Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"
Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

Script mal-functioning..[edit]

Can any-body check whether User:Andy M. Wang/closeRM.js is functioning as desired.In my case it prompts me to enter my reason for the close, but only adds an edit summary with the entered reason rather than inserting the close templates etc. Posting it here because the script dev. is highly infrequent on ping while replying back.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I close manually so I can't be of much use on this script, but I did a test of pageswap to see if any issues you might be having affected it. It seems to be functioning fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. It's working fine for me too. Let's see if someone else shares your problem. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisting obscuring a backlog[edit]

The backlog is nearly empty. Does this mean RM is working lick clockwork? Or is a backlog problem being hidden by the inane pointless relisting? What is the benefit of relisting old discussions? I like to review only the old discussions, as I prefer to see what the article-interested people have to say first. People who like to review RMs from the top will have already seen the RM listed. Relisting is a near-silent edit to article-watchers, so what is the point? If there is a point to relisting, is there a way to introduce a way to navigate to relisted RMs from Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisting has the advantage of getting new eyes on a conversation. I tend to be more liberal on moving if no objections have been raised, but will relist some things such as transliterations that tend to get closers flack. I also feel that multi-page moves in general should have at least one comment before a move. My philosophy on using user rights is that being conservative is better in any case where there might be controversy. That being said, I think there is a bias to relisting for no reason and have no problem personally closing relisted RMs before the next 7 days, which is allowed by the policy. I also think closers should feel more comfortable closing as no consensus. If a full conversation has taken place, a closer should use their judgement to determine whether or not a relist is likely to generate a clearer consensus. If the answer is no, then a relist shouldn't be done. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If "allowed by the policy" is the only reason for doing something, then how about don't do it. Doing nothing is allowed by policy. I would prefer discussions to be left for seven days following the last substantive comment. See if the weekend editors have a response. Leave it open, unrelisted, in the backlog for seven days, especially in preference to a non-admin "no consensus" close.
Is there any evidence for "getting new eyes"? I think I just explained why it doesn't work. My observations are that it doesn't work.
Didn't someone once create a page that listed all relisted RMs? The backlog section could link to it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
A good relist includes a relisting comment that attempts to refocus the discussion, or draws attention to a new important point, or a point about policy that participants may have missed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that relisting does normally add a few comments. A lot of the RMs I close have a clear pattern of comments in the 24 hours after relisting followed by no comments for the rest of the seven days, and there are many discussions in the backlog I check for several days in a row that get absolutely no comments.

I think no consensus after a full discussion is a better outcome than relisting, which rarely changes things if a substantive discussion has taken place. It takes the concerns of the reader into mind: a RM tag on place for a month because of three relists is not good for a highly visible article, and those are the ones that tend to have long substantive discussions take place within the listing period. A potentially controversial move with limited comments that disagree is a different matter, and I think is a strong case for staying open longer.

I think a page listing all relisted discussions would be good. It would allow the regulars who want to comment on those listings find them easier than CTRL+F. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Use CTRL+F "Relisting" on the WP:RM page itself? Never thought of that. Tried it. No. The proposer's text is not appreciated. I much prefer the Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requested moves' one line per discussion "Current → Proposed – (Discuss)" style. I wish for them all in this style, sorted by the original date of the proposal, ignoring relist dates. Much like User:Snotbot/Current AfD's, only default sorted by "Time open". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a follow-up to the earlier discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 29#No backlog! Did someone close them all? and Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28#Alternate List Views Available. The consensus still appears to be for the current relisting conventions. One possibility is to expand the "elapsed listings" window to be longer than 24 hours. That would be easy for me to do. I could also create an alternate version of Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requested moves, Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requested moves (alt), that listed everything by the original date and replaced the "elapsed" and "backlog" sections with an "originally listed more than 7 days ago" section. Editors preferring this format would be able to link to or transclude this page as desired, on their user pages, for example. This is doable, but somewhat more work for me to implement. wbm1058 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how much work that is, or how many would make use of it, but I for one would appreciate it. When attempting to clear backlogs, it is well regarded as a good idea that at least some people work at the end of the list. I suspect that a link to a chronological listing of the backlog from Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog might lead to it being well used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a step forward towards this. The report now shows how many discussions have been relisted, and indicates in the bulleted column of (Discuss) links which ones. The bot looks for --'''''Relisting.''''' embedded in the rationales, to distinguish actual relists from someone who happened to use the word "relist" in describing their rationale. So any relisting that does not conform to this syntax will be considered malformed so that item won't sort correctly in any reports I may produce that are sorted by the original request date. As long as everyone uses {{Relisting}} for that, and doesn't override its default, and nobody changes that template without checking with the bot operator first, we'll be fine. I'm open to suggestions for tweaking this. wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
What report? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Is Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requested_moves a report? I don't think I can search for underscored "scu"s, and scanning by eye is not pleasant. Is there a trick for showing every collapsed box at once? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be better instead of underlining the 3 letters change the link text from "Discuss" to something like "Relisting", "Relisted discussion"? Or even something like "Discuss x2", and x3 if something some how gets relisted an additional time, perhaps from a move review etc. As it is the difference is rather subtle. PaleAqua (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions report. Right, my intention is for this to be subtle, as there is limited demand for this in the main report. Bear with me, I'm just laying some groundwork – more to come. wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, check out Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions/Table and let me know if that works for you. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It is great, thank you. It will certainly work for me. As a matter of preference, I might have preferred "days open" over "original list date". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Great. Thanks SmokeyJoe. I added the "days open" column and page headings, and tidied it up. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This page offers directly contradictory information[edit]

