Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Admin attention required

Would someone take a look at Talk:Anne_Hathaway_(actress)#Requested move (2012), please? It is highly irregular. The status quo should be restored. When RMs have settled a suite of titles, it should stay settled until there are further RMs. Noetica^Tea? 06:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, the status quo has already been restored (and has been since before the RM was started) – the actress still has "(actress)" tacked on, the dab page is still 'primary'. Marty2Hotty (talk · contribs) made a botch of trying to move Anne Hathaway to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation) and was promptly reverted. Once reverted he began the requested move discussion. Nothing inappropriate, so the RM should run it's course. I also feel it's worth pointing out that a "no consensus" close does not mean things are "settled", though agree moves should not happen without discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'll just point out that when anomalies occur it should be made very clear, right up front, what has happened. The preamble had this statement: "I moved it yesterday not realizing that this was requested before." That is ambiguous. What is "it"? Checking the various histories, move logs, and contribs, I found a mess. Thank you for saying what the true outcome of all that was.

I'll go back there and make a new contribution now.

Noetica^Tea? 07:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. And I agree that the nomination was very vague, though I think the nominator is a new/inexperienced editor. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All good. Let me just clarify one thing. I wrote exactly this, above: "When RMs have settled a suite of titles, it should stay settled until there are further RMs." This is not to say, nor do I believe, that any RM is final. Of course any RM can be challenged – no matter what the result has been. It some cases it's more of a headache or waste of energy and time than in others, that's all. Noetica^Tea? 09:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC) ♫♪!

Ah, OK. That is much clearer and I agree completely. Jenks24 (talk)

@Jenks24. I don't want to hijack this topic. But if controversial moves should not happen without discussion, then why was Nico Hulkenberg moved without discussion just days after a RM had been closed on it? We can't complain about "irregularities" by editors when even admins openly violate policy and get away with it. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That revert-move at Nico Hulkenberg was one of the poorest decisions I have seen by an admin or non-admin. I believe I said at the time that it should be moved back in line with the closing admin's decision. I was disappointed that when the issue got taken to ANI, it was archived without a conclusion. Even now I would support the article being moved back to the consensus title. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Since I didn't vote or participate in that RM, does this mean I can be bold and just revert the move based on the most recent RM closing? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No because clearly it was a bad close and it was correct to revert the close. If people want it at the other spelling then you should open a new RM. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an absurd position to take. So, someone goes and opens a new RM, the consensus is again to move, and the closing admin again implements that consensus. What's to stop someone then going "well, that's clearly wrong, I'm reverting"? No doubt we would be back here again being told to just open another RM.

In the past I have believed an admin has made an error in judgement when closing an RM; in those situations should I just revert because I think the closer is "clearly wrong"? Jenks24 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move the first time, that is why it was a bad close. And there was more than enough consensus at the various discussions about his close to determine that it was a bad close. Instead of griping about it make another RM and when a different uninvolved admin closes the discussion it will likely stay at whatever they determined was the consensus. The odds of two biased admins making the same bad close in a row is minuscule. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because you believe there was no consensus does not make it a fact. If I stumble across an admin decision of yours where I believe you've made a poor decision that clearly does not reflect the consensus and where I believe you are biased (none of this is true for Vegaswikian's close, btw), would you be fine if I reverted your decision and then refused to reconsider my action or discuss it further? If no, would your answer change if I was an admin? If still no, how on Earth can you justify your position? Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There were discussions that determined his close was bad. It wasn't a single unilateral person reverting. While I understand its not all about the numbers there were 10 people opposing the move and 3 people supporting it. And an admin who has clearly stated he does not think articles should have diacritics. If that isn't a blatant bad close then I don't know what is. Nevermind bad, it was an abusive close almost to the point where I would want the admin to lose those admin rights. If it was a close case and their judgment went to the side opposite of what I thought was right then that is one thing. But this wasn't even remotely a close call. And yes, anyone can come to me and discuss my closes. However, again Vegaswikian refused to discuss his close and forced the situation to go to a bigger discussion where it was clear people thought his close wasn't good and it was reversed. Until there is an equivalent process to deletion review then yes currently an admin can reverse another admins decision. Just like an admin can unblock another admins block. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Where were these discussions? The only place I see discussion about the close is further up this page. Looking at it, we see Vegaswikian saying it is his intention to close as moved. Two more admins, TerriersFan and Aervanath, agree with his assessment of the consensus, followed by some comments from editors with entrenched positions along the lines that we've seen a million times before. So he closes it as moved. Then you say that VW is biased because he has voted in one diacritcs-related RM in the past, and say his close was incorrect. Resolute and Agathoclea agree with you that the close was incorrect, though they make no comment on VW supposed bias, and Resolute takes a clear position on the subject of diacritcs. Then UtherSRG, who had voted in many diacritcs RMs in the preceding week (all in favour of diacritics), reverts VW's move. Subsequently PBS chimes in to say VW's close was correct.

