Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by closing admins

A move request was recently closed with a deciding vote in opposition along with this comment: "also means many other places and the saint." This vote and comment seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that I would expect in a newbie editor, but not in a closing admin. The fact that a given topic has other uses is a given for any primary topic consideration, not a reason for that name to not have a primary topic, or for the topic in question to not be that primary topic.

In this case usage per the google test indicates unquestioned dominance by this one topic, and primary use has been established by the fact that the name alone has been a redirect to this article for 2 1/2 years. By every known criteria stated at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this topic is primary, and yet this was completely ignored by the closing admin. When I brought this to the attention of the admin, he apparently missed the entire point, replying that "Someone has already redirected" the name alone to the article in question. Well, yeah, that was my point.

I know that closing these discussion is mostly a thankless job, and I appreciate all of the efforts here by everyone, but it seems to me that prerequisite to closing move requests is a good understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially if you're going to be casting deciding votes, since whether a given topic meets "primary topic" criteria is often the main issue.

Comments, suggestions? Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I found that closure unorthodox as well (although I'm the nominator, so I'm probably biased). Nobody disputed that there were other uses for the term "St. Louis", just as nobody disputes that there are several uses for the term "Paris". The dispute was about primary topic, and that dispute seems to have been completely disregarded by the closer (judging by the closing comment only – knowing Anthony Appleyard I have no doubt that he carefully reads every discussion he closes). In any case, no consensus doesn't mean that the closing admin gets to do whatever they want (although in this case a "no consensus" closure would have had exactly the same result). I'm not even convinced that there was no consensus to move, but again I'm probably biased. Maybe someone uninvolved could have a look? Jafeluv (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Anthony Appleyard of this thread, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this particular discussion also brings up the point about how to count "weak" votes compared to others. Do the two "weak oppose" votes get as much weight as the other oppose votes, 1/2, or even less? To me "weak" means a slight preference for the position indicated, but no real objection to the alternative. I would think such votes should only be considered, if, without them, consensus seems to be 50/50. In this case, most of the support votes were based in policy and guidelines, implied or directly, while the oppose votes seem more to be just "pure opinion" without any argument based in policy or guidelines (that unfortunately applies to the closing admin's "vote" as well).

So, yes, I too think someone else should take a closer look, though I would prefer that Anthony reconsider his decision, and at least clarify it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(written before I saw Born2cycle's comments below) Consensus means many things on Wikipedia, but typically it does not mean simple majority voting (as you might be implying with the 50/50 statement). Usually the level of support must be much higher than 50/50, but we also must also take the broader community's consensus (in the form of policies and guidelines) into the equation. In any case, simple vote-counting ("weak" or otherwise) itself is not a basis for smart consensus; it's only a useful shorthand for the actual arguments that follow. The arguments are the basis of smart consensus. In any case, you are right that in this case, the supports drew upon policies and guidelines more often, according more weight, consensus-wise. We should certainly wait for Anthony's input before anything is done, though. -kotra (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As an uninvolved administrator, I agree that the closing rationale was arbitrary, missing the point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also troubling to me is that the closing admin invoked a "casting vote". A closing statement is not any sort of vote, casting or otherwise. Closing admins/editors merely judge consensus based on the RM discussion and broader policy-based consensus. If we want to vote or introduce a new argument, we should participate in the discussion like everyone else, and let someone else close it. If the administrator had simply said "no consensus", it would have probably been accepted without complaint. -kotra (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the lesson here is that the appropriate decision was an uninformative "no consensus" close. I've heard at least some closing admins state that they consider it their job to not merely count the votes, but to consider the strength of the arguments being made. It would be helpful to see admins close discussions as not only "no consensus", but also something like "and both sides had compelling arguments, but neither won". But in a case in which only one side even has an argument (unless you count "has other uses" to be an argument), that side should be given preference, I would hope. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well good thing that the oppose voters (including me) weren't simply saying "has other uses," then, and made an argument.

