Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) at 08:52, 9 August 2010 (→Need a move review of User:Schwyz: Governorate of Estonia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Temple Israel

I'd appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator, in fixing up several articles covered in a Requested Move just closed by administrator User:Orlady. Orlady and i have a history of conflict in a number of areas.

The situation here is that there was a list-article at "Temple Israel", which was originally created as an article about a Temple Israel in Minneapolis. Since this version from 2007 or so it has been a list-article about multiple places of that name. Some time ago i added to it, merged in a separate disambiguation page that i had created, and edited to be what i believe was a proper set-index-article. It covered a number of places having separate articles, and some places just covered in sections within the list-article (with sources).

A few days ago an editor, Jayjg, moved the list-article to "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" and edited it down to cover just that one place, plus reopened a disambiguation page covering just the ones having articles. It appears to me that the Tulsa one merits an article, but that should have been created separately. I opened Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)#Requested move to reverse the move. Orlady closed it, inappropriately without understanding the situation i believe. I believe if she had understood the article was long a list-article, she would not have. (Aside: Honestly my hypothesis is she found this topic in my contribution history and saw it as way to find fault / disagree with something i have done, so she didn't look into it properly.) Orlady has also now tried to address the Talk pages being messed up by copying the longstanding article's Talk page to an archive at the disambiguation page. The Requested Move would have met all needs I believe.

Anyhow, setting aside history between O and me, could someone please fix the articles? This would be to move the older history of edits of the longstanding article to be in a set-index-article named Temple Israel, to move the full Talk page of the longstanding article to be with it, to move the new recently created dab to Temple Israel (disambiguation), and to split out the recent edits of the Tulsa article to be at Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)? That would restore edit history to where it should be, leaving list-article, Tulsa article, and new dab in place, leaving to the future any discussion of whether the new dab page and/or the long-standing list-article are both needed or should be merged. I would participate in a new discussion if someone feels it necessary, but it seems obvious to me that the edit histories should be put with the correct articles. --doncram (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant history can be found at Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), User talk:Doncram#Temple Israel, and User talk:Orlady#hey what's going on, again.

For what it's worth, I think that Doncram's request would be more appropriately placed at WP:AIN, since he is not asking for technical assistance with a move so much as for someone to say that his view of the situation is the right one. --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Those Talk pages are indeed relevant in showing previous discussion, in showing misunderstanding by Jayjg about my intent, and the discussion having been closed without that being resolved. And in showing my having given notice to Orlady and Jayjg that i opened this here. I don't ask for review of past history between O and me; i do ask for a second opinion about this list-article and for it to be fixed. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: This has been resolved by User:Jayjg's re-creating a list-article with the edit history, now at List of synagogues named Temple Israel, and Jayjg providing further edits to the list-article. Jayjg actually implemented a split of the edit history, so the same edit history is in the list-article and in the Tulsa, Oklahoma-specific article. And there is constructive-seeming discussion about related issues at Talk:Temple Israel#Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article. I consider this resolved. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users

Isn't it more accurate to say "autoconfirmed users" at the top of the page, rather than saying "accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least ten edits"? Because, according to the page detailing autoconfirmed users, some may take 90 days and 100 edits before being autoconfirmed (and thus be able to use this page). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

While it may be more accurate, it is less helpful. The direction of days and edits is more understandable to the vast bulk of people, especially those more likely to not understand why they cannot move a page, and at that point being helpful is more important in terms of information provided. billinghurst sDrewth 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else disagree with the change I've made here? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves from namespace

Is WP:RM or WP:AFD or some other venue the correct place for a request to move an article from the namespace to another space, e.g. project space?
Context: I just removed a requested move at Talk:Misplaced Pages in culture#Requested move that wanted Misplaced Pages in culture moved to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages in culture as I thought this fell out of the scope of requested moves (as it is a requested removal), but then I read the closing admin's comments at the last AfD in 2008, which said that "A proposal to move this in to the Misplaced Pages namespace should be carried through the normal move decision making process, as I don't see a clear consensus for such a move at the moment." So... what's the process? Fences&Windows 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, these two (here and here) are asking to be moved from userspace to mainspace, that is across "-space", so to speak. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They should be adding {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article instead. A move of a draft article into being a live article isn't really the same thing as I've raised. Fences&Windows 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I modified the page at the top to say "autoconfirmed users" per above, if you don't mind. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that removing pages from article space should generally go through the deletion process, with reasonable latitude for IAR expedited userfication. My take on that AfD outcome is "no consensus for a move to WP:, but try discussing via RM instead of nominating again immediately." Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So I post this at AfD first, and then nominate it for RM? I don't follow. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I suggest that you nominate the article at AfD following the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Be sure to mention that moving to WP: space is removing from article space and link to the declined RM request and this discussion. You may also want to point out that the last AfD was two years ago. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see consensus moving towards AfDing the article first before all else; that is necessary (e.g. RM). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bug in listing code

See the entry for IBM AIX in proposed moves. I think this is caused by the {{Moved conversation}} tag earlier on the affected talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to move?

