Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

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

Template {requested move} does not handle namespaces well.[edit]

Template {{requested move}} does not handle namespaces well. It fails editors expectations. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: Can you be more specific about what your expectations are, which are not being met? A specific example might help. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume Depiep is talking about the RM he/she began at Template talk:RailGauge. Perhaps they are suggesting the template should automatically realise which namespace it's in and, for example, when starting a RM in the template talk namespace it will assume you are requesting a move to a template namespace page. Personally, I think it's better as is – it offers more flexibility for when cross-namespace moves are required and, frankly, adding "Template:" when wanting to move a template page is not that unreasonable. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I see, yes there was a misunderstanding with this edit, and it took a few more edits to get it right. A look at Show preview before saving the page should have made the issue clear, and I agree with you that most editors would immediately see the need to specify the namespace. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll be more specific later on. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Show preview does not clarify the issue, because it shows what the editor has mistakingly entered! IOW, it repeats the original mistake, which of course an editor will confirm. It does notify (or warn for) not notify or warn for the cross-namespace action. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Clarify -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Example.
I created Draft:Test1 (might be gone soon, for some reason draft pages do are not allowed to test something).
Then on Draft talk:Test1 I added the template [1]
{{subst:requested move|Test3|reason=My reason (test)}}
The template resolved this to new pagename proposal Test3, which is in mainspace.
Of course, when an editor makes that mistake when entering, the new name does not look like a warning. (server being nonresponsive, could not save this right away) -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Such a cross ns move could be intentional. For that reason we cannot block the proposal from saving (say with a "wrong proposal, not accepted" red message). But I think it would be helpful if the template shows a message (inline, minor, red-text) like "This is a cross-namespace move" in the box prose. And maybe a parameter |cross ns=OK could be available for the editor who knows what they are doing (=do not show the message). -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: OK, I have coded up such an information notice in the template's sandbox, but I used italics rather than red. Look at Draft talk:Test1 and tell me what you think. You can try editing it for various namespace destinations. Actually it's not hard to foresee that Draft → Main space move requests could potentially become quite common. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. (minor: maybe change text into like: "This proposal implies a cross-namespace move ..."?). -DePiep (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Great. The change is now live. I'm not sure "implied" is an improvement. It is such a move, and the notice is saying so, not just implying that it is. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Xbox 1 name dispute[edit]

i am not sure but i try it to bring here since a mod told me to go in this RM direction instead calling up a despute. Its about a dispute for the Xbox One and the original Xbox in this wikipedia article. I insist to display both Xbox One and the first Xbox since just like with the first Playstation people are calling the original Xbox just Xbox 1 too. It should be obvious that both console should be displayed with links to their articles, i even posted various references but this user Zero thinks differently all the time without giving any references whats so ever.--Crossswords (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, the dispute is over whether:
  1. Xbox 1 should redirect to Xbox One, as it does currently (because Xbox One is the WP:Primary topic for Xbox 1) -or-
  2. Xbox 1 should redirect to Xbox (console), the first generation of the product -or-
  3. Xbox 1 should be a WP:Disambiguation page
This isn't really the venue to decide that. If you want to give the discussion a broader exposure beyond Talk:Xbox 1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, then consider Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Or take it up again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Please read the previous discussion there. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

{{subst:requested move|Santiago, Philippines|reason=I appeal with the move that was made. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, shouldn't it show FACTS? Then why did you discredit the reasons we have presented on this talk page? It creates mass confusion here. If the upgrade was from a municipality to a COMPONENT CITY then Santiago, Isabela is alright. But Santiago is an INDEPENDENT city. Please check the article of Angeles City. It is named Angeles, Philippines because it is in fact an independemt city. Why can't Santiago be named the same? The moderator sided with CONVENTIONAL reasons per se. If you say that the laws of the Philippines don't do justice, what would be the BEST evidence then? Please read the LGC SECTIONS 25 and 29 again.

Request help with move/merge[edit]

"Worcester College of Technology" and "North East Worcestershire College" have merged into "Heart of Worcestershire College". I have moved "Worcester College of Technology" to "Heart of Worcestershire College" and need help merging "North East Worcestershire College" page with it.