So we have eight admins who commented on the closure. Four agreed the consensus was "moved", four disagreed with that assessment. Clearly if 50% of admins sampled agree with the close, it was not a blatantly bad decision, as you assert. Clearly it was a close call, a judgement call. And if you believe VW was too biased to make the closure, how can you not believe that Uther was too biased to revert it?

A few side notes: VW was willing to discuss his close (and did so), but it was reverted less than 24 hours after he made it. It was then Uther who did not want to discuss things further. VW has also never stated that he "he does not think articles should have diacritics" – that is false and you should strike it. Lastly, your unblocking analogy is poor in that many believe the "second-mover advantage" with unblocking is a serious problem, and there have been recent ArbCom cases to try and fix the problem. That is not something we should be aiming to emulate. Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes and if half the admins said it was a bad move then it clearly shows it was one that should be reverted and discussed again with a new RM because there wasn't a consensus that the move should happen. As for who undid the move that is rather immaterial as the standard is to stick to the original when there wasn't a consensus so they were just making a procedural revert. As for comment about the second mover stuff yes it is an issue, but until we have a move review process it is the best we have. As for VWs statement about diacritics yes he has said it a few times. And has voted that way with statements to the same meaning in the past as well. It is clearly a topic area he should not have been making closes in. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the actions of a man who believes articles should never have diacritics. If you want to make negative statements about fellow editors you should either be willing to back them up with diffs or have the good grace to retract them when you are called out about it. Anyway, I think we just fundamentally disagree on this issue. I will say this, though: (a) "if half the admins said it was a bad move then it clearly shows it was one that should be reverted and discussed again" – I think this comment would find little traction at AN or in an analogous situation at DRV; (b) at least we can agree that creating a move review process would be a positive step. Jenks24 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The closing had actually been done as it should be: discounting the votes that are not based in relevant policy. You can look at the RM discussion. Bretonbanquet voted oppose on the basis of WP:MOSPN, which is only a guideline and not even specific for article titles. We have more specific policies and guidelines for article titles like WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, and a long standing guidance essay at WP:ON. And then most of the other oppose votes came in as "per Bretonbanquet", so they were also not based in our title policy. Thus VW was perfectly right in discarding these votes and closing it as concensus to move. One of the problems here is that our policies and guidelines are spread out in too many different pages, and too many admins who just count the votes rather than use WP:RMCI. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've seen a unfortunate amount of more serious conflict resolution in real-life contexts in the last 20-30 years, in many cases to reduce disruption at some point the minority holding out for a practice that is out of synch with the reality of others in any community need to be told "look at the universe." In this specific little case here on en.wp the active but tiny minority of Users on en.wp who insist on removing/preventing European-language accents from pockets of European living person biographies on the basis of mentions in low-MOS English sources, such as [some] sports websites, need to look at the bigger universe - to look at how en.wp treats chemists and composers, other sports, to look how en.wp is and then ask themselves "if I am advocating an interpretation of existing MOS evidenced in only 1% or 0.5% of relevant articles, then is it really everyone else who is the problem...?" In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Closed as premature

I think this should have been a simple "Oppose as premature" !vote, not a closure. Would someone please? I won't, since I'm active in the related conversation at Talk:Champagne. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could re-open it once the discussion at Talk:Champagne is done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

While true, it is still an improper closure. The discussion at Talk:Champagne could be informed by the results of the discussion at Talk:History of Champagne, or a wider RFC could be initiated if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was participating in that RM, and I too would like it re-opened. Even if Kauffner was trying to push his POV (something I don't necessarily agree with), there were still good faith support votes from users who hadn't been involved in the Talk:Champagne discussion (myself, Noetica, AjaxSmack). Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot performance

I think it would be better if related bots performed listing at WP:RM not by subst:Requested move, but by the {{movenotice}} itself with the talk thread link, placed in the article. Basically the current shortcoming is that when you forget to tag the talk thread with subst:Requested move, the article will not appear at WP:RM even if there is a movenotice (an instruction creep, which may lead to limited feedback or no feedback at all). Thoughts? (moved from WP:VPT per suggestion). Brandmeister^talk 09:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Smithsonian project

