Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Closure of talk page entries for a multi-move request?

When a multi-move request is approved, should a bot be closing the entries that were placed on all of the talk pages? Cf. Omega1 Aquarii. Just curious; it seems odd to leave inquiry messages dangling out there. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I think most people who see them will look at the timestamp and realise the RM has probably been closed by now. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If we can get the damn bot ever working again, I think it's not a bad idea that it leaves a terse note like:

Automated note: the discussion has been closed.--User:RM bot 12:00, 10 January 2036 (UTC)

This is what I did in the past before we ever had a bot, and do now that we're manually updating. I don't think it's a pressing issue though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A note to optionally do this (leave a terse note) could be added to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, along with the notes to update or add {{Oldmoves}}, {{Old RM multi}} or {{Oldmove}}. There is no transcluded template or category flagging these messages, so once the RM is closed it would be hard for a bot to find them. The closing instructions are getting pretty complicated, so a possibility would be to see if a new program could be created to assist this closing process. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

New Archive?

This page talks about "New Archive" several times. What is that supposed to mean? News Archive? --Espoo (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "this page", but in the context of any talk page, "new archive" normally means stop using the old archive and start using a "new archive". You will note above that this talk page has many archive pages, numbered (now) from 1 to 24. It is automatically archived by a bot that starts a new archive page every time the old one exceeds 150K bytes. Apteva (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:move notice

I have removed mention of {{move notice}} from the section Requesting a single page move in line with the discussion depreciating it at wikipedia talk:Article titles#The role of template:movenotice in title changes.

The empirical evidence for the confusion that having two similar templates without similar functionality can be seen in the move requests I have recently initiated moves using {{requested move}} that are now listed on this page, which were listed as requests using the {{movenotice}}. Before my listings some had laid moribund for 3/4 of a year. It is obvious from this backlog that {{movenotice}} is not noticed by many editors and is not worth the confusion it generates.

I have left the {{move notice}} in place for the moment in the section Requesting multiple page moves because we do need to advertise multi moves on the affected pages. But it is my intention to alter the template to indicate that it should be used at the top of the talk pages of articles that considered to be part of a multi move. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Multi-moves are advertised on the affected pages. Examples: Talk:The Cost (disambiguation), Talk:Genesis flood narrative, Talk:List of FA Cup winners, Talk:List of FA Trophy winners, Talk:List of FA Vase winners, Talk:List of Scottish Cup winners, Talk:List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners, etc. etc.

These notices are never automatically removed. For example, Talk:Malabon. There may be some benefit in keeping these notices around, as they may provide a link to archived discussions. There is currently no template used to post these messages, and there is no category for pages containing these messages. I suppose a template or category could be used if that is helpful, but there is nothing that would prevent a human user from using the template too, or manually categorizing any page they wanted to put in such a category. The only way to find these pages now is to do a global search of talk pages, such as this. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not know (hadn't noticed/read) that the bot automatically generated the sections. As it does, I think that is a better solution than adding and removing templates :-) In which case the advise about {{move notice}} for multi-page moves can be removed. -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree documentation needs updated, and that's kind of been on the back-burner of my to-do list. I should point out that this particular bot function is exclusion compliant, meaning that an editor who does not want this message posted on a particular talk page can tag the page with the {{nobots}} template, and RMCD bot will respect the template. Not sure if there's a good reason for anyone to take advantage of that feature, but it's there. I think you're on the right track with {{move notice}}. I picked up the dropped ball for Battles (band), and am happy to see someone else working on clearing that "backlog". – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the bot should add "move notice" to the advisement section of the other talk page for multimoves, and remove the template when the discussion has been closed, leaving only the section text. This would indicate an active discussion. Further, all the article pages should also have the template auto-added and auto-removed by the bot. This would turn the template into a bot-only template. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Move Notice at TFD

I've gone ahead and nominated the Movenotice template for deletion here. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The outcome was delete -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Move Notice at VP Policy

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Title_changes_and_Template:movenotice, where another discussion has been opened. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

