Wikipedia talk:Moving a page

Straw poll on allowing users to mark page moves as major edits

This proposal will allow users to mark page moves as minor or major. Currently, all page moves are marked as minor. Most of them are, however, not all page moves are minor edits. Such an instance would be if a page was subject to a page-name dispute. I would kindly ask the Oversight (or whatever body oversees these functions) to make this straw poll visible in people's watchlists to get the word out about this poll. Thank you. Jonathan321 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a vote. It is just to see how much support for this there is and whether or not I should take it to the next level. I would 'love for people to explain why they support or oppose (especially oppose) this, but it will not make your vote count any more. Thank you. Jonathan321 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This poll opened at 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC) and will end at 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

Discussion

If you want to get this poll on peoples' watchlists you can propose it at Mediawiki talk:Watchlist-details. WP:CENT is also good for promoting discussions. Hut 8.5 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure having a poll really makes sense. And shouldn't all moves be classified as major? A move isn't something that should ever be hidden by history filter options. If you read below, you'll see there's a pending patch to MediaWiki to make all moves major. That would be my preference. --Cyde Weys 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As further explanation: I disagree that any page move can be considered minor. In the history of an article, any sort of page move is a major event compared to the rather insignificant effect that some edits can have. It doesn't matter how much in the page title was changed; even a single character changing (e.g. from upper-case to lower-case) is enough to give the page a whole new URL, thus making the old URL into a redirect. That is a major event no matter how you look at it, and should never be hidden in the page history by a minor filter. --Cyde Weys 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. per what I said earlier. Jonathan321 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Sounds reasonable. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Seems pretty reasonable. I don't see why we can't have control over whether page moves are marked as minor or not.--Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I wasn't aware the reality is different from what is proposed. Page moves should be default marked as major edits with a user option to mark as minor, just like for any other edit. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. While having the option to mark moves as minor in the case of non-controversial clean up and such (miscapitalization, spelling errors, etc), making all moves minor by default was a bad choice. Some moves are major and marking them as minor will make the edit slip past an editor's attention when it shouldn't happen. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. The default for page moves should be major edit, not minor. Jonathunder (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Sure. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Well I've never seen them marked as minor, but if they are then they shouldn't. Obviously, there is nothing minor about moving a page. --.:Alex:. 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. It's worth a try. Willking1979 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. I see nothing but pros. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
11. If technically feasible, yes. Moves/protections have been automatically marked as minor in the past, because especially in the case of protections, the actual action changes nothing on the page itself. In the case of moves, it's obviously the title that gets affected, so of course it does have an effect on the page. Therefore support. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Personally I feel that it should be impossible to mark page moves as minor, so this is a step in the right direction. Icewedge (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Page moves can be minor or major, depending on the topic, and whether or not it is controversial. As with any edit, the "minor" classification should only be used when it is clearly uncontroversial and highly unlikely to be disputed. The option of choosing minor or not-minor is needed so editors can present the move at the appropriate level of importance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
14. They are often major in their significance, and even corrections of typos if in the title should be considered as major. Many of us with extensive watchlists do not display minor changes, but I know I do want to see all moves for pages on my watchlist, and this seems the first step to bring this about.DGG (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

    Moves always show up in watchlists, because the watchlists also show log entries related to the articles you're watching, which always show up, even if you're hiding minor edits. This includes the move log, deletion log, user rights log, etc. So it's not clear what this proposal will change about that.--Aervanath (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

15. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
16. No reason not to. Rlendog (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
17. There is definitely no reason not to give users an option, unless it's either complicated (which I don't think this is), or could be abused (which this can't be - there is no abuse from marking a minor edit as major). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
18. There isn't a problem for watchlists, since the move log pops up on them, but it's useful to have a record in the article history. I'd argue that moves can be either major or minor (e.g. obvious spelling, capitalization, or naming conventions corrections). Dcoetzee 08:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Page moves can be either minor or major - depending on the reason for the move - and the editor should therefore be given that option. That said, as the move shows up in the move log anyway, I'm not going to lose any sleep if this change is not made. Rje (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
20. per Jonathunder. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 13:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Could be useful Frozenevolution (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
22. I see no reason for us to be denied the choice, so let's have it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong support. — Athaenara ✉ 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - I hadn't realised before that page moves are always marked as minor. That seems clearly wrong to me: most, if not all, page moves are arguably major. It would obviously be best if this was something users could specify when moving pages. Robofish (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Support that or always major Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, sounds reasonable. I'm surprised this isn't already something in action. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - I have always thought it quite bizarre that something as substantial as a page move would be considered to fall within the definition of a "minor edit". This is long overdue. Cgingold (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. As others have said before me, I was unaware that this default setting existed. (And I'm embarassed that I never noticed it before.) How can something that is so often controversial be labeled as "minor"? Unschool 08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support, I recently found a place name moved to a non official colloquial name by an incompetent registered editor, and it was more than a minor nuisance repairing the damage. I think moves should be major by default, then casual vandals are not likely to notice this.--Charles (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Isn't it taken for granted that an edit not marked as minor will be a major edit? Furthermore, there's already enough ways to tell if an edit is major or not. One can get a good estimate of how large an edit is by the amount of text added or removed from the article, and any user responsible enough to click the "major edit" button will also be responsible enough to use an accurate edit summary. Adding this feature will just be piling on the wikibloat and drama, as people will be blamed for misusing the label. A few seconds in the edit history will be all the proof one needs to tell if major edits have been made, without having to guess and check the users who have claimed to have made them. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Themfromspace (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   The problem with that is that some people use the option on their watch lists to exclude minor edits, so they won't even see the edits to be able make the judgement as to whether they consider the move to be major or minor. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Almost all of the editors who do much nomination for deletion or deletion usually has a very long watchlist to check whether articles are restored, and generally for this to be practical it requires not listing the minor edits, and we need the capability to se the moves also. DGG (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose this will be exploited by page move vandals. Norspin (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

   How? Page moves are already marked as minor now, so how could this be abused by vandals? Jonathan321 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

   I think he probably just didn't understand/read carefully what was going on here.--Aervanath (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Kinda orthogonal to this proposal, but I oppose because IMHO all page moves ought to be considered major edits. They don't happen that often and should be heavily scrutinized, so making them minor is inappropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Huh? They don't seem to be marked as minor from what I can tell... Page moves don't disappear from my watchlist when I click "hide minor edits". You could propose allowing people to mark page moves as minor, but I think moving a page is a pretty major change regardless of circumstances. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   Check here. Both of my test moves to my sandbox were marked as minor. I had no control over that. Jonathan321 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   @Tango: I think that the reason they don't disappear from your watchlist when "hide minor edits" is clicked is that in watchlists, it shows the log entry from the move log, rather than the edit in the history.--Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   They will all be major soon, so this poll is pointless -- Gurch (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   That's assuming my commit sticks - it hasn't be reviewed yet as far as I know. There may be a reason for it being the way it was that I just can't think of (if there is, then there is still a bug since it isn't treated consistently between diff/history pages and watchlists (and presumably recent changes, although I haven't checked)). --Tango (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, and that change isn't retroactive, that would require someone with access to the database to go in and change them all, which probably won't happen. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think people care much whether it's applied retroactively or not. Yay for making this commonsense patch though! --Cybercobra (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2. It doesn't really mater, as long as the edit summary shows that a move has been made. Lugnuts (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
3. I second the "huh?" Protonk (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
4. What an extraneous poll. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

1. I can't see the point in this poll, because A) there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on this at all prior to the poll, B) the problem would seem to be fixed soon anyway, per Gurch's comment above, and C) even if they continue to be minor edits, they still show up on watchlists through the move log, and still show up on the edit history, so there is no way in which being minor "hides" page moves. So I see no advantage to this poll. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Aervanath sums it up pretty well. Moves don't need to be marked major or minor, because they show up in the move log. If you're watching the page (which seems to be the issue here—we don't want people who hide minor edits in their watchlist to miss a page move), you're going to see the move log pop up. I see no problems with the current system. Parsecboy (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. What they said, although I don't think voting is evil. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Policy_on_moving_a_page_when_it.27s_in_AfD.3F

Asked at that page about the policy and best practice regarding moving a page when the page in question is in Articles for Deletion. Discuss over there so the discussion doesn't get split over two pages. Thanks! Шизомби (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IBS Software -> IBS Software Services

I think, the title is wrong. There you can read IBS Software. I did a careful research, the proper name is like that: IBS Software Services.

One can read IBS Software Services above of the Infobox also.

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here.--Aervanath (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

outdated information?