Anyway, not here to rehash arguments on the move. Interested users should check the page for that. From a strictly bureaucratic perspective I'll say that the decision was probably borderline: could have been move, could have been no consensus, could have been don't move depending on how the strength of arguments are perceived and how seriously "weak" votes are taken. However, I will also remind that by default pages stay where they are. In fact, there used to be specific rules requiring a supermajority to move a page - this was precisely because on issues in which opinions are split 50/50, the only thing a Requested Move would generate would be a coinflip based on the admin, and even worse, said coinflips would continue with each RM. If the issue is not clear, then the page should not be moved simply so this yo-yo effect is avoided. While the supermajority isn't required anymore, the spirit of this still is pertinent to RM; pages should not be moved without clear consensus that isn't likely to change. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that the oppose side had no argument. But applying your argument ("the article title should be unambiguous that this is the city, not the person") to, say, Paris (to use an unquestioned-except-by-Una primary topic) implies it should be at Paris, France to be unambiguous that it is about the city, and not the prince of Greek legends. In other words, it implicitly rests on the premise that the city is not the primary topic, without arguing that it is not primary. I'm sorry, but that's very weak.

As to your comment about it being common to add Missouri to distinguish from East Saint Louis, I'm sure that's true in contexts where that confusion is likely to occur, but that has to be rare. Most people probably don't even know East St. Louis exists, so that's pretty weak too.

But this is the type of argument evaluation I expect the closing admin to make. Is that expecting too much? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(response to Born2cycle) Certainly I agree closers are not supposed to just count votes. I've elaborated on this above (written before I saw this most recent comment of yours), and I think mostly we're in agreement about how closing should be done. As for "no consensus", I personally would have probably moved it given the strength of the support arguments and the adherence to policy/guideline, but I agree with SnowFire that a "no consensus"-style closure could also have been valid. You're right though that an explanation of "no consensus" would be better than just "no consensus", full stop. Either would have been better than the actual reason given in this case, though. -kotra (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're on the same page. Sorry if I was unclear earlier. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I summarized the move discussion, and explained why I find the decision perplexing, here. Certainly the closing admin has the right to ignore this discussion and not explain himself, but in that case I think it's appropriate to unclose the discussion for another few days, until some other admin is able to give it serious consideration. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend giving the closing admin a bit more time to explain before anyone uncloses it. There's still a chance we're missing something, and there's no urgency here. -kotra (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply a need to take action before giving him some reasonable time, even a few days. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthony closes lots of move requests and does an exceptional job with them. It is quite possible that he misinterpreted the consensus in this particular case, but it is very improbable that he considered his closing comment to be a "deciding vote" or doesn't understand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm sure that he considered that closing comment to be a synthesis of the results of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, "also means many other places and the saint" is probably as reasonable a synthesis of the oppose vote argument presented there as one can conjure, but what relevance can "also means many other places and the saint" have to the issue of whether the term in question is the primary topic or not? More generally, what relevance can the mere fact that a given name/term has other meanings have to any RM discussion, other than establishing that it's a primary topic case? I'm troubled that any closing admin would even type those words. It does indicate a lack of understanding about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Am I missing something?

