposite of what consensus appears to be. You have even !voted in one direction in the past. And now you completely ignore overwhelming consensus? -] (]) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:Redirect the former page to the latter, tag it with {{t|r from merge}} and {{t|r with history}}, make sure to add all of the appropriate talk page attribution templates (e.g. {{t|merged from}}) and call it a day. Just because there isn't actually any text being merged doesn't mean that the pages can't be merged. ] (]) 11:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*Bad decision. Readro's comments are the most important there, in my view. Simply dropping a diacritic is not a valid "translation" of someone's name. It looks here that a personal preference on diacritics is being used to justify the move to a spelling error in a person's name. ]] 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
::And if you want ] to go to ] after the merge, a ] will be required, which can be performed by a page mover or administrator. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 17:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*Very bad decision based on the bias of the closer rather than the discussion. ] (]) 14:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Is that better than using the templates to point to the history? I have now completed the merge, so right the history of what is now ] is at ], which is a redirect. ] 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*Spelling rules are moot when it comes to anglicisation of personal names. Nowadays it depends much more on the "preferences of the bearer" as even our article ] points out. Maybe this should be reflected a bit more clearly in the guidelines. WP would probably benefit from more consistent naming policies that do not leave so much room for widely varying interpretations. Now articles get moved back and forth, and if we just decided the RM by tossing a coin, the WP would probably not look much different from how it looks now. One side of the argument cites the majority of sources using a certain spelling, the other side of the argument can make the case that it is a misspelling that has been copied by the journalists. Articles get moved either way depending on what kind of voters have appeared for the RM in question. It stays a mess. ] (]) 14:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
::::''sigh'' you did exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting, though in fairness my statements were based on the (sorted) version being the final target. I have sorted everything out though. ] (]) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*It's kind of confusing around wikipedia these days. We have a closing administrator being chastised for closing a RfM because he used what he thought were the best arguments. Yet do we have this same thing happen when editors complain that an administrator closed the ] article based not consensus or the best arguments of the debate... he bases it on a debate about a minor personal essay not even on the same talk page. Do we see a huge debate erupt because we get a closure at ], not by consensus, not by best argument, but by a head count of a majority. No we don't. But now because someone chose what he thought were the best arguments, a big complaint is brought up? Strange times we live in. Is there a statute of limitations on bad closures because I have a few doozies to recommend including the above two mentioned items. Goodness. ] (]) 09:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Sorry! I misunderstood. But thank you for fixing it! I think having one list instead of two will be a lot clearer to readers. ] 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:*The problem is that he ''says'' he closed it on the best arguments. I don't believe that and clearly a number of people above don't believe that. I believe he closed it in favour of the version he prefers and ignored all the the other comments. He has done this a number of times in the past and this time was the most extreme and best example of him closing in a biased mannor. Someone who has in the past shown preference for one version of a situation (in his case !voting) should not be closing discussions involving that subject. -] (]) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::*So I guess I never moved ] from its old title since I oppose moving to any name without ASCII characters. ] (]) 00:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC) ::::::No worries, I should have been clearer and it was a fairly simple fix. ] (]) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::*Because you haven't been completely biased in some debates does not change the fact you have been in others. It would behoove you to stay out of areas that you are clearly unable to close without being influenced by your own opinion -] (]) 19:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


== Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs ==
I don't understand why other admins aren't rectifying the revert of Vegaswikian's close. --] (]) 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


It looks like a potentially inexperienced user (@]) has tried to help with closing RMs today and and then brought , which shone light on it.
:Having looked at the RM I agree with Vegaswikian close for the reasons given at the start of this section. -- ] (]) 23:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Their ] appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at .