The "Moving over an existing page" currently says the following:

“ If the new title already exists and isn't just a redirect to the old title, with no history, and you are not an administrator, the wiki will tell you that you can't rename the page. You'll either have to manually merge the two pages, or if there's no real content in the page ask an Administrator to have it deleted or list it on your project's "votes for deletion" page in order to make room for moving the page. ”

Considering that we haven't had "votes for deletion" is quite some time, isn't this info outdated - shouldn't it refer to WP:requested moves instead?

The reason I didn't just make the change is that this is a help page and I wasn't sure it was being vague (i.e. not Wikipedia specific) for a reason. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From the page history, it looks like this page has been manually synchronized with meta:Help:Moving a page in the past, but not recently. I think it's okay to modify as you've suggested. Flatscan (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits

I have added stuff from Help:Merging and moving pages with the intention of having that page renamed to Help:Merging. I have also made change to reflect the fact that it is a WP page. It was a cut and paste from Meta by the looks of things. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, the Meta page was probably originally moved from here, but, yes, it's been manually synchronized in the past, since the Help: namespace is meant to be sort of a user manual for the software, as opposed to actual guidelines. However, as it looks like there hasn't been an update from Meta in awhile, I have no objections to customizing it to be more en.wiki-specific. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeda pages

How do you move pages on here? Dumbymuby (HIT THE FLOOR) 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be a tab labeled "move" at the top of every page you see. Also, you should read Help:Moving a page. (Although I'm curious as to how you found this talk page without reading that page first.)--Aervanath (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User page

• How do I move my User page to a public page? I put all the info there first to get a feel for how this works. Now I can't figure out how to change the page name to be public so it will come up when searched. I looked and there is not a "move" button at the top of the page. I have read all the info about moving pages but it doesn't tell you how to actually do it.--Bal matrix (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your user page can be moved like any other page; however, you need to be autoconfirmed, which requires your account to be 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits. I will caution you that the current contents of your userpage constitutes unambiguous advertising for your company (and your username implies a conflict of interest. Both of these issues are serious, and will impact your participation in Wikipedia unless they're fixed. If you would like to rename your account, you can do so here. If you would like to publish the article about the company with which you appear to be affiliated, you'll have to remove anything that could be viewed as advertising (such as "BWI offers same day shipping on orders received by 2:30 PM Pacific Time") and more importantly, provide a reason why it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you have questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

[1] An admin should be informed, the user likely needs to be blocked. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stuff from Help:Merging and moving pages not already included

Moved from hidden information on main page:

==Renaming / Moving== See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. On Wikipedia, usually anyone logged in can rename a page from its current name to a new one. This is also called "moving" because the effect is as if the page has been moved. A redirect is automatically created at its old name so that links still work. Common reason for moving pages are: Decapitalization - Improper capitalization of page titles, against capitalization guidelines. Misspelled – The most common reason is that a page name is misspelled or incorrectly capitalized. Please fix any and all of these as you see them. NPOV – Terms used in a title express a bias or POV. NPOV policy requires that articles be given "neutral" titles — using the most general and objective terms. After a page is moved to a more correct title, the redirect should generally be kept and categorized accordingly, unless the redirect is demonstrably harmful, and especially if it is a plausible or common misspelling (or not a misspelling at all). If a page was erroneously created once at the wrong title, there is a good chance it will happen again (as a duplicate article). However, if the redirect is truly an implausible search parameter and it was recently created, it may be tagged for speedy deletion by posting at its top {{db-redirtypo}}. Sometimes, you may feel that a page is wrongly named for another reason. For example, "Napoleon" may be more properly known as "Napoleon I of France," but many people refer to him as "Napoleon." This is a situation in which a redirect would be appropriate. Most people would not search for Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de Sévigné, but rather for Mme de Sevigne. To some degree the choice of which title to use is debatable, depending on the relevant conventions in the English language or on Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. ===Cross-namespace moves=== The move feature is capable of moving pages in any namespace (except "Category:" and "Image:"), and even of moving pages from one namespace to another. Cross-namespace moving is useful when a page is accidentally created in the wrong namespace; for instance, moving Talk/Abraham Lincoln to Talk:Abraham Lincoln, or moving Articles for deletion/Some article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Some article. In some cases, new users may create articles on themselves that they intend to serve as their user page, in which case such an article may be userfied. Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors. Wikipedia:Requested moves is the proper place for this. However, when proposing to move what appears to be an article out of the main namespace, it is strongly recommended that some form of Wikipedia:Deletion process should be used, preferably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion do not build consensus. This is because the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia. ===How to rename a page=== Note, you must be logged into an autoconfirmed account to do this. Go to the page that you wish to rename. Click the tab labeled "move." Type the new desired title, add a reason, and click "Move page." The old title will redirect to the new title. The old edit history will be moved to the new title. Check for redirects. Double-redirects will fail to link, and must be renamed to redirect to the current page name. Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) If you come across a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by merging the page histories, please follow the instructions here to have an administrator repair it. If you cannot rename a page, or you think that the renaming may be controversial, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there. The most common reason for failure is that there is already an article at the location to which you're trying to move the article. This is especially likely to happen if there is a history of moves from one name to another. This can be dealt with by an administrator after discussion at WP:RM. If the destination does exist, but it only contains a redirect without any history, the move will still work — the designers of the MediaWiki software recognised this as a special case in which no information will be lost if a move is performed.

