Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Closing instructions[edit]

@Fuhghettaboutit: asked for an explanation of why I deleted the following sentence from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, in the section about moves of disambiguation pages: "At the very least, following such a move, list it at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#To do." The explanation is a bit too long to fit in an edit summary. If you follow the link given in the quote above, you can determine that the section actually is part of a transcluded subpage, which is (as of this writing) Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/June 2014. That subpage is a list, generated by a bot, of the 1000 disambiguation pages that had the most incoming links as of the beginning of the current month. Because the list is intended as a snapshot valid as of a specific date, users should not be encouraged to add to the list other pages that did not qualify as of the given date. Besides making the list inaccurate, such manual additions may change the page's format in ways that could interfere with the userscript that helps maintain the list during the month. That is why I sought to delete the sentence in question. (Also, since [1] is a current list of disambig pages with incoming links, automatically updated at least daily, there really is no need for an editor to post anywhere when moving a disambiguation page.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Okay, gotcha. I don't believe the page was like this when I added that instruction, but yeah looks like it has to go, and I don't see any useful equivalent replacement ((smiling when I say this) but I can think of multiple edit summaries quite under the character limit that would have flagged the issue and avoided my revert:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Where can we find old move requests?[edit]

I don't see a link to search the archives....-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have any specific title in mind, look at the talk page for that title, and any archives of that talk page that may have been saved. All discussions of potentially controversial moves are held on the title's talk page. You may also browse the history of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. To find all completed moves, including bold and uncontroversial technical moves you can use Special:Logs. Choose "Move log" from the drop-down menu of log types. Enter the title you want to search for in the "Target (title or user)" input box. Hope this helps. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Doesn't appear to be archived. Though most of the move discussions actually take place on article talk pages, so if you know the article you are looking into for just check it's talk page. I suppose you could use Wikipedia:WikiBlame: [2], but it probably has too much churn on the summary page to be useful. PaleAqua (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Template {{old move}} or {{old moves}} may be placed at the top of talk pages to document and link to previous move requests for a specific title. Also Wikipedia:Move review#Archive and Category:Closed move reviews for requests that were appealed.
These templates are not universally applied. I'd guess they are more likely to be used on some of the more contentious titles. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The move I'm looking for is Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions -> Wikipedia:FAQ, and the only discussion I can find on it is Wikipedia talk:FAQ#Move request, which just says "This article has been renamed from Wikipedia talk:Very Frequently Asked Questions to Wikipedia talk:FAQ as the result of a move request." Oh well, it's not really that important anyway.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:FAQ index#Requested move. I used Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions and limited the namespace to "Wikipedia talk" where the move discussion most likely happened. Luckily, there are only five pages and the discussion is on the first page. --Kusunose 13:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
We're going relatively far back in time, to when the templates and procedures were different. The request was made here, on 16 February 2008, using the now deleted template:multimove: {{multimove|Wikipedia:FAQ|Wikipedia talk:FAQ}} ... and on 21 February 2008 pages were moved and the FAQ reorganization was announced here, using another deleted template: {{moved|Wikipedia talk:Very Frequently Asked Questions|Wikipedia talk:FAQ}}. Template:Moved was recreated for a different purpose on 30 January 2014‎; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 10#Template:Moved for the deleted version. As a result of that discussion, the template was substituted before it was deleted. {{Old move}}, which was created on 3 June 2006‎, seems to be a de facto replacement for {{Moved}}, but {{Old moves}} wasn't created until 24 July 2012‎. {{Move-multi}} wasn't created until 28 November 2009 (see template talk:move-multi). Wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So from the move log, we have:

  1. 22:34, 21 February 2008 Keith D moved page Wikipedia:FAQ to Wikipedia:FAQ Index (Move request as per talk page)
  2. 22:35, 21 February 2008 Keith D moved page Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions to Wikipedia:FAQ (Move request as per talk page)
  • with both of these moves discussed in the multi-move discussion now at Wikipedia talk:FAQ index#Requested move (which was Wikipedia talk:FAQ at the time of the discussion)
  • and a notice of the discussion posted here (which was Wikipedia talk:Very Frequently Asked Questions at the time the notice was posted). – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

— I updated each talk page header with {{old move}} templates. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Help requested[edit]

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this, but I need help. If you look at the article for Herbert Pugh, it is about an 18th-century artist. The talk page redirects to the talk page for Talk:Cecil Pugh. Herbert Pugh and Cecil Pugh are two different people. I think there should be a new talk page for Herbert and the existing talk page for Cecil should be decoupled from the article page for Herbert (I hope this makes sense). I don't know how to do this. If anyone can help or show me how to do it, I would appreciate it. Thanks--FeanorStar7 00:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect. This will separate the two talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I have added the appropriate project tags for Herbert (a biography tag and a visual arts tag).--FeanorStar7 07:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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 [3]
{{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)

How to notify editors?[edit]

I could not find the template (subst:expected) that I can use to notify interested editors to a Move discussion. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Browse Category:Wikipedia page-name maintenance templates for appropriate templates. I see there is a Template:RM notification, though it seems to have only been used once. You can always just post your own personalized notification message, without using a template. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Handdcrafted could do of course, but usually these Procedures (like XfD) have smart anchors & linklabels to link directly. Especially since this one has a bot follow up, I could miss the link point. Even then, there could be an advice like: "Notify interested users by adding ==Requested move==A page you might be interested in is proposed for a move. See [[Talk:Page X#Requested move]]. ~~~~ to their talkpage."
(I already see possible confusion here). -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Presumably most really interested editors are watching the page and will thus see a Watchlist notification. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Time could not be ascertained"[edit]

I made a huge request covering over 50 pages and it's being listed in the "time could not be ascertained" section instead of today's date. What's up with that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably a bad signing of the posts. Some of the regulars will try and fix what gets listed there, but it may take a few days. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
IIRC, there's always been a bit of problem when listing over, say, a dozen pages in a single RM. As Vegaswikian says though, it will get fixed eventually as people continue to fiddle with it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
...And my fiddling seems to have fixed it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed move by new SPA needs reversion[edit]

He'd made too many edits since the move to revert this, which is totally undiscussed and needless; needless to say thought "indigenous" and "original peoples" might be construed as being interchangeable they are not, really, and "indigenous" is a normal Wikipedia term in regular use. See Traversetravis' usercontributions and the move of List of traditional territories of the indigenous peoples of North America to his chosen "original peoples". His additions to that page seem SYNTH, also, not that the page doesn't already have some OR and UNDUE problems.Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonja Kristina move[edit]


I am not sure if I have done enough to do what I am trying to do.

I tried to move a page 'Sonja Kristina Linwood' to what the artist is known as, i.e. 'Sonja Kristina' but I could not because it already exists.


Have I said and done enough?


Yes, that was sufficient, though I do have a question I asked on the talk page section for this RM. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Apple iAd Producer[edit]

The actual name of the product is just iAd Producer [1], not Apple iAd Producer, so can the page please be renamed/moved? Thanks Mattsephton (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – Seems like a reasonable technical request. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:09, 17 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)