::So you would perpetuate something which is quite patently in error, simply because some other people do? ] (]) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I'm sure the editor means well to help, but it might require someone reviewing all of them and potentially vacating the RM closes. ] (]) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What is the error? -- ] (]) 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::Right, PBS. The close decision is sound, the discussion remains closed, but the current title does not reflect the decision because the move was reverted. I don't understand why this isn't being rectified. --] (]) 23:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


:It looks like there are also a lot of closes that ''weren't'' contested and none have ended up at ]. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the standard procedures if discussion participants have issues. Feeglgeef definitely needs more practice writing close rationales, but I don't think a public flogging here will be productive. ] </span>]] 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Two administrators have asked on ] to revert the move, or to allow anther administrator to revert the move, UtherSRG has refused and neither of the two administrators are willing to unilaterally initiate what could be seen as a wheel war. -- ] (]) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:I was surprised by the close as well, as there was only overwhelming consensus for only one of the two moves. My guess is that perhaps in their inexperience conflated partial consensus for full consensus, but it wasn't anything that was really going to concern me until I saw his talk page with multiple other people talking about other closing actions. Admittedly I remember when I first began doing NAC closures back in the beginning and not quite getting it right, perhaps some simple coaching if they're open to it is all that's needed. ]&thinsp;] 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Move ] to ] ==
::{ec}I think the error being discussed by B2C is that the page was moved a second time without any discussion. ] (]) 23:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::The guy clearly spells his name with an umlaut - I don't think that's really in any doubt. Some English language sources don't use it, but nobody has given any reason ''why'' they don't use it, while conveniently ignoring those sources that do use it. Do they omit the umlaut because they believe that to be a pertinent Anglicised spelling, or can they just not be bothered? It's patently the latter, because "Hulkenberg" is not an Anglicised version of his name - that would be "Huelkenberg". So are we to compound journalistic laziness by having an incorrect version of his name as the title? ] (]) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


The them "]" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at ]. However, it currently redirects to ] as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about ] seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". ] (]) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::How do you know it is "journalistic laziness"? How do you know "Huelkenberg" is correct in English? Who says that English language documents have to follow German linguistic rules? Instead of making arbitrary editorial decision on such things it is far better to follow ] and base decisions on what is used in verifiable English language sources. If reliable English language sources use Hülkenberg so should Wikipeida. If they use "Hulkenberg" so should Misplaced Pages and if they use Huelkenberg so should Wikiepdia. This is what the policies ] ] and ] all suggest is the best solution for article titles. -- ] (])
:::::How do you know it was done on purpose? I'm sure you've seen "Müller" spelt as "Mueller", in English language sources; this is basically the same thing. And this is exactly my point - if reliable sources followed one or the other, then fine - but they don't. Some use the umlaut, some don't. ] (]) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


:First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. ]&thinsp;] 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::We don't have to care if it is done accidentally or on purpose. It does not matter if the majority of English language sources ignore German linguistic rules. If most reliable English language sources choose to use Muller instead of Müller or Mueller, then we should follow that usage as ] advises. It is a retrograde step to try to make up rules that ignore usage in reliable English language sources. -- ] (]) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it ''was'' the right move. ] (]) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It looks like @] performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @] if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a ] discussion in the appropriate way. ]&thinsp;] 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== Move ] to ] in place of redirect page ==
:::The problem I have with the close is that Vegaswikian stated that "discussions to move are based in policy". The two editors supporting the move that cited policy mentioned ], which has nothing to do with proper names; and ], which has nothing to do with diacritics. The relevant policies are ] and ], which were cited by ''one'' supporter of the move, and also by an opposer of the move, that editor being me. That policy requires a '''well-established''' replacement spelling - so where is it? The fact is that there is no definitive usage by English language media - I have provided several that use the umlaut, and a smaller number has been provided that don't use it. So where is the cut-and-dried usage of the non-umlaut version that brought about the original close decision by Vegaswikian? ] (]) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


<nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''subst''':'''requested move'''|VP-40|reason=The current page for the modern squadron VP-40 occupies the page VP-40 (1951-Present). It should be moved to the page VP-40 to match the uniformity of other squadron pages however ]<nowiki> is currently a redirect page}}</nowiki> ] (]) 04:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You write "], which has nothing to do with proper names" then to on to say "The relevant policies are ]" yet ] links to a section in ] which is a guideline! ] is part of the MOS and the MOS is a guideline covering content (not article titles). ] is the policy that covers article title. In the requested move you wrote "Disagree per ] and other, normal naming conventions." But as I have pointed out "Proper names#Diacritics" is not a naming convention. Nor did you produce any evidence in the WP:RM survey to justify you argument based on reliable English language sources. Therefore you arguments at the time of the ] were neither based on the ] policy or its guidelines (which are called naming conventions) or on any evidence of "Nico Hülkenberg" being common usage in reliable English language soruces. Therefore I stand by what I said before "Having looked at the RM I agree with Vegaswikian close for the reasons given at the start of this section". -- ] (]) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::I did get mixed up with that; it was late. It looks like the opposers' arguments were not based on the correct section of ], which appears to be ], not ], and only one IP editor mentioned it at all. So why were the opposers' arguments upheld due to their basis in policy? Is that not just a touch shaky? Anyway, in what sensible world would we have separate guidelines covering titles and content? The name is the same... So I picked the wrong guideline, I'm not a lawyer. Neither I nor anyone else provided source evidence against the move because I (and I suspect others) didn't, in any wildest dreams, think that anyone would move the article. Very few people agreed with the move, and the evidence provided in support of the move was poor. If it was required, why wasn't evidence of that type opposing the move requested in an attempt to arrive at a conclusion that might be understood by the 70% of the responders who opposed it? You know, to try and make it a bit clearer for us? OK, at the time of the RM, you accept Vegaswikian's reasoning, although I have to say I think it could have been handled a lot better. Also, I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of the article being moved back by UtherSRG. But now that plenty of evidence of the name's usage with the umlaut has been provided, do you accept that there is no well-established form (either way) of Hülkenberg's name in English language sources? ] (]) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


:@]: This is because there are/were two squadrons by the name ]. So, the squadron meeting ] criteria will stay at ], the other will be disambiguated using the parentheses. You will need to present a case of why the current VP-40 is the primary topic over the older one. Then, the other editors will deliberate over it, and a conclusion will be reached. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Both the policy of common name and the guidance in UE give one and the same advise, they are not contradictory. You wrote above "The problem I have with the close is that Vegaswikian stated that 'discussions to move are based in policy'." Presumably you no longer have "the problem" and so I assume that you support Vegaswikian close. Or was the lead sentence to that paragraph just empty rhetoric to justify a personal preference? -- ] (]) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Why would that mean I no longer have a problem? I find that a very odd thing to say. I don't know why you are only looking at my lead sentence and ignoring the rest of what I said, or why you seem to be implying that I have a personal preference. I just like to see the correct title for articles - if that's a personal preference, then so be it. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that I don't support Vegaswkian's close. You already know I think he didn't have anywhere near enough material upon which to base his "policy" close - that's why I have a problem with his statement. I made several other points you don't want to answer, but that said, if admins have each other in a headlock over it, then there's not much point in trying to make arguments about it here, or indeed repeating them. Even if the evidence supporting the umlaut was not brought to the RM, it's here now, and can be produced at any future RM, perhaps a more effectively handled one, should one arise. ] (]) 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
== Improper move.... ==


As part of my work at ], I review a lot of redirects, often working from the back of the queue. Pages which are turned into redirects by users who are not autopatrolled are automatically put into the queue for review, and I find a lot of cut and paste moves happening, which I of course revert and leave warnings about. These aren't just from newer users either unfortunately, and I've been thinking for a while that it could be easier to request page moves.
] was moved to ] over redirect. In the past, there was indeed discussion over the title (see the article history, among them ] and ]), and the "CHIP" was left in there because most states use some usage of that for the program, and that is how most people know it. The move was requested as the second edit by an IP. I would like it moved back, as the inclusion of "CHIP" is a necessary identifier. ] (]) 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:I've reverted the move as it clearly wasn't uncontroversial and have started a full RM at ]. As a side note, it's irrelevant that the request was made by an IP. ] (]) 05:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
== Please, ] RM needs early closing ==


Which leads me to my suggestion: There should be a form, similar to those at ] (]), to make requesting the moves simpler and more straightforward. Let's face it, some people are offput by trying to use the template, and why not make life easier? I believe this would reduce the issues we have with cut and paste moves and make it easier to direct newer users to make such requests. Suggested fields would be current page title, target page title, reason for move.
As a passer-by with zero interest in Russian election antics: There are some things on WP that probably should be steamrollered by grown-up editors rather than following due process, but unfortunately due process was followed and an RM initiated - but WP doesn't really want "Zhirinovsky's ass" hanging around for 7 days in a DYK nomination queue, does it? Would it be possible for a RM admin please find a reason to implement this RM to ] as per English and Russian WP:RS, and let the 101 other problems with this essay resolve well away from the spotlight and without the deliberate double entendre. ] (]) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:cf. ] ] (]) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