WP:RMUM ("Undiscussed moves" section) says:

Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you disagree with the move... you may revert the move... Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

which strongly indicates that WP:BOLD applies to moves. But below at WP:RM#CM (the "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" section) it says:

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if... Someone could reasonably disagree with the move

Well so which is it? I can see the argument for not generally encouraging bold moves of pages, since they're harder to undo than regular edits. I can see the other way too.

But can we we can get clear guidance one way or the other?

There is a big brouhaha at ANI right now over disagreement over this very matter, and I have seen others.Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(It doesn't help that WP:RMUM is poorly stated and a bit confusing. "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial... you may revert the move" means "if someone makes a move and even if you agree with it but you suspect other people might not ("if you consider such a move to be controversial") you "may" roll it back, which is distinctly odd advice.) (Nevermind, this issue fixed with what I believe is a simple correction.) Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, thanks for raising this issue. The "Undiscussed moves" section was added by PBS with 3 August 2014 edit. Along with that, this related change was made. A notice was posted on this page at the time, but it did not draw much comment. I don't recall that I paid much attention to this before. But now that you point this out, regarding "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first", no. This is not right. Nobody should be bold and move Hillary Clinton or New York without discussing it first. We need to fix this. wbm1058 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's a good point. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Those examples are the 20% of moves which are or may be problematic. Other moves, bringing page names into alignment with our article title policy, naming convention guidelines, and style guideline, are the 80% move case and are usually uncontroversial. Moves are fixable also (though with some effort). No, I don't see this as a problem, especially with other guidance move-related guidance already-present on this page of "hey, don't be dumb" (though not in juxtaposition). --Izno (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the other guidance is further down the page, and is, as Herostratus says, contradictory. After reading "anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first" someone might quit reading the rest of the page and start pushing the buttons.
Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page if:
  • There is not an existing article at the target title;
  • There has not been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • Noone could reasonably disagree with the move.
Editors should be checking these off before they make bold moves. It's OK to occasionally find someone reasonably disagreeing with a bold move, but editors consistently finding others reverting their bold moves should at the least be warned. wbm1058 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The guidance is not contradictory... it is quite simple:
  1. If your initial assessment is that a move would be non-controversial, you do not need to discuss... you may be bold... go ahead and move (that is what the move button is for after all). However, be willing to accept that your initial assessment may be incorrect, and the move may turn out to controversial after all. No problem... shift to discussion.
  2. If, on the other hand, your initial assessment is that the move will indeed be controversial... don't be bold... start off with discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret it too Blueboar, but it could be clearer. I propose adding the following highlighted clause to RMUM for clarity: "Anyone who has no reason to believe a particular title change might be controversial can be bold and move a page without discussing it first..." --В²C 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"No reason to believe"? The wikilawyers will have a field day arguing about whether you should have had a "reason" or not... I would simplify and just say "Anyone who believes a particular title change will be non-controversial can be bold ... (etc)." Then have a caveat about what to do if the change turns out to be controversial after all. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but what about people who would game that wording: "I believed the move would be non-controversial". You can't argue with what someone says they believed. What about: "In obviously non-controversial cases anyone can be bold and move the page without discussing it first..."? I suggest removing the bold clause because this is not really being bold (if it's non-controversial as it should be). --В²C 00:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If someone says "I thought it was non-controversial" just tell them "Well, you thought wrong... it is controversial. But that's OK... we all make mistakes." No one can "game the system" by making a bold move, or by saying "I thought it non-controversial", because as soon as someone else reverts the move, it becomes controversial (by definition). So... assume good faith... assume the editor really didn't think that his bold move would be controversial (It just turned out that he was wrong in thinking that. No harm). Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If only it were that simple. How many times do you tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert, tell them and revert...? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pattern_of_making_controversial_title_changes_without_RM_or_discussion_by_user_In_ictu_oculi. --В²C 01:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need to write new guidance, per se. It's all there, but just not in the right place. If you didn't notice what I did, I just lifted the three bullet items from the guidance given lower on the page, and changed them from positive to negative statements by adding nots and changing "someone" to "noone". So by the time the reader gets to the lower section, they should already know they're in the right place, so the three bullet items may not be needed there, if we want to keep it concise. Though a bit of redundancy there is OK too I think. wbm1058 (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • No one is suggesting new guidance. Just a little clarification to existing wording at WP:RMUM to prevent any apparent inconsistency with what the other sections say. --В²C 01:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That said, Wbm1058, given that we seem to have general consensus on fixing this section, I implemented your suggestion[1] (with slight rewording). What do you think? I'm a bit concerned about having redundant language on the page but it's certainly better than the previous contradictory language... Thanks to Herostratus for bringing this to our attention! --В²C 02:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Herostratus reverted the edit implementing Wbm1058's suggestion to use consensus-support language from elsewhere with edit summary "Slow down, this is under discussion at the talk page, there's no hurry, let's see what develops first." What else is there to develop? This is consensus-support language. I implemented because I thought nobody could object. --В²C 02:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I mean, I suppose more or different language could develop, and of course that can be added/replaced too. But for now, at least this is consistent with the rest of the page and removes the contradiction. A clear improvement, no? --В²C 02:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No not necessarily. I mean, it sounds reasonable, but it's not necessarily too helpful, in that it depends on the use of "reasonable" which people tend to interpret as meaning "what I think, as opposed to what that other fellow thinks". There's no hurry. Maybe actually we should restrict page moves more strictly.