I have a suggestion for the backlog. If an RM request has no activity (no votes or comments have been logged) and has been in the backlog for a week, then it should be closed as no contest and be moved (this would not establish a consensus), treating it as a uncontroversial rename request. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it lacks consensus, just close and don't move.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no responses, it would be the equivalent to listing at the technical request section, so why not move? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither. Follow the nuanced path between already set forth in the middle paragraph at WP:RMCI#Determining consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are no responses, then there's no consensus to determine (no votes, no comments, nothing). There is only the request of the nominator. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A lack of local consensus does not mean there is no consensus to determine. If the request is consistent with policy, guidelines and consensus in similar requests, then the closer can determine that there is consensus support. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

76.65.131.248, what's stopping you from closing RMs as you suggest. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As a mere IP, he can't perform any page move.? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records

It looks like Talk:CBS Records could use some love from RM--although instead of coming here, it looks like they are trying to go from talk page "votes" to mediation. Dekimasuよ! 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Tenedos

Can someone look at Talk:Tenedos ? Something weird is going on, since a new RM request appeared in an archived RFC section -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. There is a bit of an edit war going on over whether the closure was valid or not. In the midst of the un-closing and re-closing, the tag re-appeared and wasn't subsequently removed. I hope the edit war ceases; the discussion needs to take place on the closing admin's talk page or at WP:Move review.--Aervanath (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And it currently is: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_September_13#Tenedos.--Aervanath (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

BrainPop

Someone has renamed the article BrainPOP, but I don't think that's correct. Would someone please look at it and see which one is correct under WP:NAME? If you move it back, would you kindly add a note to the talk page so that editors of the article can understand whether to use the caps or not? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

see Talk:BrainPOP#Requested move – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can non-admins relist?

I don't see why not, but I thought I'd ask. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not either. Excepting, of course, editors who are involved in some way. --regentspark (comment) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any situation where a judgement call needs to be made shouldn't be made by a non-admin. If a relist call is made when the situation could reasonably be closed as a move or not moved then a non-admin shouldn't be making it. Non-admins should only act when the situations is 100% obvious one way or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

But perhaps old discussions with one or no votes could be considered "100% obvious" cases for relisting, I would think? --BDD (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As an admin if there are no votes in it then I would consider it not-controversial and move it personally as opposed to relist. This isn't Afd where relisting to get a better idea is definitely needed since any editor can move an article. But doing such as a non-admin might be considered a controversial close. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I wish there were more clarity in that area. See the "Backlog" section above. As that title suggests, more editors could help manage this backlog with better defined procedures for such RMs. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes please, the more editors helping out the better. I made plenty of relists as a non-admin and can't recall it ever being a problem. The only thing to really watch out for is, unlike AfD, we don't relist simply because after a week the nom is the only one to participate – most of the time admins will just close them as moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• If they do it appropriately, then of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• IMHO, one of the issues that contributes to the backlog in RM, is that there are RMs where the listing rationale and/or the discussion itself provides no clear indication of what should be done. Relisting doesn't solve that, it just delays the RM reaching the backlog again. RMs with zero discussion (and poor rationale) are sometimes difficult because one must ask the question, is the alternative title really appropriate? The hardest RMs to close are those where a move is warranted, but there are multiple suggestions for the new title (many times without any real discussion/consensus to distinquish which title should be chosen. I have no objection with a non-admin relisting an RM, but it probably isn't going to get closed until it hits the backlog again. RM backlog is merely a symptom of a bigger issue, that of an undisciplined RM process. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mike on this. Relisting as a means of addressing the backlog problem is merely a cosmetic. The backlog is there because many move discussions are contentious and the closing admin has to be willing to address questions and comments well after the close. Real life issues can make this difficult. I know that I try to close only 2-3 at a time for this reason. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing because it does force admins to be more careful in their closes and backlogged requests do ultimately get addressed. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Weekenders (TV pilot)

I'd like to know if this is in process, since Talk:The Weekenders (TV pilot) requested move was opened and closed on 22 September, with an objection lodged, and no rationale given by the closer. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, at first glance that looks like a poor close and the fact that it was made by a non-admin does compound it. However, I'd suggest asking for an explanation at the closer's talk page. If the response is unsatisfactory, come back here and we'll see how to proceed. Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've asked for an explanation or a status quo ante bellum reopening. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Backlogged straightforwarward closes