I'd also be for making requested moves easier in a similar fashion, because I do think we'd make Misplaced Pages easier to get into with more form usage, but I figure one step at a time. ] (]) 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Contested Closes ==


:Last month @] mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. ]&thinsp;] 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, we recently had a situation where a RM discussion was closed by an admin but the result was reverted by another admin who disagreed with the original close. Disputed deletion discussions can go to ] but that route appears closed to RM. Reverting a considered close seems a real bad idea since that way can lead to edit warring. At present the only other solution would appear to be a relist. Better I think that DRV should be able to take disputes from here since the editors there are experienced in determining whether a debate has bee closed correctly. Before I raise matters there, perhaps I may have views here, please? ] (]) 12:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
::I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on ] would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. ] (]) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. ] (]) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:On ] under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at ], but the functionality is referenced at ]. —] (]) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. ''I'' don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @], I appreciate it. ] (]) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:07, 27 December 2024

Page semi-protectedEditing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until March 26, 2025 at 04:13 UTC.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.
Please use the Misplaced Pages:Move review process for contested move request closes.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, most subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.
This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, No consensus, 7 June 2007
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, Not moved, 11 February 2018
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, Not moved, 19 September 2018
  • RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, Not moved, 22 July 2024
Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search" Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
Archives by date
  1. Oct 2004 – Jan 2005
  2. Jan 2005 – Feb 2005
  3. Feb 2005 – Mar 2005
  4. Mar 2005 – Aug 2005
  5. Aug 2005 – Dec 2005
  6. Dec 2005 – Jun 2006
  7. Jun 2006 – Sep 2006
  8. Sep 2006 – Feb 2007
  9. Feb 2007 – May 2007
  10. May 2007 – Nov 2007
  11. Nov 2007 – May 2008
  12. Jun 2008 – Oct 2008
  13. Nov 2008 – Jan 2009
  14. Jan 2009
  15. Jan 2009 – Jun 2009
  16. Jun 2009 – Oct 2009
  17. Oct 2009 – Jun 2010
  18. Jun 2010 – Oct 2010
  19. Oct 2010 – Jan 2011
  20. Jan 2011 – Sep 2011
  21. Sep 2011 – Jan 2012
  22. Jan 2012 – Apr 2012
  23. Apr 2012 – Aug 2012
  24. Aug 2012 – Dec 2012
  25. Dec 2012 – Dec 2013
  26. Dec 2013 – Nov 2014
  27. Nov 2014 – Apr 2015
  28. Apr 2015 – Jun 2016
  29. Jun 2016 – May 2017
  30. May 2017 – Mar 2018
  31. Mar 2018 – May 2019
  32. May 2019 – Jun 2020
  33. May 2020 – Mar 2022
  34. Mar 2022 – Jan 2023
  35. Jan 2023 – Jun 2024
  36. Jul 2024 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Move cleanup

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Cleaning up after the move reads:

You should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks described at WP:POSTMOVE

