Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RM)
Jump to: navigation, search

Can someone who made a move request support it?[edit]

can people who made a move request support it? (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the policy on disambiguation and primary topic. After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example,  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...). Most nominators, however, simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should." Since the outcome of move requests isn't determined by the number of supporters, it's not really necessary to note your support for the move. Dekimasuよ! 08:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not true that "nominations should not be neutral". Neutral nominations can very very helpful, such as when there is a known controversy, or a history of contested move proposals. In these cases, the best move proposal will begin with a neutral statement of the facts. If making a neutrally worded proposal, the proposer then may make their arguments separately under as an explicit !vote.
Where there is no history of previous move proposals, and no anticipated opposition, where the history of facts of past discussions is trivial, it is best to simply make your case, as per Dekimasu.
Where there is an extensive history, it is very helpful to summarise the past discussions, and to simply and factually state what was previously proposed, and to what end, and what the current proposal is. Mixing one's opinion into these facts can be very unproductive. Separating fact from opinion is safer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I copied this straight from the main page, which indicates a general consensus that nominations should not be neutral. The default is not moving a page. A move request should only be made if an editor feels that a page should be moved. Dekimasuよ! 18:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
That "should not be neutral" perhaps should be changed to "need not be neutral". Consider for example cases where another user assists an inexperienced user to request a move, even though the proposer might not actually support the move. Or, as SmokeyJoe suggests, where there has been history of controversy, it may be more productive to avoid fanning the flames when framing the request. olderwiser 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "need not be neutral" is better. We shouldn't encourage people to neglect valid counterarguments and alternative perspectives when submitting a proposal. It is actually best when the submitter has carefully weighed the various issues and is not too "invested" in their particular suggested outcome. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course people who made a move request can support it, and if they do, they should be clear, and if they are making a procedural proposal (such as as a result of a Move Review), they should be clear about that too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that someone who submitted the move request at the top of the discussion should also enter a boldfaced Support bullet beneath it. Their support is implied. They can comment, of course, but it becomes confusing to interpret the conversation if they also seem to want to say that they support themselves. Strictly speaking, they are proposing, not supporting. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The wording was chosen so as to discourage requests made for their own sake, since those expend our efforts unnecessarily. Perhaps the wording can be altered to get across the real message, which should be: if there's no compelling reason to start a move discussion, don't start it. Dekimasuよ! 00:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Move request filed to counter controversial move, but now I learn about WP:RM/CM[edit]

Discussion on WP:TFD that could affect the functionality of {{Requested move}}[edit]

There is a discussion happening at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 26#Template:RMtalk that could affect the functionality of {{Requested move}}, specifically how the template creates section headers on talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Heads up, everyone! – While the proposal is framed as a merge of {{RMtalk}} into {{Requested move}}, the key upshot of that is to change the default behavior of {{Requested move}}: by default it will add a section title in the format:
Requested move 26 December 2014.
You will still be able to override that default with a customized section header. However, I do not plan on adding the additional "talk" section by default, unless an explicit consensus calls for that. So far, there have been no comments; at some point we will assume that your silence means you don't object to the change. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will be implementing this shortly. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done – let me know if you run into any problems. {{subst:RMtalk}} is being deprecated in favor of {{subst:Requested move|talk=yes}} – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's nice that there is a default header with such precision, but if the editor proposes the change using the "new section" button and has to leave the section header blank, it's unfortunate that we end up having a new requested move section with no edit summary; there's no quick way for editors with the page on their watchlists to figure out that a move was requested. Would there be a way to check for the bot to check for new move requests that have no edit summaries and add some sort of dummy edit to notify editors that a move discussion is what was added to the page? Dekimasuよ! 18:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Policy question[edit]

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but could someone please educate me regarding the procedure here?

  1. On Nov 24, I place the Technical request that Austrian Federal Government be moved to Cabinet of Austria; the latter is a redirect to the former. I don't expect any great friction at that point: the article itself says it needs to be moved; it says so very clearly in at least four different places; I didn't make any of the edits that make it say it needs to be moved; I believe the rationale in my request is reasonably comprehensive. [1]
  2. Some hours later, an administrator marks the move as "contested," but doesn't say either who is contesting it or why. [2]
  3. I contact the administrator to find out what seems to be the issue. [3]
  4. The administrator tells me to get off his lawn and answer to the objection on the article talk page. [4]
  5. I point out (politely, I think) that the talk page doesn't tell me what the objection is and that I can't answer to an objection whose nature is not being disclosed to me. [5]
  6. Time passes.
  7. On Dec 3, another administrator "relists" the "discussion" that, as far as I can tell, never happened. [6]

What do I do? What am I supposed to do? Damvile (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Calling attention to a neglected request here is an option; then just be patient and wait for others to comment. However, I do feel that the advice in the edit intro shown when contested requests are moved to the article's talk page should be heeded by all, including contesting administrators. I will say though that you could assume that the reason might be something like, this title touches on politics, one of Wikipedia's "third rails", where moves are more prone to be assumed as potentially controversial. Plus, I have the impression that Anthony understands foreign languages better than most of us. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you sincerely for your comments, both this one and the one on the article. I finally see what the issue is; I replied to your observation on the talk page. Regarding the points you're raising here: (1) It obviously touches on politics, no argument, but I assure you the proper English translation of Bundesregierung is not a point of contention in Austria. Austrians will beat each other up over Kärnten vs. Koroška and Klagenfurt vs. Celovec, but this is not where I edit. (2) I'm happy Anthony has a knack for languages, but I have my doubts his command of German is noticeably more subtle than mine. I so happen to speak the language natively. Damvile (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not so controversial[edit]