Ikip (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussions

We need the closure/archive templates here somewhere to help users close any move discussions properly. Jubilee♫clipman 22:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Swapping pages

The swapping pages section includes the section "Tag A for deletion (the method of doing this depends on the wiki)," but no further information is provided on how to tag A on Wikipedia or any other Wiki. Also, no links are provided for more information. The page Olga Bay Larch needs to be changed to Olga Bay larch, and the redirect page Olga Bay larch needs to become Olga Bay Larch. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Beta

I'm using Beta, and can't seem to locate a move tab. What am I missing? Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 05:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

When moving pages, do you include a leading "The"? eg, moving Rules (album), would it go to Rules (Whitest Boy Alive album) or Rules (The Whitest Boy Alive album)? Thanks. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the article title includes the definite article, then the dab should as well. WP:THE has more information if you're interested. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Move protecting pages

Maybe this should be posted at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, but I thought it would suit better being here. I have noticed that so many pages are move protected due to page-move vandalism, being highly visible, or for no need to move the page. The amount of pages being move-protected has increased since 2008 due to the rather immature Grawp (JarlaxleArtemis). I sometimes worry if the move option will sooner or later be only available to administrators. It's like the administrators get to move the most high profile pages and little autoconfirmed users don't. Most articles on geographical territories are move-protected, so only administrators get to handle that however they want. I'm posting this because I recently discovered the move protections on Russia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malta and Cyprus. It's like the world is coming to an end where there will be absolutely no more country articles for non-sysops to move. Could someone please help calm me down and bring up any ideas? Thanks, Schfifty3 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt it will ever be totally limited to admins. For one thing, have you seen the backlog at the WP:Requested moves page? If we can't even keep up with that, we're certainly not going to want to take responsibility for more than 3 million articles! In fact, I wish we could responsibly open all of those pages to all users. Unfortunately, doing that would open us up to the immature vandals out there who will take advantage of a high-visibility, unprotected page. So we are limited to our current system: if a protected page needs to be moved, tell us at WP:RM.

I wish I could dispel the air of unfairness that pertains around things like this, but it's probably not possible. Until the community comes up with a less-onerous way to ascertain trustworthiness than WP:RFA, the current system is probably what we're stuck with.--Aervanath (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think you have much to legitimately complain about here. Why would anyone - admin or otherwise - need to move Russia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malta and Cyprus, or 99% of the other protected pages? If there is no reason to ever move a page and it has experienced problems in the past, protection is perfectly reasonable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Move" tab in WP:VECTOR

Anyone know where I can find the "Move" tag now? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you hover your mouse over the down-arrow tab to the right of the watchlist tab a pop-down menu will appear. "Move" should be the first option in that menu. —RP88 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't work for me: there's nothing between "My watchlist" and "My contributions". Am I looking in the right place? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet: it works on French Wikipedia. Odd! --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons

the opcw page was moved from organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons to organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons although their website clearly indicates organisation (see www.opcw.org) and no argumentation was given on the talkpage. Could someone move it back? L.tak (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Still no tool to move a category (by finding and fixing all tags for that Category)?