Anyway it's not matter of interpretation. It really does say "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page [but] if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again". It's uses the word "bold" and so is implicitly referencing WP:BOLD. (WP:BOLD, which is a guideline, opens with "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it'. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia" (emphasis in the original) and then continues in that vein. It does say later "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care" and "more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces". They talk about a lot of places where you want to maybe be not-so-bold, but moving pages isn't one of them.)

And it's been there since 2014, so you can't wish it away. It's a major change of both theory and practice, so there's no hurry.

But the Hillary Clinton example is worth pursuing. Yes it does feel wrong if someone BOLDly moved that to "Hillary Rodham Clinton". I think that's because its a substantial change. In the same vein, if someone BOLDly went into the article and rewrote whole swaths of it on their own dime, that also would not feel right, because it's a substantial change. It partly depends on how visible the article is TBH.

So if it's a substantial change change, maybe it should me more restricted altogether.

I dunno if "No one could reasonably disagree with the move" is very helpful. My recent experience is that there are very few titles that a reasonable person couldn't reasonably claim would be better under a different title, as User:Blueboar notes. And I mean, even if you expanded it to "No one could reasonably disagree with the move, e.g. misspelled title", people are going to be like "Moved Mumbai to Bombay to correct spelling error".

"Reasonably disagree" is vague enough to be useless when titling is involved. Give me a list of ten random titles and I bet I can come up with reasonable cases for different titles for nine of them at least.

One solution would be simple: "Never move a page (unless you are closing an RM). Instead request a technical RM so an administrator may approve, or initiate an RM discussion. If there is an emergency or other good reason and a page must be moved immediately, contact an administrator." That might be too constricting, I don't know. It would slow down title changes maybe, which I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.

Absent that, we might want to expand on what "reasonable objection" covers, with details and examples. This would be difficult work though, and possibly impossible to get agreement on.