That said, I'm sure Anthony often does an excellent job. But nobody is perfect, and the main thing that is being questioned here is this particular discussion and issue, not his performance overall. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, OK, sorry. To an American, St.Louis means firstly the big city St. Louis, Missouri. But that may not be a main primary meaning to many Europeans; I am British. OK, OK, leave it as redirecting to St. Louis, Missouri. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think the point was where the redirect points, but rather what the article should be called. If the city is considered primary topic, it should be at its most common name as specified in policy: "If there are several articles with the same name, it may be that one concerns the primary topic for that name; if so, that one keeps the common name, and the others must be disambiguated." If there's no primary topic, the redirect should point to the disambiguation page per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current situation is just not right unless you consider this a Danzig-type situation where 1) the city is a primary topic for the name "St. Louis" and 2) the most common name for the city is "St. Louis, Missouri", not "St. Louis". I don't see a consensus for such a setting in the discussion, although I guess a "no consensus" close would warrant keeping the status quo. Jafeluv (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Even a search for "St. Louis" at google.co.uk shows that the U.S. city is the primary topic. For example, one of the top hits is the BBC weather page about "St. Louis, USA". Same with the results at books.google.com. I would hope that move requests are generally given more consideration than is being exhibited here. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal really. I think I'm just going to have a nice warm cup of WP:DGAF and maybe try again in six months to see what the consensus is then. In the meantime, I think the readers can handle seeing the "redirected from St. Louis" hatnote when their search ends up in the St. Louis, Missouri article. Jafeluv (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthony's explanation here really does leave much to be desired. I've been waffling on whether to re-open the discussion, but I've decided it's not worth any potential drama. If there is any lesson to take from this, it's that we should remember to be well-reasoned in our closing rationales and refrain from introducing new arguments there. Now pour me a cup of that DGAF, Jafeluv. -kotra (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarity (or change) on bot's recognition of relistings

Wanting to relist two discussions the other day, I did so manually to see if the bot would recognize that and it didn't which would solve this in a flash. I see someone added relisting to the closing instructions. They are: Relist it, by adding, just after: Oldpage → Newpage Relisted. ~~~~ The problem I have with this is that it has the look of divorcing the requester's post from their rationale and smacks of changing a user's post by interlineating inside their post. Because it looks like that, it also may be confusing for people reading the request to see two signatures in the single block of text and the later one before the original. So can we get the bot to recognize relisting after the entirety of the requester's post?

To illustrate, I don't want to do this (and you shouldn't either):

Article Title → Other Title relisted Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Should be moved because it is the common name or primary topic or because some wikiproject says so and thinks it can override policy. Some User's Name (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So can we get the bot to at least recognize:

Article Title → Other Title Should be moved because it is the common name or primary topic or because some wikiproject says so and thinks it can override policy. Some User's Name (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like, I could make an extended= parameter that extends the discussion by the amount of time given. Most people, I would imagine, would spring for extended=7 days. (The amount of time stated for the extension would be relative to the date of the nomination). @harej 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a big change to make the bot react to the {{relist}} template? I think that's what they do over at AfD. If the template could be added in the middle of the discussion, the nominator's rationale would stay intact and it would be clear at first glance what (if anything) has happened after the relisting. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Either would work for me. So for the parameter, may I assume this would be a change to {{movereq}}? That is, we would add to an existing resquest {{movereq|Article Title|extended=7}}?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of the relist template being added in the discussion at the point in time when the relisting is done. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I see no reason for not doing it the way we have been doing it - just edit the line under "movereq" to add "Relisted ~~~~" so that it shows up in the front of the line. It does not matter at all that the "short reason" is lost. But by the way, make sure you add a newline so that it does not run all together with the short reason. If you were looking for your edit to show up immediately, it doesn't happen. The bot only comes along once every half hour. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So instead of looking like this on the talk page:

Article Title → Other Title relisted 199.125.109.88 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Should be moved because it is the common name or primary topic or because some wikiproject says so and thinks it can override policy. Some User's Name (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It should look like this:

Article Title → Other Title relisted 199.125.109.88 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be moved because it is the common name or primary topic or because some wikiproject says so and thinks it can override policy. Some User's Name (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That still leaves a possibility of confusion for users who see the nomination as to who the nominator is. "Relisted" may be almost meaningless for some user not familiar with process or may be glossed over even if it would be understood. On a quick glance, what a person takes in is the graphic illustration of the move (Article Name → New Article name) followed immediately by a user's name. It's no stretch to imagine someone taking from that that the nominator is the name listed right there. Having {{relist}} be recognized by the bot is probably best but I don't know how difficult that might be. If it's too much and the extended= parameter is easy harej, can you go ahead and do it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly nobody should care who the nominator is. Decisions should be made on their merit, not on who made the suggestion. In any case you have to go to the talk page to discuss it, where it all becomes clear. The purpose of WP:RM is only to make a list of the proposals, not to discuss them. Showing the ones that are relisted as relisted is helpful because it indicates the ones that no one has looked at or need a second look. At that point that is the salient feature that needs to be in the list, not the original reason for listing the move request. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot not working

I almost feel like putting a red/green light on wp:rm to indicate if the bot is currently working. It would be red right now. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Working once more. @harej 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that adding a line of text like that when it is not working is a good idea. In most cases, like this, it takes me a couple of hours to notice. In case anyone cares, the line used is repeated below, located at the top of the current date that the bot failed. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot is not currently working. This message will automagically disappear when it starts working again.