Please see [[1]]. In waiting for an admin to close and move the move protected page, a once contested discussion has evolved into a large unaniminity. This is embarrassing to the project. I suggest a separate listing for backlogged straightforward closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The backlog seems to be more a function of the number of people working on moves than whether or not the individual closes are difficult. You can always tag a page as db-g6 if the close is uncontroversial, and see if someone working on deletion will perform the cleanup or remove the barrier to completing the move. I don't know about saying that it's "embarrassing to the project"--we should be appreciative of everything that gets done here due to the choices of editors to contribute. Dekimasuよ! 19:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Template messages/Moving

One of the updates to WP:Template messages/Moving made that page get picked up by the bot... so can someone fix whatever's causing that? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm working on updating the documentation. Will find a solution. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)  Fixed Wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

On watchlist?

Why does only the talkpage of this page, appear on one's watchlist? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It does not. The main page is on my watchlist this moment. However, the main page is rarely changed. The apparent changes are actually done at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions and are only transcluded, i.e. they do not change the page in the database. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This page works by Wikipedia:Transclusion various sub pages, edits to the actual page are rare. If you wanted to keep track of new requested moves then you would need to add Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions to your watchlist.--Salix (talk): 15:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you may also need to show edits by bots in your watchlist as well. If bot edits are hidden, you won't see many changes on your watchlist. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Linking to G6

There has been misused in the past of G6 to move articles without RMs, or even counter RMs. Would it be possible for the G6 list, Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion to be linked on the page here so Users can easily click through to it and see if moves are being accomplished using G6? (I don't really understand why this way of circumventing RM even exists) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The history: G6 was the original way to request moves which needed admin help. Non-admins can still use it to implement moves which need admin tools to go through. Before admins started paying attention to this page, almost all requested move discussions were evaluated by non-admins, who used G6 to get admin help when needed. As to its use or mis-use now, I couldn't say.--Aervanath (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of links in the section Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests:

• Pages transcluding {{db-move}}
• Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion

The transclusions link may show pages with malformed {{db-move}} requests (i.e., page to be moved and/or reason for move missing). Malformed db-move requests are not included in categories Candidates for speedy deletion and Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion-- the latter category is a subset of the former ({{db-move}}-tagged pages are put in both categories). Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple requests on one page?

Can we have 2 parallel different move requests on one talk page? --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the example at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, where there are currently two move discussions open:

• Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia#Proposing a move in good faith
  • Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions#October 05, 2012
• Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia#Alternate proposal

The second proposal was entered as an untagged new section [2] followed by an edit to post the tag {{Requested move/dated|Military Administration in Serbia}} Wbm1058 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Multiple move suggestions should be consolidated into one section with one move template, which can leave the suggested move blank - and in the section list out the multiple proposals. See next section about verbosity also. Apteva (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Verbosity

The move instructions have quite a long suggested text:

"Place here your reasons for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning is based on search engine results, please provide the results of searches using Google Books or Google News before providing any web results."

What it actually should point out somewhere is that if the move suggestion can not be summarized in one or two sentences it should be separated with a separate signature, one inside the template and one outside, so that what appears on WP:RM will be a short summary. If it can not be easily summarized, simply use (see talk page) ~~~~ and add the full information outside of the template with a signature. WP:RM does not need any of the details, just a very brief indication of the reason for the move. Apteva (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests made by an editor

Is there any way to find move requests made by an editor? It'll be helpful for me to track those later!--Tito Dutta ✉ 05:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Actual completed moves, sure. Look up their Move log. Finding current or archived {{move}} requests is a bit harder. You can try a talk page search, but that would include discussions participated in as well as initiated. -- Wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, for the search result I am getting bunch of other discussions where I did not request but posted opinion! Can someone create a tool like AFD vote count? Possible? --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's possible to write pattern-matching code that distinguishes between requests and "votes". I believe you're referring to the AfD Statistics Tool. Its author User:Scottywong has written a number of similar tools. You might want to ask on his talk page if he could write a tool to do this. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)