Before making major substantial changes in whether and how people can move we should probably have an RfC and bring in outside eyes. It may be that we're not seeing the whole picture and that there are specific or general benefits to allowing WP:BOLD page moves. (And anyway any changes here should have a commensurate change there.) Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I withdrew my objection to User:Born2cycle edit for now, and restored it. If I'm the only objector I don't want to stand in the way of what others seem to feel is an improvement. I don't consider the change to be stable yet, and I may propose other refinements in the next few days. But if everyone else is fine with it no other page watcher wants to roll it back... it's reasonable, so fine. Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason I used the word "can" and not "may" (and why the point about moving back uses "may"). So I do not see the contradiction with anything else on the page.
With the current wording the first instance should read probably "may" not "can". -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Also I see little point in keeping bold in the current wording as my original point was that people can be bold, if they do that once in a while and move a page without noticing that in the archives somewhere there was a RM, they no drama just ask to have it move back. Basically I wrote it intending it to be read as Blueboar describes it above. The current wording complicates what is meant to be a simple statement of fact by surrounding it with constrains/conditions on bold. If those constraints are to be there then remove the word bold. Personally I think it is better to keep it simple. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree: Anyone can be bold and move a page if:Anyone may move a page if:
The word "move" doesn't even occur in the WP:BOLD guideline. That's an editing guideline, not a page-moving guideline. We could just as well have linked to wikt:bold, but that would be an WP:overlink to an everyday word. Sure, we can give newer editors some latitude if they don't know how to check the logs and archives. But experienced editors should know better. wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed.  Done. [2].
Regarding experienced editors should know better... you'd think... unfortunately we need to make this clear and explicit because some don't know better (or refuse to know). And newer editors who make this error once, that's no big deal. It's the repeat offenders that cause the problems. --В²C 15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Which is why the really important part of all this is the instruction to discuss, and don't edit war should a move be reverted. Live by that and the initial (bold) move is fine. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
What about someone who regularly makes moves without discussion or explanation even though they are clearly potentially controversial, but is careful to not edit war? Such initial (bold) moves are also fine? --В²C 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not? There is no need to make a drama out of something that should be fairly non-confrontational... simply revert the move and shift to discussion. Don't Wikilawer it. It's a simple Bold - Revert - Discuss progression.
Now, if the other editor (the one who made the move) wants to make a drama out of the situation (for example, if he/she refuses to shift to discussion after being reverted) then that's on him/her. That editor is being disruptive, and can be sanctioned accordingly. We already have rules for that. But the initial move is no big deal. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, often it's more involved that a simple move/revert. Typically, they also place a new dab page (often riddled with dubious entries) at the original article location - that is, it's a primary topic issue that should be resolved by RM discussion in the first place, not so simple to revert, and sometimes remains so for months before someone notices. --В²C 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Or, say somebody is obsessed with thinking titles should have an even number of characters. So he goes around moving articles in creative ways so that they have an even number of characters. Some percentage of his moves are noticed and are reverted, but some are unnoticed and he gets away with it. What is the motivation for such a person to stop his disruptive behavior? --В²C 17:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, first, there is a possibility that the new titles (and dab pages etc) may actually be better ... so we can not start off with an assumption that the moves are disruptive. Now, there is also the possibility that another editor will disagree with the moves, and revert. So far, neither editor is being disruptive... It's just a routine disagreement - to be settled through discussion. Things only become disruptive if the first editor does not respect the revert, and refuses to shift to "discuss". when the first editor crosses the line into edit warring... that is disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be saying BOLD applies to moves just as it does to edits. I disagree. --В²C 22:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
A move is a specific type of edit... but really I simply want to avoid rules that create more drama than they cure. Blueboar (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on how broadly you define "edit". A move does not change the content of a page, and is not performed by clicking the "edit" or "edit source" tab, but rather by choosing "move" from the "More" dropdown. Other "mores" include deleting pages and changing protection. You could argue that deletions are also "edits" but these are edits that only administrators can make. BOLD does not apply to deletions, and you need to find an approved rationale to justify a speedy deletion. We do not start off with an assumption that all moves are disruptive. Only "bold" moves that don't qualify under the criteria now stated in WP:Requested moves § Undiscussed moves are disruptive. When in doubt, discuss. If you made a good-faith attempt to find past discussions and missed one, or someone surprises you with a reasonable disagreement, no big deal, revert and discuss. I don't believe we have any rules that create more drama than they cure. The goal here is to minimize the number of requests to revert undiscussed moves. Such requests cause extra work for admins and page movers, clutter up the move logs, and if repeated too much, can lead to drama. wbm1058 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
While I'm sympathetic to User:Blueboar's point, just on a practical level move are different from regular edits in that they can be harder to undo, and also all the incoming links have to be cleaned up.
There are a lot of regular article edits every minute that are poor but good-faith and get rolled back, and a lot of other edits that are arguable and get turned back and taken to discussion on WP:BRD grounds. We encourage this though because its a net positive for the project. I don't know as you can the same about moves.
If we told editors "don't make an article edit if you think someone might not like it, get consensus on the talk page first" this would a vastly different project. It might be a better project (I doubt it but who knows) but it would be very different and I can see some downsides to doing that.
Anyway, telling editors " "don't make a move if you think someone might not like it" is really very different. It doesn't really have a big impact on the project one way or another. I just don't see encouraging WP:BOLD moves as necessarily a net positive for the project. Herostratus (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
how are moves harder to undo than any other edit? Go to the page history and click on "undo" (then do the same with the talk page). I have done this several times in my years as an editor. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well If you want to move it back over the redirect, and the redirect has had an edit, you can't do it, for instance.
Here's a good example, just happened. An editor removed a word from an article on grounds "expresses an opinion". I put in a different word with "how about this word for a compromise?". That editor might remove it again with "nah same objection" or put in another different word with "no, but how about this" or whatever -- communicating through edit summaries (obviously if it gets complicated we have to go to talk). I just kind of see moves as little more of a Big Deal than that kind of interaction. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I opened a brief note at the pump, not a formal RfC or anything, just to see if any outside people had any insight. Herostratus (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
In the future, please observe WP:MULTI--rather than taking the conversation there, simply leave a one or two-sentence description of the discussion and then point the outside editors to the discussion in question. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
#More undiscussed "technical requests" (see below) is precisely the kind of drama that this guidance is designed to avoid. Now we have a malformed move request which needs to be sorted out. Quite annoying and time-wasting for admins to have to deal with these. I'm not keen on policy creep here, but if we have to... examples of technical requests: spelling corrections, capitalization corrections, changing a hyphen to an en-dash to conform with an established naming convention, where similar moves have been done in the past. Company name changes... Maybe start a new supplementary guidance page to list these? If editors continue to demonstrate their intent to "game" the system, or that they can't use common sense. wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
In the move discussed below, no one is trying to "game the system"... a new editor requested a move (in good faith)... a more experienced editor (an admin?) made the move (also in good faith). Neither expected any objection. OK... It turns out that their expectation was wrong. There is an objection. No big deal... The (admin?) mover is now aware of the objection (and why it was made). If you really can't live with the page being at the "wrong" title for a few days, try asking the mover to undo his move, and return the page to its previous title while we discuss (most admins will be quite happy to do so if you ask nicely). The point is... it was an easily correctable mistake... not some nefarious or underhanded "gaming" of the system. There is no need to make a court case of it. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, "gaming the system" is too strong a characterization for this; fortunately there aren't many that go that far. Nonetheless this is something that is taking me quite a bit of time to sort out and "easily" correct. wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Another reason we discourage bold moves that are not routine in nature: the redirect fixing bots. Some pages have a dozen or more redirects to them. When you move one of these pages, you're not effecting just one page, sometimes the bots will follow you and change a dozen or two redirect pages. Then, when the move is reverted, you hope that the bots undo all that. Sometimes they don't, and I've found pages that were obviously redirecting to the wrong place because move-wars got the redirect-fixing bots mixed up. wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, that also makes sense. Not much interest at the village pump where I asked, but the 1 or 2 commentors also concur that page moves need more care than regular edits (Izno I understand about MULTI but in this case a quick ask over there was better than dragging more people over to in this more detailed and inchoate thread -- different audience). To tidy up the corners, I also suggested adding a couple sentences about this to WP:BOLD, here: Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal to add a sentence about page moves. I wouldn't necessarily advise any of you page-move-interested people going over there, let the people watching that page discuss it if they care to. Herostratus (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the VP discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to advise about page moves -- be bold, or be cautious?wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think we can probably hat this discussion -- I haven't found one person (including myself), here or at the small side-discussion at the pump, who believes that WP:BOLD applies to page moves in the sense of "this might well be controversial, but you never know, so here goes". Even the editor who originally inserted "Anyone can be bold and move a page..." I think meant "Anyone can be bold and move a page" as a description of fact without necessarily endorsing it. And the change has been made. So nothing more to do here I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2017[edit]