Maybe I just more notice and remember the cases where this isn't done, but to what extent does the community consider this a closer requirement versus some WP:NODEADLINE laundry list that anyone can volunteer to do, not necessarily the closer. I'm trying to have the proper perspective on this. —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The line is pretty clear, if an editor wants to close a move, they should be willing to do the postmove cleanup, such as fixing bypass redirects in templates or retargeting links and cleaning up leads.
The only general exception I'd see to that is if some editors in the discussion have volunteered preemptively that they will do some of the cleanup if it's not just ordinary cleanup. Like say an alternative result of a split or so that requires more than routine cleanup. Raladic (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
My perspective has been that editors should avoid closing articles if they cannot complete the task within a reasonable amount of time, say an hour or so. The exception to this that I can think of have been in RMnac situations where sometimes an experienced editor can perform most (but not all) of the necessary close steps (such as a delay such as waiting for a CSD to make room) or they might be closing the discussion, and then asking requesting a technical move, etc. But in these cases, they should be monitoring for those changes to take place and promptly go about finishing up any cleanup work, which I'd AGF and gracefully give many hours (but not multiple days) for this to be accomplished (e.g. an Admin performs their action while the closer is now asleep). However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks. However, if any RM closer is consistently dropping the ball with regards to cleanup tasks, do AGF and use their talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
However, at this point, I would say it would be acceptable for another experienced editor to jump in and help out as well with wrapping up the cleanup tasks: Yeah, I'm sure nobody would mind if a non-closer volunteers to help cleanup. But my original question was about the expectation of closers to cleanup their moves, such as old titles that got usurped or links in navboxes. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Right, I think my initial statement that if you cannot commit to doing the cleanup tasks, then you should avoid closing an RM. TiggerJay (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Participating in a RM after relisting

These texts don't seem to align:

Should either or both be removed/changed to become aligned on whether participating in an RM after relisting is allowed/not allowed/encouraged/discouraged/etc? Frost 14:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the current guidelines are good enough as they are.
While it's rare, sometimes someone clerking at RM may be relisting something neutrally and thereafter some arguments are made by editors and the person who relisted it will often be following threads as well a week later to potentially close it, but sometimes new arguments are made since relisting (since that's the point) and as experienced editors, sometimes then instead of closing a discussion as say no consensus based on the presented arguments, that editor may instead decide to become a party of the discussion and present new evidence as a participant, which, while rare, is not entirely unheard of, since the people that relist/close sometimes have more experience with regards to WP:AT policies and if such evidence wasn't presented in an RM, it can be useful to present it instead of just letting an RM play out resulting in potentially a wrong move. Raladic (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
They seem to say the same thing. Many editors consider many acceptable things inadvisable, but PAG is based on consensus. But the way the first sentence is structured implies that the opinions of many editors outweighs the lack of editor consensus. Perhaps it could be changed to read, "While many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote, there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it." Safrolic (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence discourages against participating after relisting, the second one says it's allowed. I think some clarity, on both pages, is needed if it's allowed, discouraged or both. Frost 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The lines from Misplaced Pages:Requested moves about supervote are wrong and should be removed. A supervote is when a closure reflects the closer's own preference, which should have been a vote, but instead is a super-powered vote that gets the last word and shuts down rebuttal. A relist does none of that. It doesn't stop other people from discussing. It doesn't stop other people from closing ("there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion"). All it is is one person's non-binding opinion that a discussion wasn't ready for closure at a particular time. Participating after relisting is no big deal. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The underlying idea is that there are always enough participants for a discussion without relying upon the input of involved editors. The lines effectively discourage adding a !vote at the same time as relisting, which would usually be disruptive in practice if not in theory (most closers wait for resisted discussions to expire even though that is not required). With that in mind I think it is best for both lines to be retained. The general practice should be discouraged, and it is noted that it is not explicitly forbidden in special cirumstances. Dekimasuよ! 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
While I can see what you bring up, they're not exactly conflicting, but they could introduce confusion, especially for those who never look at the closing instructions so regular participators in the RM might feel that it is inappropriate. However, at the end of the day I believe that most closers properly understand how much weight to place on the relisting editor -- which is basically almost zero. However, we still want to discourage the general practice of people relisting and !voting, as it might give the appearance of trying to game the system, especially when their !vote is running in contrary to what otherwise might appear to be consensus forming. TiggerJay (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Best way to handle a complicated move?