There are two contentious and long-running move disputes which have arisen recently which raise some issues about what is or is not a consensus or other grounds to make the move. They are the proposed moves of "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Elizabeth II", and the proposed move of "Cote d'Ivoire" to "Ivory Coast". I realise that in both cases the issue may have generated more heat than it deserves, particularly since everybody accepted that whichever title was chosen the other should be a redirect. However in both cases opinion was running at around 2 to 1 in favour of the move, in the first case the admin made the move, but in the second the admin decided there was "no consensus". This raises some big questions about what is or is not a consensus to move. In both cases the admin also made some comments which suggested that they had not properly read the discussion. Also, the move of Elizabeth was made only a short time after a similar move request had failed, can we re-open the move request for the African country fairly soon, or should there be a cooling-off period before this happens? PatGallacher (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What comments specifically did the admin at Côte d'Ivoire make that suggested to you that he did not read the discussion? Because two other independent admins came in and agreed with his assessment. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an request for a review, and it was referred here for fellow administrators, by me without hesitation. As I considered more than one article would be affected, I suggested that a more holistic approach as per the discussion at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire and how to address such through an RFC. I also very much read the argument and considered it. As a favour, if you are going to present an argument, please present a fair argument, not a biased argument. billinghurst sDrewth 17:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Well..

"I read through all the supporting argument, and there was no clear argument made, no benefits explained, nor evidence of any confusion with existing name, nor a need to disambiguate. Lots of personal preference, no discussion on the broader impact. Lots of looking around Google, not much looking around Misplaced Pages"

Was the comment that concerned me, however the closing admin did seek input from other admins afterwards and they supported the conclusion he made so i accept the verdict the admin made although i will never accept the article is at its rightful place.

Sadly it is a flaw in the present rules that dictate if there if no huge consensus then the previous consensus wins the day. That is annoying and unfair as it overrules the majority which is wrong even if its a small majority. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Silly editors. When will you learn that the WP:RM process is often productive but, in the end, WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE supercedes it. I have tried numerous times (see archives of this talk page) to establish that the ultimate decision is anything but an unappealable arbitrary admin decision with no avail. — AjaxSmack 07:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Malformated request: "War in Afghanistan" → War in Afghanistan"

Can someone correct to what it should be, War in Afghanistan (disambiguation) → War in Afghanistan ? Thanks, victor falk 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Slow progress

Just to make a comment, the progress of the page moves seems to be quite slow; there is a long list of backlogs waiting response. Is it possible for more admins to help with this? Thanks. NoNews! 13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What to do with 'no consensus'?

I've been involved in a proposed move that was recently closed as 'no consensus to move'. The responses were three to one in favor of moving the page, and 100% of all reliable sources support this, but there was no consensus about what title the page should have.

This is actually part of an odd 'split': The subject of the page and the title don't currently match. The title is about a musical style that became popular in the 1990s, and the actual contents of the page (after the first couple of sentences) are entirely about a musical style that became popular in the 1930s. We need to move the 1930s stuff to some other title so that Misplaced Pages can actually have an article about the 1990s musical genre.

So we have 'no consensus to move', but we also have 'no consensus to stay'. I don't want us to end up with a cut-and-paste move or just deleting the (verifiable) information about the older musical style. It's silly to keep this mismatched title/contents situation around, because none of our readers will find what they're looking for. What do you suggest? Should I re-list it? Ask the admin why s/he ignored a dozen sources and focused on a single, unsupported, consensus-can't-change statement? Move it anyway? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! I assume I'm the one who closed this, aren't I. :) One thing though, I recounted the !votes of the discussion and I noticed that two users opposed (by three to one do you mean one person opposed?). However, I don't see why this content split can't be boldly done - I'd be happy to help if you want. What do you think? Arbitrarily0  21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: we're talking about Urban contemporary gospel, right? Arbitrarily0  21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at that discussion. There's clearly not even a weak consensus either way. I'd suggest that whatever is done should abide by that decision. I try to take the line that if we have not even a weak consensus, then so far as the goal of building Misplaced Pages goes it does not matter which way we go. This principle isn't always easy to accept but when I do this helps me to keep perspective, and the more difficult the issue is, the more important this perspective is. Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arbitrarily, yes, that's the article. And you were right: There's no consensus about what the page name should be, and as a practical matter, you can hardly move a page when you can't figure out what the new name ought to be. I don't actually feel strongly about what the article title should be, beyond my conviction that the article title ought to match the article contents.

I didn't consider the fifth editor's comment to be responsive or relevant to the discussion ("To an outsider, the way you Americans get hung up on segmenting music, particularly on racial lines, seems utterly unbelievable! As does the way you change the terms every ten years!"). Consequently, my count is 3:1 (or 3:1:1, if you prefer).

So I fully agree that there's no consensus for that page to move to any specific title, but the current situation is also not tenable, not supported by consensus, not supportable by sources, and not helpful to readers: urban/contemporary gospel music does not involve artists who were living (and in some cases, dying) during the 1930s. Urban/contemporary music is Edwin Hawkins and Kirk Franklin and Christian hip hop, not the people and music that are actually described on the page.