In this particular case, the bot broke without me knowing. Alas, it was for the same reason as another time. I will have to fix that. @harej 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

See I would rather you be working on fixing things like that than in adding completely unneeded functions. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Though really, I could do both. But fixing what's broken is definitely more important than feature creep (which explains why I decided on a low-tech means of relisting discussions, a means which has since caught on). @harej 19:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Closure templates?

This page desparately needs the closure templates {{subst:RM top|'''moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and an explanation of how to use them somewhere. I had to trawl around for ages before I found them! Jubilee♫clipman 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

They're mentioned in the Closing instructions. Admittedly a bit buried though. -kotra (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not good enough. They need far more prominence and need to be on this page! Jubilee♫clipman 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussions is a somewhat complex procedure that requires people understand a few more things than just the closure templates. I think that putting just the templates on this page would not be a good idea, and adding the full closing instructions would be way too much. I think the instructions page could be better organized though, and the link to it more prominent (or a second, in-prose link to it would be good). -kotra (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair points. The Closing Instructions page needs more work and the link to it much clearer, I agree. Jubilee♫clipman 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, unless discussions are closed and the request tag removed, then the move request itself stays here! Another reason to have the tags and instruction more handy: no already-completed-but-unclosed-moves to wade through! Jubilee♫clipman 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the templates has been nominated for deletion, {{moved}}.

76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Closure tags are rather buried

(referring to the closing instructions page)

This page needs a lot of work to make it readable. In particular, the closure tags (so necessary for stopping continued discussion of a resolved issue) need more prominence. Anyone care to have a go? Jubilee♫clipman 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally am thinking about how to rewrite this page. I find that too much airtime is given to minutiae, with not enough prominence given to the really important part: how to properly end the move discussion. @harej 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WT:RM/Closing instructions to keep all discussion in one place. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was this does not have a chance of succeeding. @harej 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Wikipedia:Request move — Reason: Present tense is correct grammatically, since the Move has not been made until the Request has been submitted. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support: For the reason given above. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The process page has hundreds of requests (plural) on it and they have all been requested (past tense). Yes, the move has not been made yet but the request to move has, which is what is past tense. The move target is not grammatical. You can't even use it in a sentence except if you want to sound like you speak broken English, e.g., "I went to request move". I could possibly see Wikipedia:Move requests as a plausible substitute but it's not better or needed and doesn't help clarify anything.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Requested moves" is a noun phrase; "request move" is a verb phrase. The former is clearly more appropriate. Powers ^T 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. For crying out loud. If there is an assignment at work that I want, I request it. It then becomes an assignment I requested, or a "requested assignment", even though it's not yet assigned to me nor to anyone else yet. Same here. If I want to move A to B, I submit a request here for that move to take place; it then becomes a requested move. Later it might be a rejected move, or supported move, and finally an actualized (if you will) move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Fuhghettaboutit sums it up very well. Besides: Solution in search of a problem. — Ched :  ?  23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment *Technically* you have a point, as "requested moves" makes it sound like an archived list of all the pages that have been moved per request, but most English speakers don't think that way (e.g. if someone says "Florida is preparing for a predicted late-season hurricane" that doesn't mean it has already happened) and "requested moves" fits the pattern of other Wikipedia pages with similar names. If this were to be renamed to anything I would have to suggest "requests for page moves", but I would not recommend that because the current name is much shorter and as I said above most users even on a knowledge-oriented site like Wikipedia don't really think about minor logical inconsistences in everyday grammatical constructions. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Born2cycle. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose there is a list of requested moves here, and what's the point of this excercise anyways? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose the moves (more than 1) are requested first. Although "request" works OK from potential requestee's view. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely The word "moves" is a plural noun in this case—not an action verb!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. See passive participle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to WP:HAGGER?????. Not. But I thought that was the plan. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. First, there are many, not one, requests. Secondly, the procedure for requesting a move states that it must be discussed first at the article's discussion page, so the request, when it gets to this page, has already been proposed. Ergo, the present tense would be wrong. In this page, we deal with requested moves.--camr ^nag 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Moved