I need help with something, if you don't mind. I came across a weird situation with List of mandolinists and List of mandolinists (sorted). The original list has been pretty static for a long time, and the sorted list is fuller, better cited, and better maintained. I proposed merging them and have heard no objections, but it's not really a merge, because other than a couple of citations that needed to be copied over (which I've already done), all of the content will come from the sorted list. So it seems counter-productive to copy and paste it over the original list--the history should be with the content. How is this sort of thing handled? Move the original list to a subpage to preserve it's history, maybe, and then move the sorted list to List of mandolinists? Thanks! blameless 02:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect the former page to the latter, tag it with {{r from merge}} and {{r with history}}, make sure to add all of the appropriate talk page attribution templates (e.g. {{merged from}}) and call it a day. Just because there isn't actually any text being merged doesn't mean that the pages can't be merged. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
And if you want List of mandolinists (sorted) to go to List of mandolinists after the merge, a WP:PAGESWAP will be required, which can be performed by a page mover or administrator. —CX Zoom 17:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Is that better than using the templates to point to the history? I have now completed the merge, so right the history of what is now List of mandolinists is at List of mandolinists (sorted), which is a redirect. blameless 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
sigh you did exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting, though in fairness my statements were based on the (sorted) version being the final target. I have sorted everything out though. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry! I misunderstood. But thank you for fixing it! I think having one list instead of two will be a lot clearer to readers. blameless 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I should have been clearer and it was a fairly simple fix. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Potentially inexperienced user closing RMs

It looks like a potentially inexperienced user (@Feeglgeef) has tried to help with closing RMs today and has closed several RM discussions today and then brought some to RMTR, which shone light on it. Their User talk page appears to be lighting up with already 4 (, , , ) as well as one challenge at RMTR.

I'm sure the editor means well to help, but it might require someone reviewing all of them and potentially vacating the RM closes. Raladic (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there are also a lot of closes that weren't contested and none have ended up at Move review. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the standard procedures if discussion participants have issues. Feeglgeef definitely needs more practice writing close rationales, but I don't think a public flogging here will be productive. Toadspike 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I was surprised by the close as well, as there was only overwhelming consensus for only one of the two moves. My guess is that perhaps in their inexperience conflated partial consensus for full consensus, but it wasn't anything that was really going to concern me until I saw his talk page with multiple other people talking about other closing actions. Admittedly I remember when I first began doing NAC closures back in the beginning and not quite getting it right, perhaps some simple coaching if they're open to it is all that's needed. TiggerJay (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Move Virginia High School (Virginia) to Virginia High School

The them "Virginia High School" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at Virginia High School (disambiguation). However, it currently redirects to Virginia High School (Virginia) as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about Virginia High School (Minnesota) seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". Bernardgeorgeh (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. TiggerJay (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it was the right move. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It looks like @Nardog performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @Bernardgeorgeh if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a WP:RM discussion in the appropriate way. TiggerJay (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Move VP-40 (1951-present) to VP-40 in place of redirect page

{{subst:requested move|VP-40|reason=The current page for the modern squadron VP-40 occupies the page VP-40 (1951-Present). It should be moved to the page VP-40 to match the uniformity of other squadron pages however VP-40 is currently a redirect page}} Chilichongoes (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chilichongoes: This is because there are/were two squadrons by the name VP-40. So, the squadron meeting WP:Primary topic criteria will stay at VP-40, the other will be disambiguated using the parentheses. You will need to present a case of why the current VP-40 is the primary topic over the older one. Then, the other editors will deliberate over it, and a conclusion will be reached. —CX Zoom 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Request: Implement a form for requests at WP:RM/TR

As part of my work at NPP, I review a lot of redirects, often working from the back of the queue. Pages which are turned into redirects by users who are not autopatrolled are automatically put into the queue for review, and I find a lot of cut and paste moves happening, which I of course revert and leave warnings about. These aren't just from newer users either unfortunately, and I've been thinking for a while that it could be easier to request page moves.

Which leads me to my suggestion: There should be a form, similar to those at WP:RFPP (direct link to a form), to make requesting the moves simpler and more straightforward. Let's face it, some people are offput by trying to use the template, and why not make life easier? I believe this would reduce the issues we have with cut and paste moves and make it easier to direct newer users to make such requests. Suggested fields would be current page title, target page title, reason for move.

I'd also be for making requested moves easier in a similar fashion, because I do think we'd make Misplaced Pages easier to get into with more form usage, but I figure one step at a time. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Last month @RaschenTechner mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. TiggerJay (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on WP:RM/TR would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nohomersryan: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
On Twinkle under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Twinkle/doc, but the functionality is referenced at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_42#RM_requests. —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. – robertsky (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. I don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @Robertsky, I appreciate it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)