This page North East Worcestershire College needs to be deleted as I have mixed its contents on Heart of Worcestershire College with the Worcester College of Technology

Charlr6 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charlr6. I've changed North East Worcestershire College into a redirect to the new article, Heart of Worcestershire College, so that if anyone searches for that old school they still get to the new school and find some information there. Seems a better solution to me that simply deleting. Also, if you have copied contents of one Wikipedia article to another please make sure you've followed Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Would there be any need for deletion of the page in the future do you think? After I mean people have gotten used to and understand that both colleges have merged? Like within a year or two? Charlr6 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think so. Wikipedia's general practice is that redirects are cheap and if they are being used at all then they are worth having. But that said, if in a few years you think it should be deleted you should feel free to take it to Redirects for discussion where there can be a discussion about keeping or deleting it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@Charlr6: No, the redirects from both former names need to be kept permanently. The colleges existed under those names, and someone might find a reference to either of them and need to find out about them. I'm not at all sure that it was right to move the Worcester College of Technology article, with its history from 1851. School of Design, presumably supporting the pottery industry, established at time of The Great Exhibition, etc - looks like scope for an interesting article there which might not sit well with the current college article. What happened to the two notable alumni? You seem to have lost them, and some other history, in merging the articles. (1939 number of students?) It looks as if you have removed information from the encyclopedia in doing this merge, and your question about deleting the redirect seems to show that you do not understand the nature of the encyclopedia. There's also a lot more needing to be done to tidy up tenses etc in the article resulting from your undocumented merge - see the comment above about the need to attribute any copying. PamD 13:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Found the 2 notable ex staff/students, lurking below the refererences! PamD 14:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The notable staff/students already existed on the previous article. As did the history for Worcester college, and as it was there I felt no need to delete anything. I did however put paragraphs together as before they were several short sentances describing certain things. The School of Design article already existed on the Worcester college as well. And if you feel the need to put that into its own article then feel free to. Charlr6 (talk)
No problem with the two notables - I'd just not noticed them in the new article because they were down below the references. Have expanded and moved them. On the history, too, I'd somehow not spotted the 1939 info, thought it had disappeared. But the whole article was a bit of a mess after the merge, with lots of "is" that needed to be "was" etc, and more importantly you had copied a chunk of other editors' work from the NEW College article without giving them the credit for it. Wikipedia is very strong on attribution: every word needs to be traceable back to the person who first added it to the encyclopedia, not just to the person who decided to cut and paste it from another article. I've now put in the necessary attribution. Before you merge an article again please read WP:MERGE. Thanks.
Meanwhile, please supply a source for the quote from the colleges, and tone down the PR guff (or frame it as attributed quotes): it's not the sort of thing an encyclopedia should include.
Is the stuff on the campuses up to date, or does it reflect the points in time when the old articles were written? The college website is pretty hopeless: the section on campuses tells us which coffeebars they have but nothing else much. Also zero about the history/heritage of the institution. Ah well. That's progress. Or something. PamD 15:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to make an editors work my own, even if your just saying that is what it looks like by copying. The quote and some of the text surrounding it I found via this word document, which seems like it was part of a newsletter that I found via searching "new college and worcester college of technology merge" in Google and on it it reads "Read the full press release here. - Worcester College of ...". It is a DOC format. I've been looking to find the right way to reference it but I can't find the appropriate way, as it is a link that will download and open a work document that details what I've written in. Charlr6 (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously a press release which is turning up in various places - I've found it on a newspaper website and given the ref from there. No, I don't say you were trying to claim credit for the stuff you imported, but please remember Wikipedia's attribution rules and take care another time. I seem to be having a day of this sort of thing, having just sorted out the templates needed when someone split Banff and Macduff four years back without using the right templates! I think this is OK now, though the stuff about the campuses probably needs to be checked/updated. And I'd love to find out a bit more about the 1851-onwards history of the college to add to the article. PamD 17:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Need some advice about an RM added in the middle of a move discussion to a different name[edit]

A discussion was started at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Need to change name of article to just Islamic State. I didn't do this as a formal RM because I wanted feedback about the name and a dab issue. Despite the discussion, another editor started a formal RM at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested. What's the best thing to do so that at least we are discussing alternatives? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've procedurally closed it, you can continue discussion in the section you started. Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, doing so. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Section moves[edit]

Is there a process currently in place for move sections of articles to their own, stand-alone article? Did a cursory search in the archives here but didn't see anything.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

See the procedure for Wikipedia:Splitting. --Vclaw (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves[edit]

I have been bold and created a section called "Undiscussed moves" in Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Lead.

The term "undiscussed move" used elsewhere on the WP:RM page, but it is not explained, nor is there mention of the how disruptive move warring is and that we have the "undiscussed moves" revert process to discourage anyone trying to capture the high-ground by an undiscussed pre-emptive move in the hope that if there is an RM to move it back that RM returns no-consensus.

I hope I have phrased the section in line with WP:TITLECHANGES and current practise, but as is so often the case first drafts will need to be modified. I hope people are bold and edit it mercilessly.