{{moved}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Multimove bot message

Is this[1] because of switching from move to multimove or does this always happen? (telling people on this page to discuss it not here, but here, where "here" and "here" are both the same page) 199.125.109.96 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It happened because the page was listed as both the 1st request and the 4th request; all requests numbered 2 through infinity get the notification. I set it straight here. @harej 00:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. They all looked the same. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Move requests from unregistered or unconfirmed users

How can unregistered and unconfirmed users request a page move ? WP:RM is for cases needing admin attention, and neither this nor WP:MOVE indicates how unregistered or unconfirmed users can request page moves, or at least not in a visible manner, and we should be very clear for new users. Cenarium (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any uncontroversial move requests can be made at the uncontroversial requests section, including those that are made simply because the person does not have an account. @harej 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The instructions need to be rewritten to reflect that, then. If we get more requests from unconfirmed users, the list would probably have to be divided in two, to increase efficiency. Cenarium (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I already clarified the directions. There is no need to divide the list into two. @harej 13:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified the header. This need may come if the volume becomes too high, but I agree there's no need currently. Cenarium (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Help/advice on reverting mass moves

A user in the automobile project moved a large number of pages before a complete consensus was reached. It was decided that the pages should have stayed where they were originally. However, no one has yet reverted all of the moves. After giving ample time for objections, I announced that I was going to begin reverting the moves. Unfortunately, the undo button isn't working in this case. It's really too many moves to list on the requested moves page. Basically all of user OSX's edits on September 23 are what I need to undo. The discussion can be found here.--Ridge Runner (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have remove your copy of this on the header page as it was in the wrong place. I have also performed the reversions as requested. If there is any problems then drop me a note on my talk page. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.--Ridge Runner (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bardiya of Persia#Requested move

Will an uninvolved editor please check my work on this discussion? I decided "no consensus" but now I have a feeling I am wrong. @harej 00:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Stampede (PBL) -> Buffalo Stampede

To make this move, I need someone to remove the Buffalo Stampede disambiguation page. Thanks. LightningMan (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions on the project page. Powers ^T 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't request the move here. I requested the move as per instructions. See the project page. It says to post here if you need help in executing the move. LightningMan (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. It was my impression that such a thing would occur whenever an admin got around to evaluating the discussion results. I don't see any recommendation on the project page to bring such requests here. Powers ^T 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because it says it on the Talk page for the page you're moving:

A bot will list this discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves within 30 minutes of this tag being placed. Once the discussion ends, remove this tag and the discussion will be unlisted. If a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article yourself, or request further assistance. You might find the material at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions useful if you are going to perform the move yourself.

The area bolded links to this page. Sorry for the confusion. If I could delete a page, I'd take care of this now myself. LightningMan (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta (20 Oct 2009)

Is the phrasing used by User:DIREKTOR for the case of Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta, permissable? More tact was needed, for sure, such as in RfC the wording should be neutral, not defamatory, impartial. The damage that has been made is great, by tainting the result of the survey, but it can be corrected up to a point by allowing the proposal to be rephrased and more time for the other participants in the survey and the discussion to pass. -- Imbris (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My proposal was detailed to the extreme, and included excerpts from university publications (and now extensive Google tests) presented for the consideration of an interested Wikipedian. User:Imbris disagrees with the move, and feels he must sabotage it somehow before it goes through. This is just the last of his methods, previous ones including obviously fake sockpuppeteering accusations, and deliberate malicious altering of other users' talkpage posts [2]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. DIREKTOR wrote the intro of the request for the move in a not neutral manner, accusatory towards previous users of the article. He has also selected a few sources that support his POV but there are many many more sources that describe the topic, and describe it in a manner that supports the current compromisal title. His post was not detailed but slanted the evidence, the attempts to solve the request by only Google test, which is not conclusive, were successfully opposed by User:Surtsicna and myself.