A move I requested at video game genres turned out to be not so controversial as I thought. I got two supports (sort-of) and one short and vague comment. Should I just boldly move it myself as if I never requested the move in the first place, or am I bound to go through the standard procedure? ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the bold move. You'll soon find out if anyone vehemently objects. Good luck!  Philg88 talk 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast reply, I'll go through with it then :) ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I commented over there. I'd wait for more opinions, and an uninvolved closer at this point. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts question[edit]

Do we really want WP:RMTR and WP:RM/TR pointing different places? I always seem to end up in the wrong location since I can't remember which is which. (I know I'll start to remember now that I've started this section, but wouldn't it be good to have these be more unique to avoid confusion?) Dekimasuよ! 21:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You could make a shortcut like WP:RMTR/subpage but that wouldn't be so short, which kind of defeats the purpose. Would it help to have the shortcuts to the subpage on the main page, or vice-versa? The shortcuts to the subpage are so admins can quickly get there directly. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I always intend to end up on the subpage, so I guess the ones I like are WP:RMTR and WP:RMCD. However, it seems counterintuitive that the ones with the slash (WP:RM/TR, WP:RM/C) are the ones that don't go to subpages. Those feel more like WP:RM#TR or WP:RM#C, though I don't know if those are possible, and it seems like all four of the others should go to the subpages. Dekimasuよ! 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, "#" for section links, "/" for subpage links. And leave the ones with neither the way they are (mostly to the subpage, I think). This isn't the first time this has come up: See here. I'm working on this; some changes require updating the bot's program. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: If I recall, weren't the shortcuts set up like that due to your edits on {{RMassist}} a while back? I remember that I questioned the same thing, performed bold edits to synchronize the shortcuts, then reverted my edits due to seeing your edits on {{RMassist}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not following what you think the issue is with RMassist. The only shortcut I see in that template is WP:RM, and I'm not changing that one. I don't think the shortcuts I'm changing should have any effect on RMassist. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: no, not an issue. If I recall, a while ago in the past, you updated {{RMassist}} to produce an editnotice with a piped link that included one of the above shortcuts to prevent reaching the editnotice character limit. I don't recall the specific details regarding the edits, but I recall that much. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether it's called an issue, problem, bug, concern or whatever shouldn't be a big deal. "Issue" is just a euphemism for "bug". To be clear on Wikipedia terminology, Edit notices don't really have any practical limits that we would be concerned with here. Template:RMassist/editintro doesn't have any shortcuts; it uses the full page name in its links. You are thinking of edit summaries, which have a 250 character limit, and correctly recall that indeed that was an issue previously. I addressed that in June 2013 by changing [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] to [[WP:RM]], and using permanent links. See Template talk:RMassist § New version of this template adds permalinks to move edit summaries for more on that. So, thanks for the concern, but I still don't see any problems. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: I don't see any issues either, but just because I didn't, also didn't mean that there weren't any. (What I meant above wasn't an issue per se, but rather a resolution to a problem that happened to almost everyone using Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ... a necessary resolution which everyone benefits, and I thank you for those edits.) So, thanks for confirming that no issues may arise as a result of the edits in response to these requested changes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the previous discussion. Dekimasuよ! 16:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Let me know if there are still any issues. Thanks for making the suggestion. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Backlog notice[edit]

When's the last time this happened? Dekimasuよ! 17:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it is the first time since January 2012. Dekimasuよ! 18:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if you search that page's edit history, you'll see that the notice did come down briefly on November 7, 2013. There was actually a bug that was keeping the bot from removing the notice, until I fixed it on August 1, 2013. Actually, Apteva noticed the problem back in June 2013, and was running a "test to troubleshoot the bot". Alas, they never bothered to report the problem to me, which was a shame, as I was the only person in a position to fix the problem. So I didn't notice it until August. I kind of miss that guy; I see at least he still can edit his own talk page. Though sometimes I wonder whether he has secretly reincarnated himself ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I blame WikiBlame for not finding that one. Still, first time in a while. Dekimasuよ! 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I presume that happened because there is no backlog! Muaaahahaha! bd2412 T 19:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The bot's not working[edit]

The RM list hasn't been updated for some hours. The Condé Nast Building at 20:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC) is the last time it was updated. I put in a move request at 22:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC), and it still hasn't shown up on the project page – more than 7 hours later (no updates have appeared for nearly 11 hours). —BarrelProof (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For the time being you can find new requests manually at Category:Requested moves, but it doesn't seem like it would be an effective use of our time to try updating the list that way. Hopefully the bot will be back up soon. Dekimasuよ! 07:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about implementing my last bot bug fix so late in the day yesterday. I've backed it off and will work on implementing a more robust fix. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk page templates giving advice for better thought though move requests[edit]

Is there such a thing as this? A great many requests have had no checks on source or within Wikipedia usages or previous move requests etc.

The development of a barnstar related to article titling might also be an idea. GregKaye 10:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)