Can an admin please replace the text of the redirect with the following?

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R to project namespace}}

The Redr template alias is to be replaced with Redirect category shell. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

More undiscussed "technical requests"[edit]

Yet again, "technical requests" are used to sneak through an undiscussed and inappropriate rename (Mace (weapon) to Mace (bludgeon)). Maces aren't simple bludgeons, they're substantially somewhat sharp, developed as an armour-piercing weapon. Also this form has clear primacy as the primary topic for "weapon", the pepper spray and missile being references to it.

We need to stop these. At the very least, a rename like this ought to require tagging on the article first, not merely on this page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, reasonable point. One could patrol the RM/T board and pull any that you don't agree with, I guess. I assume that if you see a technical move you disagree with, it is automatically no longer an undisputed technical move and you could remove it. Probably you'd want to notify the poster so she could file a contested RM.
User:Anthony Appleyard made the move; you could ask him what he was thinking. The move request was made by an anon IP User: whose first edit was today; that alone would give me pause. This editor seems to be working on various titling issues, splitting and moving pages etc., and I'm not sure that that's a great idea for a brand-new IP on her first day. Herostratus (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense User:Anthony Appleyard, although its a 1) kind of involved reasoning by 2) an anon IP, so I dunno if I would have done it. By "involved reasoning" I mean it's not like "article name is misspelled" or slam-dunk stuff like that. OTOH every move that doesn't have to go to contested RM is one less timesink and can be undone. So, judgement call.
User:Andy Dingley is this a regular thing, or just occasional? It it's just occasional that something goes thru that might be contested, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The assumption is that admins' judgement can be trusted generally. It's possible that admins should be advised to be more stringent. Herostratus (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a regular thing. Labelling a move "technical" as a way to dodge discussion centred on that page and the people most familiar with the subject.
I don't know what the best page name for "mace" is. Maybe it's bludgeon, maybe it's medieval weapon (and is that medieval, mediaeval or mediæval?), maybe it's simply weapon. It's an awkward question, it warrants discussion. There will be other opinions. That is how we are supposed to work. As a "technical" request to move away from an obvious overlap, I can understand why those implementing RM/TR would pass it through. As a subtle naming question, it should never have been filed as "too trivial to even think about".
"Monitor RM/TR" - How? This is a page across the whole of WP. Even if watchlisted, I cannot see the traffic through it. I do however have many pages watchlisted that do end up getting TR moved, which is then the first I see of it. Also, the time issue: filed at 6am, carried out just after 8am, barely two hours. Now that's admirable processing efficiency, but it's also a great way to guarantee no discussion or challenge.
Here's the latest one [3], filed just after Mace was carried out and then also executed about two and a half hours later (so even when I checked RM/TR this morning looking for these, it hadn't been listed then). This is a total car crash. Not even a rename, this is a merge. A bad merge. A merge that absolutely needs to be discussed first. The history of battleships is long, complex and has a substantial and international breakpoint at 1906 and the launch of the first Dreadnought. There is a good reason why those before were named with a back-formation as "pre-dreadnoughts". To merge away this distinction is a big change, very obviously not a mere "technical request", certainly not one to be pushed through with no mention on the pages affected, no time to even see it at RM/TR. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, what's the title that was merged? I can't figure that out, can you? I just see "MERGE" in the edit summary but no attribution for the page merged. wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy. They should put {{merge}} tags up and discuss. Someday maybe I'll get a merging system up that's more like requested moves. We seem to have two kinds of editors (1) those that want someone else to merge; they put up the template and it may sit there for years before it gets tended to. (2) those who want to merge it themselves; they often just do it without posting notices, or only briefly post the tags for a day or two before they do it. Would be nice to find a happy medium. wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
so we have two points of failure here, as this is clearly a request to reverse a previously executed page split. Both the requesting editor and the admin performing the request did not check the logs and find the previous move. These are scenarios that we try to avoid. wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I am the editor that requested the move. I accept fault for not checking for previous merge requests, but I should also like to say that there was a very short time from me posting my request to move List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy to List of battleships of the Royal Navy before Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) moved the page. As for not following instructions on Wikipedia:Merge (namely starting a discussion), I had (incorrectly, happily) figured that absolutely no one was watching given that my peer review for List of sunken battleships has gone unnoticed for about two months, so I just filed a request to move and then set to work in the linked Google Document. As for the dour comment about the merge being a "car crash," please note that I did I make an effort to also merge the information from List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy. However, this was limited to one table that didn't get moved to the Google Doc (I figured it was a done deal) because I was currently attending high school. Before this gets more heated, I would like to apologize for my rash action and request a civil discourse. –Vami_IV✠ 21:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's all right User:Vami_IV. We're just searching for an optimal general procedure, not attacking this one move in particular. You did fine, its alright. One problem is that this page maybe provides insufficient guidance for you and other editors in your position. To that end, I'm suggesting below language that would provide more guidance. Herostratus (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Right. Well, I guess to watch the page, you could just go to WP:RM and click on the technical-moves section. This requires a positive action rather than waiting for a notification, but if an editor made it part of their regular routine, it would only take a few seconds each session to check, and perhaps a couple minutes to move inappropriate requests. This is a kludge though.