The intro and the closing argument of the request if full of dubious WP:OR (the misinterpretation of the Hague Conventions) and such.

Imbris (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would reduce the size of the statement in any case because it's quite long. @harej 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, I am afraid to touch anything, because of the DIREKTORs temper. The main problem is the POV phrasing, cherry picking of sources, stearing the users to conclusions which are not supported in the sources, etc. -- Imbris (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Contested_requests says that such request should be in the other proposals section. -- Imbris (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone move the request proposal to the proper place, the section Other proposals, also the request should be reduced. User:Knepflerle warned the requestor to shorten, and User:harej agrees to reduce the size of the request. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this silly thread is not much more than an attempt on the part of User:Imbris to sabotage the outcome of a move proposal he feels very strongly about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment by User:DIREKTOR is not valid, the comment contradict Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:AGF, nobody requested the deletion of his request but rephrasing, reducing in size and format, as well as placing it a the proper place per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Contested requests. The fact is that WP:Concensus will prevail and that concensus is based not on the quantity of meat but of its quality. -- Imbris (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I contact WP:AN for this issue. -- Imbris (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no answer from the closing admin, or other editors who deal with the requests on moves. Why is that? -- Imbris (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy administrators. Another page move is being considered: Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The move GoodDay is proposing is a completely different matter and I object to the move, since it is controversial and should go through the proper procedure. GoodDay should note that this section deals with the irregular move of the article titled Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta to the new title Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta, and the complete procedure that has been irregular. -- Imbris (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate over moving the article to Tomislav II of Croatia is a welcomed debate. However, considering movement back to Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta is a non-starter. Examples: We don't have Albert II of Belgium, Prince of Liege or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Duke of Normandy. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: In response to the below claim: Not all editors (if any) acted in revenge. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta was a compromise, and as such, most acceptable. I oppose the move to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta or Prince Aimone of Savoy, Duke of Aosta because the previous move was out-of-procedure, counting the votes of users who acted in revenge, who did not supply any relevant policies and who supported the proponent of the request on the basis of their personal faith in everything that editor does.

The entire request was written in a biased way, full of supposed facts supplied by the proponent.

This section will deal with the out-of-procedure and irregular move.

Imbris (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with moving a page

The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical Atlas has a new title, but the talk page with the title Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical Atlas has a bug. The article refers to the talk page, but the talk page doesn't refer to the article. What went wrong? how can it be fixed?Daanschr (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been done. The correct talkpage is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historical Atlas. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating move request question

After creating a move request discussion section using the move subst template, it creates the heading at the bottom, in the new section. Do I need to move this to the top of the page, or will the bot do it automatically for me? Either way, the instructions should clarify this, because the template itself says to move it to the top. For an example, see Talk:Poliomyelitis#Requested_move. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. This is what you were looking at, I presume?[3] The only thing that I see is that you needed to create a short reason, not a list of reasons, for use by the bot, followed by your sig, and then you can make a list. If I had seen this I might have changed it to (see list) followed by your sig, and then followed by your list, for proper listing on WP:RM (the list gets messed up)[4]. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Kiev

someone please have a look at the Kiev requested move. The nominator removed the survey of opinions from Talk:Kiev to his personal talk page. It seems like the requested move is now defective and the template should be removed. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do recall an issue in the past where it did not work because it was redirected to the template move, and since there is now no history I suspect that it would be better to just delete it. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