This page says that the only way to re-name a Category is to visit every article within the category and manually fix the category tag. Is that still true? I figured with all the master tool-builders out there, someone must have built a tool to do just that: All such a tool has to do is find articles containing [[Category:AAA]] and change that to [[Category:BBB]] --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I replaced that with a link to WP:Categories for discussion, which has bots to complete requests. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving a file page

The section Moving a file page currently says "In non-controversial cases you can request a file to be moved by adding the template {{rename media}} to the description page of the file." But it doesn't say what to do in controversial cases. You can't do a normal movereq because it puts the image instead of just the file name on WP:RM. So what do you do, and should that be added to the section? Station1 (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again: where & how to put the moverequest

Since this is not been addressed, I might add this: the section does mention "the template {{rename media}} to the description page of the file.". The file I want moved does not have a "Description page", nor a tab "Edit". (This existing file does have a "Create" tab, how interesting). I hope someone can improve this Help-page with how & where (twice, clearly). -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

moving over redirects

I used to be able to move a page to a former redirect but now I can't. What's up? BillMasen (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends whether the redirect has a history. If any modifications have been made to the redirect page (apart from its original creation), then we ordinary editors can't move the target page on top of it. Unfortunately this is a lot more common now than it used to be, because of the bots that have been going round adding categories to redirect pages (and thus ensuring, in the process, that every redirect they touch has a history).--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All Caps

Should I discuss before moving a page title out of all caps? Us441(talk)(contribs) 15:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been answered at the help desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Two #1's in 'How to Move Page' Section

The first two steps are both listed as #1, and the next steps are listed sequentially after that. It looks like the numbers are generated automatically, so maybe it's a bug? Eastkansas (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that was my mistake. Thanks for drawing attention to it. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to check for redirected navbox template links after moving a page

Shouldn't the section "How to move a page" contain a reminder to change redirected links in navigational templates, per WP:R#Bypass redirects in navigational templates? -Set theorist (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Question on Moving a Section and/or Subsection only.

Please take a quick look at my question at Talk:Domain_Name_System#Technical_question_on_Section_move. I am not sure if it belongs in here or at that talk page but I think it is relevant to this topic here.

Thanks. 66.97.214.17 (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish to move the draft of an article from my userspace to mainspace. My screen shows none of the skins described in this article -- i.e. there is no MOVE button or MOVE tab visib le. How should I proceed? Any advice greatly appreciated. Terry Belanger 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldwinn (talk • contribs)

Is there a "Move" command on the drop-down menu you get by clicking on the triangle just to the left of the search box? If not, leave a note here and someone will do it for you (unless they think the article is controversial for some reason). --Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving over a redirect

Lately it has been impossible to move pages over redirects with only one line of history. Trying to move User:marcus Qwertyus/iPad (original) to iPad (original) but can't. Marcus Qwertyus 21:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I no longer want to move my userspace but that is not the only page I can't move. Marcus Qwertyus 02:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not many people will be watching this page. Try asking at Village pump (technical); someone there will know whether this is a deliberate change. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Where ask for Admin to move back article name after policy violation

This doesn't seem appropriate for a tag on top of article page. As detailed in this subsection an editor came along and changed the article's name back to a previously rejected one, despite discussions on WP:NPOVN and two long discussions in the talk page of what to name it. He is trying to force us to bring up all the old arguments and dismisses policy concerns as "process wonkery" (in edit summary). Is this a WP:ANI issue or where else can I find an Admin to change it back til after the holidays when other editors can weigh in. I just don't like to see this kind of rank abuse of process and policy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just found out this guy IS an administrator, even as he mocks policy and defends another editor insulting most of the editors to the page. So I guess this has to go to another forum! CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This (general) question is under discussion at WT:RM (the thread's called "Reverting unilateral moves" or something like that). But has the specific situation been resolved now? The page seems to be back at "Allegations of....", which is where you think it should be, right?--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone else did do that. And I'll file it in the part of my brain marked "important" (and maybe write it down too). Anyway, a reminder on how to do that in this article would help. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Page moves during disambiguation or wikipedia:Summary style implementation

I remember I've seen somewhere the following episode.

There was a page which mixed several close topics in one. An editor cut-and-pasted different subjects into new pages leaving the original one as a disambig or summary (I don't remember exactly). However his edit was reverted and redone differently. The rationale was that the original page was 90% on single subject, so the other editor first moved the original page to new title for the 90%-piece, then hid the rest of disambiguation. The explanation for this process was better tracking of edit history.

I am wondering whether there is a common wikipedia:guideline for the procedure I described.

If there is, then IMO it must be mentioned in Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page.