For this to work, we would probably have to add an admonition on the order of "admins should not peform technical moves until X hours have elapsed since the request", with X being 24 or 72 or whatever.

Alternatively, perhaps we should tighten up the guidance, adding the bolded language shown below to the top of the "Requesting technical moves" (text bolded to show the change, not intended to be bolded on the actual page):

"If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below. You should never request a technical move if you consider that the move could be contested on reasonable grounds. Instead, see the procedure below for requesting potentially controversial moves. Administrators are advised to reject requests for technical moves it they suspect that the move could be contested on reasonable grounds

How's that? Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the way the instructions on the main WP:RM read right now. We can only do so much to inform relatively inexperienced editors of the nuances of our page-moving guidelines. We should expect that a certain number of this kind of request will always come in as new editors join the project, or editors with modest experience begin moving pages for the first time. Where I think we can improve guidance is at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, which has relatively little to say about technical requests. Especially with the expansion in rights to page movers. Page movers and admins should assume good faith, but at the same time check the talk pages and logs, and use better judgement. They should be our line of defense to minimize the number of technical requests that get reverted. Trust that the requester believes their request is not potentially controversial, but, at the same time verify that it is not potentially controversial. wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. I don't see why we shouldn't tell requestors "You should never request a technical move if you consider that the move could be contested on reasonable grounds", but fine. So OK Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions is directed toward closers (which for technical requests is jut admins) rather than requestors. The last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't make sense... it says "Where technical moves are contested, move the listing to the contested technical requests section" but how do you know it's contested? You know if somebody has already moved it to the contested technical requests section, right? (Unless somebody messaged you on your talk page about it or something.) So how about changing this advice to closers:
Where technical moves are contested, move the listing to the contested technical requests section.
to this:
When you encounter a technical move request that seems contestable on reasonable grounds, instead of closing it, do X.
I'm not sure what "do X" is supposed to be... what do admins do when they come across a sketchy technical request:
  • Just remove it, or
  • Move it to "contested technical requests"?
It has to be the former, right? The latter would require you to create a requested-move section on the talk page, right? And what would you say, not being familiar with the subject?
But the former, doesn't that mean the request (which may well be perfectly fine and improvement to the Wikipedia) just goes into the bit bucket? That seems imperfect also.
I mean, right now I see there's a technical request to move Instruction set to "Instruction set architecture" which is a very different thing and a major change to an important article. The request points to a talk page thread which is very long and techical, and is a back-and-forth between two editors, in which the idea of having two separate articles ("Instruction set" and "Instructions set architecture") is mooted but rejected (I guess). They rewrote the lede to say "Instruction set architecture" instead of "Instruction set", but still... is this really a case where its not even worth discussion? Other watchers of the page have no idea that this page is about to be moved... they might be hopping mad if it goes through.
And yet, what am I supposed to do,? Just remove it? Move it to a contested status and open a requested move discussion "I have absolutely no idea about this subject, but please discuss"? Either seems poor. I'm not an admin but rather just a drive-by watcher. Am I allowed/encouraged to just remove technical requests? Herostratus (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When the section technical requests was set up I opposed it. I see no reason why those need to be expedited. I think it was better to have just a requested move process. There is little reason why a change in capitalisation is so important that a move can not wait a week while the RM process runs it course. -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Noncontroversial proposals" section was added on 6 October 2006 (diff) and here is the link to the discussion on in making this change in the archives -- PBS (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK well 2006 is 11 years ago, so it is certainly accepted procedure.