I have considerably rewritten Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Namely, I moved the more important information up top, and then I made much of the other information a part of a section dedicated to dealing with tricky situations re. requested moves. @harej 03:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's much cleaner, but would suggest that

"If there is no consensus, the status quo is maintained."

be changed to

"If there is no consensus, the article is left at most recent stable name."

for consistency with the expanded instructions in the following section. Kanguole 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea. @harej 13:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User space --> mainspace moves

I've noticed a number of move requests from user to mainspace by non-autoconfirmed editors who have created a new article but cannot move it themselves. I've been handling these moves as non-controversial (because a purely technical reason has prevented these users from moving it themselves) and moving them. However, some of these move requests come with oppose !votes on the basis of non-notability or lack of references. My take on this is that notability is not the concern of a move request and is better addressed at CSD or AfD and so I just move the articles. It occurred to me that I should probably check that here - so that's what I'm doing :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found in some instances that the move request process is used actually as a form of peer review -- before it's sent to the big land of articles, they want to make sure it belongs first. @harej 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So should the mover evaluate the notability of the article? I'm a bit uneasy about doing that because, even though notability is raised as a concern, there is usually enough stated notability that it would go to AfD rather than CSD and one person does not make a consensus. I guess, what I'm asking is, how would one discern the intent of the requester?--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You can continue to treat them as uncontroversial, procedural moves, though I would advise against that in obvious cases. If there is further agreement, we should amend WP:RM to note that requests from user space to article space should be treated as procedural. @harej 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What I normally do is clean them up a little and move them to un-controversial. Why I did not do that on the last one I have no explanation whatsoever. As stated, notability is not an issue, but being ready for prime time is, and mostly a user is asking, is this ok now? I think that wp:My first article even suggests such a step. I see however, that sends you to help:move, which sends you here (to wp:rm), which leaves users scratching their head wondering which section to use. However, their move still could be either controversial or un-controversial, so I think it is best for them to do the proper head scratching to see which to use, rather than us telling them. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've created {{move draft}} to make the process easier for new users. Pages are added to Category:Requests to move a userspace draft. Help there would be appreciated. Cenarium (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel like this change would make us eat the lunch of Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which really specializes in that sort of thing. Perhaps it would be better to direct users there for feedback when they want to move articles to the mainspace during their first few days, as this is the way things work for editors who don't have user accounts. Dekimasuよ! 09:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to Articles for creation, but it appears that is just for IP users, and the move draft template is for newly registered users. In either case I agree that what we really can do for all user space requests is tell them to go away. Erm what I mean is if they are IP users direct them to WP:Articles for creation, and if they are registered users just add the {{move draft}} template for them (and rm the movereq one - note they go on different pages). Personally I do not plan on monitoring the cat but I am sure that others will, and really it is a function of the Articles for creation folks to handle. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot name

As it is long overdue, the requested moves process will finally get its own bot account. What I am looking for is a good name for this requested moves bot. @harej 07:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Rmbot too obvious? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that could also be RM bot, or RMbot though. It's funny that I have always thought of RFC bot as Rfcbot. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Voorweg Laag RandstadRail station to Voorweg RandstadRail station

Request for move

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Vorweg RandstadRail station — Voorweg is the main name of the station, however it is also called Voorweg Hoog and Voorweg Laag, however I cannot move it to Voorweg RandstadRail station again. --Chris0693 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• While I think it is completely reasonable to move WP:RM to Vorweg RandstadRail station, this template was simply mislocated. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot question (listing order)

I find it very confusing the way the bot lists dates from newest to oldest (November 10, November 9, November 8, etc.) but the move requests from each date from oldest to newest (3AM, 11AM, 4PM, 9PM). This is even more confusing in the backlog, since the dates are spread out. The page is currently showing November 10 at the top, October 25 in the middle (at the top of the backlog), and November 2 at the very bottom. Can we go back to the setup where newer requests are always listed closer to the top? My brain hurts. Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please! And it was bad enough when the bot was flipping them back and forth when they had the same time stamp. This reverse order is terrible. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just another example of why this process didn't need a bot in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)