If not, then is it reasonable to have one? Yceren Loq (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen what you describe. It's uncommon, but something should be added to WP:Splitting. I'm not sure that it should be mentioned on this page. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to clarify moving over redirect section

I recently ran into a problem where after moving the page currently at a spot to it's correct location, I was unable to move another page over the redirect created by the first move. The redirect I was moving over was automatically generated by the first move, and so as outlined on the page, I should have been able to move over the redirect. However it refused to allow the move, and I had to get an admin to delete the redirect I needed to move over. it was suggested to me that a user can only move over a redirect if they are reverting a previous move. If that is the case the documentation here should reflect as much. I'm not sure if it is the same issue discussed above. I want to make sure my understanding of the problem is correct before making any changes. Monty₈₄₅ 06:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence being referring to is: "Moreover the move will fail if a page already exists at the target name, unless it is simply a redirect to the present name that has never been modified". How might this be clarified? Station1 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is factually inaccurate, you cannot perform that move without administrator intervention. Recently ran into someone trying to revert a page move over the redirect created who was likewise unable to do so without an admin stepping in. Maybe admins can move it over a redirect without deleting, but users cannot, and it reads to me like the section is saying that moving over a redirect is an exception to the need for an admin. See the topic 3 above this one someone else with the issue. Monty₈₄₅ 07:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You were trying "to move another page over the redirect created by the first move". This isn't the same as moving a page back to where it was before, so falls outside the conditions listed at WP:MOR "If the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title". I read of another case recently (at WP:AN, I think) where a move could not be reversed easily because someone had added categories to the redirect page. This also needs an admin, because then the redirect has more than one line in its history. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible solution for the attribution problem with category renames?

Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Possible solution for the attribution problem with category renames?, where I brought up a possible solution to the problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

israel women who left the army

I have watched this story several times. YOU BECOME WHAT YOU HATE. Copyrighted please, please, think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.247.61 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How to handle interwiki links from other language versions in a page move

The help page does not give any information in regard to how to deal with interwiki links from other language versions after a page move in the English WP. While the links continue to work via redirect (unless double redirected), it is obviously a good idea to clean them up as well. However, such links are not displayed by "What links here", so it is easy to miss them. Also, some users may have problems to navigate foreign language WPs in order to update the interwiki links there. The question, if this is handled by bots already or if manual interaction is required, is not addressed in the help page so far. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

When not to move a page

I think it would be good to add a section, "When not to move a page", explaining:

An article should not be moved for the purpose of changing what the article is about. While a good name can help define what is relevant to an article, a move should not lead to the deletion of large portions of the article, nor should it reduce an otherwise notable article to a mere subsection. In such cases a new article should be created, making use of some relevant portions of the text in summary style (preferably with an attribution to the source article in the edit summary) to cover its topic at the desired level of detail.

Wnt (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Feature Request for "Moving over a redirect" WP:MOR

Since redirect categorization has become popular, we frequently see redirect pages with edit histories that consists only of the first redirect creation edit, followed by a redirect categorization edit. This disables the ability to move over redirect without approval. Could Wikipedia add a feature that allows editors to the redirect page to pre-approve any future move over a redirects? This could be a checkbox below the edit textarea for redirect pages that's labeled "Allow this page to be overridden by a move." If any editor to the page does not check this, then it can no longer be overridden by a move without administrative action. --Bxj (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This would also be useful for when bots have fixed double redirects, or when the redirect target has been changed. As an alternative implementation, could move over redirect apply to any page that is currently a redirect and has never been larger then a certain number of bytes? Note, this page may not get enough traffic to get a good discussion, you may want to add an {{RFC}} tag or move it to one of the Village Pumps. Monty₈₄₅ 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the double-redirect fix would be useful. I've run into a couple of situations recently where the bot "fix" prevented appropriate moves. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:R from move

Would it be possible for {{R from move}} to be applied automatically to the #REDIRECT created for the old title? — Robert Greer — Robert Greer (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I believe this would have to be implemented by the developers, which would mean you'd have to file a request on bugzilla. Best to ask on the technical village pump first.--68.247.168.81 (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC) (User:Aervanath while logged out)

Moving and talk pages

The software routine for moving pages moves both the article and the talk page. But it then makes the old talk page a redirect to the new one. Why does it do that? After all, if someone wants to comment about a redirect, they should have a talk page to put their comments on. In my view, redirecting a talk page should nearly never be done, and should only be done in very rare circumstances. Even worse, I've seen a user who say the move routine do this and conclude that no redirect should have its own talk page, and then proceed to redirect hundreds of talk pages - including ones with things like merge notices on them.