Personally, my guess is that someone wrote an article about the history of black gospel music, and someone later panicked over the "racial" name and moved it to the musical style that they personally associate with African-American Christian musicians -- without noticing that the music described in the article is actually a completely different type of music, or checking to see what the sources say, etc.

But what do we do from here? Is there a re-listing procedure? (I'm not going to be prepared to write the article that should be at urban contemporary gospel for at least another week, so there's no rush.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so basically, if I understand it right, there are two notable subjects co-existing in one article titled urban contemporary gospel. Correct? If this is true as you say, I don't think there is a need for a discussion on splitting the article, do you? Maybe the best place to start is writing a draft for urban contemporary gospel, so that we can flip-flop the page locations. Do I make any sense right now? Arbitrarily0  12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really: If you look past the first couple of sentences, there is actually only one topic, and it's not the topic that is indicated by the title. Only 1237 out of 33K bytes are about urban/contemporary gospel. The rest (about 97% of the text) is about traditional black gospel music. There are two notable subjects, but there's not really any need to split the article, because there isn't really anything about urban/contemporary gospel in the existing article (except the generic boilerplate that someone spammed to the leads of every gospel-related articles some time ago, and an uncited direct quotation attributed to Shirley Caesar). The existing content needs to be moved wholesale to some relevant name, so that an article about urban/contemporary gospel can be written from scratch.

Flipping the page locations is basically what I've been trying to do.

Like I said, there's no rush on this, because the endless discussions over whether it's appallingly racist to call black gospel "black gospel" (just like all the scholarly sources do) mean that I no longer have the time to write an article about urban/contemporary gospel. I just need to know what to do when I am finally able to get it written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When you get it written, move urban contemporary gospel to black gospel and then move your draft to urban contemporary gospel. I can do this for you when the time comes if you like. Regards, Arbitrarily0  19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Starting discussions on "Uncontroversial requests"

It has become standard for people to start discussions on "uncontroversial requests" that they think are actually controversial. This is normally done by copying the requested move from here to the article's talk page and adding the appropriate template. However this makes it look like the person who made the original request started the discussion which isn't strictly true. Most of the time this is fine but I've just come across a case where this has caused an issue (Talk:David Amoo). I admit this was due to a badly formatted original requested but I was wondering whether, in the name of transparency, the person starting the request should make it clear that they started the request based on the "uncontroversial request". Maybe something along the lines of

This was an uncontroversial request that was contested. The original request is above. This move discussion was started, as a procedural step, by User signature.

This would also make the start time and date clear if this is some time after the original request. I'd be happy to make a template (which should include the RM template) if people think this is appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check what I've done

Hi. Could someone familiar with requested moves please check what I've done? I think I stuffed it up and I don't want to make it worse. See Template:AFL Brownlow Medallists, Template:Three time Brownlow Medal winners, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject AFL. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done - Thanks. Move along now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Need a move review of User:Schwyz

I've become concerned about some of the rapid-fire island moves done by Schwyz - see discussion. I've counted 20+ island moves that have been done without consensus, and, IMO, are a bit controversial. (Isla Colon -> Colon Island? Really?) How is the best way to organize a discussion? The islands are from all over the world, so I can't bring it up at a single project. Suggestions? Thanks, --JaGa 09:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Already an ANI thread on this here. I'm going to leave a comment there. Dpmuk (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

at JaGa, it's best addressed at Talk:Colon Island. And I told you already my POV on that one . : Sorry if that is a problem, simply move it back if you like. My idea was WP:UE and the way most other Latin America countries write the island names, specifically the "Isla X" named ones. If Panama needs an exception, so be it. Schwyz (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be best to centralize the discussion here. WP:AN/I is only if someone refuses to discuss an issue or otherwise acts disruptively; this dispute is about what to name articles. -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, based on editing patterns I believe TrueColour (talk · contribs) and TheCalbuco (talk · contribs) may be related accounts and possibly the same editor. If these accounts are related, previous attempts have been made to address move and naming issues via TrueColour's talk page and AN discussions (User:TrueColour, User:JHunterJ violating WP policies.), apparently with mixed results as the issues are ongoing. --Muchness (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I added to the ANI thread to try to get more eyes on this - personally I think the most appropriate place for this discussion is the user's talk page. I'd also disagree that this issue is about what to name articles, in my opinion it's more about how this user is making moves and the process they're following (or not as the case maybe). Dpmuk (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think there's enough there to start a WP:SPI but I'm taking a step back from all this so as not to aggravate the user further so I'll leave it for someone else to start if they agree with me. Dpmuk (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the move list. Several hundred moves over the last week. Where does one begin? I focused on the cap-I Island moves, because I was bothered by these rapid fire proper name changes, but there's a lot going on here. Like adding cap-M Municipality to a whole ton of Mexican towns, based on a single comment by another user in 2008. How can we verify this as the correct thing to do? --JaGa 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Governorate of Estonia and Governorate of Livonia. Now I see that none of the rationales make any sense. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Hi

Is it possible someone with a bit more knwoledge.experience of resolving matters on page moves can cooment on either or both of these pages please.

RfC for page title and/or Neutrality board post

I am getting a bit confused between Neutrality policy and Page move policy.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)