And so hmnh I see regarding the above example that User:Anthony Appleyard accepted the technical request and moved "Instruction set" to "Instruction set architecture"... this may be OK on the merits, but... before making the move the editors changed the lede from

"An instruction set [is] blah blabh blah... it defines the valid instructions that a machine may execute".


An instruction set architecture... defines everything a machine language programmer needs to know in order to write a machine language program for that computer. It is also referred to as architecture or computer architecture. ... defines [the] the data types... [etc, and] the instruction set".

and the page move locks that in...Which fine, and it may be a big improvement (who knows?), but it is surely more than a spelling correction. If some of the people watching the page don't agree with this change, what are their options? Move it back and initiate a WP:RM discussion? This suggests that WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are indeed operative for page moves, at least for technical requests... which seems to go against the discussions above.

Maybe its supposed to be like WP:CSD, where one person makes the request but an admin reviews it and decides? Does this happen? We need User:Anthony Appleyard or other admins to describe what their mindset is in approaching technical moves... is it, like CSD, "I agree, so it shall be done"? This is quite a bit of rather arbitrary admin decision power over a content question, isn't it? Of course admins are especially vetted, but aren't considered supereditors for content purposes.

The big questions I have are simple and I still don't have, but need, the answers:

  1. If an admin comes across a technical request that they guess might benefit from discussion, what is the usual procedure -- just remove it, or move it to "contested technical requests", or what?
  2. If I, as a non-admin page watcher, see a technical request that I guess might benefit from discussion, what is the usual and/or recommended procedure? 1) delete it, 2) move it to "contested technical requests", or 3) do neither since I'm not an admin and it's not my job... maybe attach a note to the request? Herostratus (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And now we've lost Nyloc nut, right against WP:COMMONNAME. Is this right to impose unilateral naming changes some special privilege only granted to the single-digit IP editors? (Who still know to use shibboleth terms like "peacock language"?) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Herostratus and Andy Dingley: As regards instruction set and instruction set architecture, I remember programming in machine code way back on an Atlas (computer), when machine code text consisted only of numbers and no letter code words for instructions, when a computer filled a room, and laptop computers and desktop computers were only science-fiction. And on several various computers since. (I still remember that on the Atlas, 117 meant "write a value into a store address".) On Wikipedia I have clicked the "discuss" option on many uncontroversial-formatted move requests which looked queryable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Machine code, Jesus. Hats off. Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

More undiscussed "technical requests" (part 2)[edit]

  • Why is it still so important to give hit-and-run IPs a route to secretly rename an article? Other editors are expected to discuss through talk:, and will be reprimanded if they don't. But if you know the RM/TR trick, anything can get moved and there is neither check, discussion nor even visibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some IPs who request very plausible technical moves (even some who have a different IP every time) so moves shouldn't be declined just on those grounds. The role of an admin closer is to guess whether a certain move is likely to be questioned, and is a sort of a filter to keep obviously harmless requests from needing to wait patiently for action in the queue of formal move discussions. I would generally look at the article talk before doing a move, to check for any whiff of past controversy, or any past move discussions. If a move asks for a title that is against policy or guidelines, I would simply decline it and (usually) leave a message on the requester's talk. If it's just an arguable case I'd click the 'Discuss' button and let a normal move discussion occur. User:Herostratus, If you personally disagree with a technical move request and are willing to make your opposition known, you could just click the 'Discuss' button yourself and then enter an Oppose vote in the move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus "OK well 2006 is 11 years ago, so it is certainly accepted procedure." That does not mean it has to be kept. It still has the same problems it had originally had, so what are the advantages of keeping it? -- PBS (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I don't understand all the issues here, but I've been using "Uncontroversial technical requests" somewhat extensively for many months (just ask Appleyard!) to help implement the WP:JR change that eliminated commas before Jr. and Sr. It generally takes me about an hour to build a group of 7 that I can't move myself. After the moves, I spend another 15 minutes on post-move copy edits. There are hundreds if not thousands of these left to do, of which perhaps half are "technical". Are you suggesting that I should be required to start an RM for each of these cases? ―Mandruss  11:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: To facilitate such regular activity, you should get the WP:page mover right. — JFG talk 11:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Briefly scanning that page, I'm not sure that would help. It says it would allow me to move without leaving a redirect. I want to leave a redirect, lest I break existing links that have yet to be modified. ―Mandruss  11:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: The point of moving without a redirect is to first clear the title you want to move to. Typically that title is already occupied by a redirect to the "wrong" title that you want to change, and has a few edits so you can't just roll over it. So you first move "Foo" to "Foo (obsolete)" with no redirect, then you perform your desired move from "Foobar" to "Foo" (with redirect), and finally you mark "Foo (obsolete)" with {{db-g6}} (speedy deletion) for an admin to clean up. More complex scenarios are also feasible, so that you never need admin help to perform any necessary title changes. — JFG talk 11:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Yikes! Is there a script or other tool that does all that with one click? If not, I'd want to continue to share the workload with the admin corps (who also should be interested in implementing community consensus). If there were too much complaint about that I'd just let it go and consider that I've done my bit toward this conversion. To date the admin corps has been very helpful; Appleyard has made a couple of inquiries as to how much is left but hasn't complained per se; one other admin said he was happy to help out; no feedback that I'm aware of from any other admin. ―Mandruss  12:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus and EdJohnston: The trouble with automating history-merging is that so many odd cases turn up, and the talk pages and subpages and talk subpages, including archives, of the pages which are to be merged, and any pre-existing deleted edits which are sitting under any of these or under the article, become a minefield. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Yes, you can use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js which performs the necessary moves to swap two titles. You'll still have to change the redirect target and the lead sentence. — JFG talk 12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK I get it. I moved a couple of technical requests to contested-technical. Process is a little kludgy and underdocumented. Couple questions I have:

  • Is it kosher to to just open the move discussion without commenting? I would think so.
  • I don't get the purpose of or understand the difference between the "Contested technical requests" section and the "Current discussions" section. If it's a contested technical request it's perforce a current discussion (right now Yolka (singer) is in both sections, which seems confusing). Would it be more streamlined to remove the "Contested technical requests", or is there a reason to segregate them? Herostratus (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The 'contested technical requests' section is probably a leftover from past disputes. The disadvantage of using that method is that any comments that people leave tend to disappear, unless explicitly copied into a real move discussion. But it could have an advantage. It may help to get early attention to move proposals from people who have WP:RM/TR watchlisted but might not notice the real move discussion. Any system that increases the number of comments on a move proposal is likely to be a good thing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I always copy such comments across, when I change a queried move request into a real move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: Yes, you can open the move discussion without voicing an opinion. You just "smell" the move might not be a slam-dunk, so you ask participants to discuss. That's what we should do when patrolling those technical requests. That's what I did for Yolka just today, then I added a comment after looking at the article and noticing the utter lack of sources or wikification.
@EdJohnston: The "contested technical requests" is indeed helpful for RM patrollers, but I think it's always better to push those to a real discussion, because that will be advertised on the article itself, so people who are either reading or editing the topic can immediately chime in. Before 2016, move requests were only visible on the talk page and on the centralized forum, so they had fewer opportunities to meet a pair of eyes. Now, given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. — JFG talk 16:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mandruss: I would see those as technical requests. They ought to link to whichever MOS argument finally settled the issue. If any particular page has a problem with that conclusion, then they will need to raise it back at that discussion. The difference is that it's an issue which has been discussed, albeit centrally, and it's assumed that all pages will be consistent. Maybe some aren't: maybe someone had a tribute act stage career as "Sammy Davis, Jr." with precisely that punctuation and for that case it matters. But in general, the question was a WP style one, and that's now sorted. The ones I'm complaining of are pure one-offs, where there hasn't been such open discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"whichever MOS argument finally settled the issue." There is no consensus for any MOS guideline to dictate article titles that is done through the article title policy and its naming conventions. -- PBS (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the advantage of having an expedited section for technical requests? Why not just have one requests section? Those pages that are not contentious will be moved after the usual time it takes from moves to work through the system. It fails safe, unlike the current method of having two streams (one of which is expedited) which as this section attests can fail and cause problems. -- PBS (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Sounds like a really good suggestion! People who perform mass moves generally have the "page mover" privilege anyway, so there should be very few "technical" moves that can't be performed immediately and need intervention. — JFG talk 16:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for clarification in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Commenting in a requested move[edit]

"The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments."

Could I get clarification on this? What is the thinking behind this statement?

Does this mean I should not say "Support" or "Oppose" unless I can add further argument? (What if I agree with previous arguments made and simply want to concur?) Or is this policy just there to tell editors that their opinions are not sufficient justification for a recommendation?

A L T E R C A R I   16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a reference to the WP:Vote essay. If you agree with previous arguments made and want to concur without adding any further rationale(s), fine, state the previously stated argument(s) that you agree with. wbm1058 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! —A L T E R C A R I   21:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Does WP:BOLD apply to page moves?[edit]

See: Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal to add a sentence about page moves. --В²C 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There are quite a few people at that discussion indicating that BOLD should apply to moves just like it applies to edits. Well, if that's the case, then we need to update WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:RM accordingly so the guidance is consistent. --В²C 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)