I propose that the move routine be changed so that it does not make the talk page into a redirect, only the article page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When you move an article that already has a talk page, there is a line "Move associated talk page" with a checkbox. If you uncheck it, the talk page will not move with the article. You can also write over a redirect's talk page even after it's been moved. I do think talk pages should be moved with their articles in most cases, but I agree there may be some exceptions. Station1 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Of course I want to move the talk page. I don't want it to create a talk page redirect. There is nearly never a good reason for a talk page to be a redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did misunderstand. The talk page redirect is desirable in cases where there are incoming wikilinks to the talk page. In other cases I agree it's not necessary but I don't see too much harm. It can always be overwritten if needed. Station1 (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it might make more sense to put a note on the top saying "This page was moved to Talk:Foo, in that case. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Double redirects

I've removed the "{{clarify}}" tag here. I hope my new wording "will normally be fixed" reflects the reality that a bot is sometimes stopped for maintenance. I've also removed the "{{specify}}" tag. There are several bots that fix double redirects; some (all?) can be found by searching within Wikipedia:Bots/Status. I think this information is too technical for a general help page, so I've merely added a hidden comment. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Hello.

I am proposing that a merge be performed to this page from Help:How to move a page, as it appears to cover exactly the same matter.

Please provide your input. Thank you. 75.53.212.214 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia pages are meant to explain Wikipedia policies and content, while Help policies are meant to explain how to actually do stuff (what keys to type, what buttons to push). So, Wikipedia moving should explain when and why to move while Help should explain how to do it. I don't think a merge is the answer here, but some editing to make the differing purposes clear maybe is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page describes itself as a 'how-to' guide, and its third section is "How to move a page", so yeah, there is a great deal of overlap. I understand that WP: and Help: pages are meant to serve different functions, but I support the merge in the absence of a major edit to sort out the overlap. ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why not just re-purpose this page to be less of a how-to guide? Aervanath (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Aervanath, seriously, remove the overlap and link towards the help page. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 18:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled Tom Cruise Project

The said article is wrongly being moved to Oblivion (2013 film), despite multiple sources showing that the film is currently untitled and that Oblivion had been a considered title alone. I suggest a move protection for the article, and of course a move back to the original title. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum to discuss it. Discuss it on the article talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's the template?

I type WP:move and I do not get a single link to the template I know that must exist and I am looking for. Where is the link? -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you need to request that a page be moved, see WP:Requested moves for instructions on how to do that. If that doesn't help, I don't know what template you are looking for. Aervanath (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You are helpful, but my Q is: why is it not mentioned (let alone linked) on the page? -DePiep (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing happens when I type in the reason field

Is this a bug affecting only me, or do the instructions need to be updated from "leave a reason" to "ignore that broken box"? Kilopi (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just tested it. The reason box works fine for me.--Aervanath (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Best thing to do is make a dummy edit. Hit the edit button on the pages new title and add <!--dummy edit--> anywhere on the page, and for the edit summary, enter "Dummy edit - reason for previous move was xxxx" and don't mark the edit as minor. After than, edit the page again, remove your dummy edit text, enter edit summary "remove dummy edit" and mark as minor. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Still not sure what causes it, but looks to be browser related. Works as expected on my other browser, also works as expected in other language wikis. Kilopi (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What browser and version were you using when it failed? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fails with Opera v10.63 in enwiki. Works with Firefox v3.5.2 and with both browsers in dewiki. Not affected by changing skins or disabling gadgets. Kilopi (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

SEVCO

They are an entity so they should be here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.103.176 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be at Newco Rangers currently, though that's being discussed. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Climate

The mean annual temperature is around 18°C in the area and this climate is described as the perfect "tea-climate".

Demography

Majority of the population of Talawakelle is Indian Tamils who are workers of neighboring tea estates. The town considered the focal point of Indian Tamil politics in Sri Lanka. Small portion of Sinhalese also live in the town.

Visitor attractions

There are two waterfalls situated around Talawakelle area. Both the waterfalls formed by Kothmale Oya, which runs through the town.

• Devon Falls
• St. Clair's Falls