In late February, I proposed moving Wikipedia:GLAM/SI and the many related pages/categories to Wikipedia:WikiProject Smithsonian, and treating it like a normal (if generally inactive) WikiProject. Since then, I've had one assent and no objections. It doesn't appear to be listed on WP:RM, but it has been in Category:Requested moves. Anyone have any opinions, or willing to go ahead and do this? Thank you. Disavian (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to include the discussion link: Wikipedia talk:GLAM/SI#Let's move project pages and categories to standard names. Disavian (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional step suggested for Requested Move process

Many RMs get reasonable attention from a sufficient number of editors to make a decision after the first 7 days. Some get no attention, even after they've been in backlog for days. Others get too much attention because they are truly controversial moves. Move requests that get no or limited attention, or move requests that get no attention from experts in the topic are more difficult to deal with. I suggest we add an additional step to the RM initiation process. That step would ask that nominators notify the talk page of relevant projects (as listed on the talk page of the article) that a move request is underway. No additional rationale is needed, merely a notification. This should draw attention from experts on the topic to the move request and help ensure sufficient informed inputs are made by experts on the topic. I don't know if there is an existing notification template we can use, or one needs to be created. It needs to be simple, but I think such notification will improve the RM process as well as the overall result of RM discussions. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this suggestion. Though I'm not sure if we should make it a hard notification requirement (must) versus a soft one (should). And I can see partisan debate making the lives of closing admins a bit more difficult :), on the balance wider participation in move requests is a plus. --regentspark (comment) 11:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If the relevant projects have elected to tag the talk page and have requested notification by the monitor bot. This is automatically done. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin/Article alerts for an example. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with regentspark. Good idea to encourage it, but it definitely shouldn't be mandated. Also as Vegaswikian points out many projects use article alerts so I don't think this would have a huge impact on participation. In fact, every now and then I leave notes at WikiProject talk pages when a RM isn't getting any discussion – sometimes the response is good, but often even the big, active projects like MED ignore them. Jenks24 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In an open, collaborative community, notifying projects is the right thing to do because it raises the probability that editors familar with the topic and related naming conventions, etc. may participate in the RM. I agree that it should not be mandatory, but instead encouraged to improve the overall quality and efficiency of the RM process. The fact that some projects (project members) don't respond is irrelevant. But, inviting them to participate is just one more collaborative approach to making a better encyclopedia. I'll work on some wording and a notice template. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on all points. My point above about not receiving much response was to say that I don't think this will result in a noticeable increase in RM participants, not that it's not a good idea. Jenks24 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How do I withdraw a proposed move which no longer makes sense due to a consensus page split?

I'd proposed a move of Kan-O-Tex Service Station → Kan-O-Tex here. A consensus was reached during this discussion to split the article's subject matter (Kan-O-Tex Service Station and Kanotex Refining Company) as two separate pages, which has now been done. A move proposal based on the original (before the split) article makes no sense if the page is now two topics; Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interest says I should be able to close a nomination I'd made as withdrawn if it only received "no comment" or was "unanimously opposed" but is there any basis to withdraw a proposed move because the page that exists now simply isn't what existed when this was proposed? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I closed it simply as "has been split instead". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:requested moves/Technical requests?

This page is edited frequently because of "Technical (formerly non-controversial) requests". Shall this proposed subpage be created? --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it a problem that this page is edited frequently for the technical requests? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have concerns that may look minor but problematic: 1) too many history logs; 2) a little too difficult to find and compare major differences on rules of move requests; 3) WP:requested moves/Closure review is currently discussed and proposed; 4) Archiving completed or contested technical requests is currently impossible, especially at this page's size. WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen does better than this. That's all I can say. --George Ho (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Now then; anybody here oppose or support this idea? For starters, how must the idea be processed? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it could be boldly implemented. I do not think it requires a poll or other formalized process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WT:Requested moves/Technical requests

I have started a discussion about archiving move requests. Feel free to jump in. --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting technical moves

I propose the following change, with new wording highlighted to the "Requesting technical moves" section:

• If the only obstacle to a technical move is a navigation aid (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article that is to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history),

The purpose is to prevent "technical moves" from trashing existing redirects to a different article and thereby breaking incoming links to that article. I suspect most admins who monitor this page already apply this in practice, but I have seen some cases where it has been violated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done with this edit -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Project tag correctly before RM?