-- PBS (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be made even simpler... if an editor thinks a move will be uncontroversial, he/she can be bold and move. However, if anyone subsequently objects... return the article to the original title and discuss. Don't edit war. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Then simplify :-) but how long after a move can a person object? -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Urgently need help with an RM that showed up as closed when I added it.[edit]

I somehow messed up Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 2 and it shows as closed - and has done since it started and no one noticed! There's a 3rd option being suggested and I'm not sure how to fix that either. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed hopefully.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I need to check to see what I did wrong. I've done RM's before that worked. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up after moves - dab pages etc[edit]

There's a relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#.22code_of_honor.22.3F, basically about whose job it is to tidy up after moves which break incoming links. (eg move X to X(y) and X(disambiguation) to X - whose job is it to fix the links which were fine and now point to the dab page?) PamD 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Frankly, I think that all incoming links should be cleaned up before the page is moved, to avoid creating a spike in reports of the number of links to be fixed. Typically (though not always) the editor who has proposed the move is in a better position than an uninvolved editor to know which solutions to apply. As I have noted in the other discussion, disambiguation links are now being created faster than we can address them, so our usual disambiguators may never get around to the messes created today. bd2412 T 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up BD2412 The most extreme cases I've seen are when a significant set of editors want to move a pop-culture topic which dominates a title on the encyclopedia off of primary topic, because they "don't like it". I don't think this can be fully automated unless someone can write a really smart bot program. The vast majority of articles will be about the dominant pop-culture topic, but to be accurate you will want to use WP:AWB to catch the handful or two of pages that are about the other topics on the dab page. That's what I did when there was a proposal to move Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). AWB makes it easy to process boatloads of pages quickly while still catching the exceptions. I did this, to set a good example, before the RM closed. There's no harm in moving a more specific title to a less specific title, e.g. Thriller (Michael Jackson album)Thriller (album). Which could now be done just by "flipping the switch" because I laid the groundwork. The dab problems arise when going in the other direction. The other infamous example which comes to mind was Brand NewBrand New (band). I did that after the move, even though I wasn't one of those religiously insisting on the move, and it was a lot of work before I found out how relatively easy AWB could make the task. And it wasn't until recently that someone actually wrote an article about the primary-topic-wanna-be brand new. Are there any specific recent moves or proposals that triggered this new discussion? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a particular move that has led to this; the number of disambiguation pages with small numbers of incoming links are rising as steadily as the number with large number of disambiguation pages with large numbers of incoming links. It seems to be a combination of moving topics large and small off of primary topic status, careless linking, and our recently having lost access to the dabsolver. bd2412 T 02:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. This isn't an area that I've been particularly active in. Taking a look at WP:Disambiguation pages with links, I see the Disambiguation pages with links report has S-Video at the top. It's easy to find the culprit. No discussion beforehand, and no effort whatsoever to clean up the mess. I wonder if they are even aware of the mess they created. Can anything be done to preempt this sort of thing, or make it easier to reverse? I note that we went straight from S-Video the article to a disambiguation without even taking time along the way to create S-Video (disambiguation). – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I submitted a request to revert these undiscussed moves. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I note also that S-Video (analog video standard) has appeared in the newly created Category:Invalid redirects which I am working on clearing out. So I would have gotten to it there, just not as quickly as via Disambiguation pages with links. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted that move. Potentially controversial moves that are made boldly, without discussion, can be reverted boldly, without discussion, in accordance with WP:BRD. An undiscussed move that creates dozens of bad links is definitely going to be controversial. I have proposed before that it should be technically impossible to carry out such a move without first obtaining a consensus. bd2412 T 12:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, good. Moving on to the next item on that list, here is the revevant edit history. Once again, we went straight from a hatnote-disambiguated article to no-primary-topic status, completely bypassing creation of a Epitome (disambiguation). No prior discussion or recognition of the necessary post-move cleanup. Would you like to revert that one too? I suppose it's a judgement call whether to fully revert, or to partially revert by moving EpitomeEpitome (disambiguation) and updating the hatnote on the restored article to point to the newly created dab page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What a mess: I've now created Epitome (disambiguation), so as long as we're happy with the literary form being the Primary Topic (I think that's what it was in the past?), we just need to tweak the hatnote on Epitome. Oh I'll do so now, anyway. Apologies if I'm treading on any toes. PamD 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I probably should have done that. I have now merged the history of the deleted disambiguation page at the primary topic title into Epitome (disambiguation). The editor who made the initial undiscussed move actually just asked me on my talk page what was controversial about his move. bd2412 T 18:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I was puzzled as to how any previous dab page had disappeared completely ... presumably into some accessible-to-admins black hole! Hope my work didn't complicate matters too much. PamD 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I had just moved the page right back over it, which restored the status quo ante. bd2412 T 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The next one is legitimate, but involving a topic that I'm not keen to spend any time on. I left a message asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga #Transformers: Robots in Disguise needs disambiguation assistance. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)