Should WP:RM include advice to check that articles are Project tagged correctly before RM? I just noticed that the RM for Talk:Ululani, a Hawaiian chiefess, has been running for 4 days and didn't have any Project tags on it, the most obvious one needed being WikiProject Hawaii. Shouldn't there be at least a mention/invitation on WP:RM instructions to at least consider whether Project tags are in place before launching an RM? I'm not saying a rule. It can be phrased "you may wish to consider whether the article is missing relevant Project tags before initiating an RM, but you are not obliged to add them" In ictu oculi (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur. And as I said in a section above, I think the RM nomination process ought to include a strong suggestion that the nom notifies appropriate Projects when the RM nom is made. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work in actual practice? We normally don't add project tags without being a member of the project. So we can only invite them.

But, there are a lot of different wikiprojects (including many I don't know about), which may be more or less appropriate for a given subject. How to find them and how to know whether they are still active or not? Everything between 1 and 20 wikiprojects may be appropriate for a subject. There is a high possibility that after some RM is closed some project will come out complaining that "hey, we should have been notified...and we were not".

The burden of tagging articles to bring them under the scope of their project should remain with the projects themselves, imo. And if a project is too inactive to tag the articles that are of high (or medium) importance to them, then are the members of that project suddenly going to come out of the woods if there is a RM?

This is going to be a lot of extra work (and problems) with very little or no benefit. If a project notices that an article that could have been under their project (but was not) has been moved to a wrong title (in their opinion), then they can always fill another RM a few months later. It's not the end of the world if an article sits at a less than optimal title for a few months. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MakeSense64, but a sentence of "consider" could be acceptable if it is very mildly phrased. A problem with projects is that they often contain groups of like minded editors who do not reflect the broader consensus, this is particularly true of national groupings, one only has to look at the number of arbitration cases that carry discretionary sanctions that have nationalist overtones. Making such as sentence stronger than a mild "consider" is likely to result in even more decisions at WP:RM not reflecting the broad consensus that they should (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). -- PBS (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can add a wikiproject tag. I will sometimes remove them with an edit comment stating that the project declines this article if I don't think it belongs. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In practice, someone starting a RM discussion should have some familiarity with the subject, and should be in a good position to assess the appropriateness of advising WikiProjects that have tagged the article. For a rename of an historic Hawaiian chiefess, its pretty obvious that advising Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii should be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MakeSense64 and PBS that this should at most be somthing to consider. We should not introduce any expectation that the lack of tagging will invalidate a RM discussion. The consideration should also apply to the closer, in that if there is disagreement in a RM and few participants, the discussion can be relisted and additional input solicited from relevant projects. Also, User:AAlertBot provides a subscription service for projects that automatically produces lists of discussions affecting articles where the talk page is tagged by the project. For example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts. For participants in a project interested in RM discussions, perhaps they should be directed to subscribe to that bot. older ≠ wiser 12:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That is something I would agree to if it is subject to some strict conditions. E.g. Only if there is disagreement and there are too few participants, and when the article has no wikiproject tags. Then the closing admin can at his discretion decide to invite one or more wikiprojects that are likely to be interested or informed about the article topic in question. That would avoid that this is becoming used to try to canvass votes from selected projects. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I find the suggestion that only project members can add project tags to an article completely contrary to practice. A project tag can be added to an article by any editor, if they think the article falls under to purview of a project. Second, the idea that adding a project tag to an article is inviting WP:CANVASS is short-sighted and in fact absolutely contrary to the purpose of RM. RM is not a competition, but a discussion initiated by someone who believes there is a more appropriate title for a given article. More participation, regardless of motives, is better for the community and better for the encyclopedia. Any methodology that improves knowledgeable participation in RM discussions should be part of the process. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving move requests?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Technical requests. Jafeluv (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jafeluv said that archiving requests is unnecessary. What about archiving WP:cut and paste move repair holding pen? It archives old requests. --George Ho (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you equating history merges and technically requested moves? They are quite dissimilar. Most moves can and are made boldly and the log of the move itself provides the record. Technical requests are just uncontroversial moves that but for a technical barrier could have been made boldly as well. What purpose is served by archiving them; what is the need; what is the actual reason you're raising this, which you have not hinted at. By the way, I think request such as this one properly belongs on the main talk page of WP:RM where central discussion of all aspects of the requested moves process is appropriate. This is an obscure talk page of a subpage that is transcluded.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many edits in WP:RM. With this transclusion, and with old requests, people might know what have been already requested before completing the move. Also, comparing one revision to another is totally inconvenient. Shall I give you examples? --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I asked here what the point is in archiving cut and paste move fixes, but got no answer. That archive seems similarly unnecessary to me. Jafeluv (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)