Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

RMtalk template

TJSpyke has readded the support and oppose subsections to the template for requested move discussions. I think it might be time to have some discussion about this here. The separate sections appear to have been added in December after no evidence of strong objections, but were reverted by Tariq here with a strong argument as to why they shouldn't be included; they were readded and then removed again in April. I don't think the number of participants is great enough in RM discussions that counts are needed, so there aren't problems like the ones in the restructuring of the Moralis RfA. We also have some editors worrying that the page is in violation of rules about straw polls, so I think deemphasizing the voting aspect of the discussions would be a good thing. Choosing one would also cut down on the size of text on the page here at WP:RM, because it currently pleads ignorance as to what text will be generated by the template. Thoughts? Dekimasu よ! 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to look into how and when the template's form was established, not least because of the notice on the main page that the template will produce either one thing or another (how could we not know?!). There are clearly big problems with casting discussions as polls, as the recent discussion here shows. I think it is best to remove the headers and require TJSpyke (or whoever) to demonstrate consensus for their inclusion before changing it back. I would say that the opinions here represent a good enough reason to get rid of them; I have seen no reason for their inclusion. --Stemonitis 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose subsections. Gives undue weight to the discussion in the table of contents, and it's easier to read comments in chronological order, so "per nom"s can be taken into consideration by whether they were made before or after refutations were made. –Pomte 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I disagree with downplaying {{WP:RMtalk}} in the proposed new RM header just because of the criticism that it looks like a vote. It clearly states that it is not a vote, but a discussion/survey. Even more so if we get rid of the Add * Support or * Oppose on a new line statement and just replace that with something like Feel free to comment on the proposal below, taking into consideration Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular the naming conventions. –Pomte 06:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a wider criticism, that the insistence on one template may be seen as part of the unnecessary bureaucracy of WP:RM. By changing it from "Thou shalt use this template!:" to "Any format will do, but here's a template you might like to use…:", the number of rigidly-applied rules drops by one, and (hopefully) the feeling of bureaucracy recedes a little as well.

Your suggested changes to the template look good to me; it's easy enough for someone to set up a straw poll later if it's thought useful, and the added links can only be a good thing. --Stemonitis 07:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What the @#$% happened to WP:RM? I go away for a couple of weeks and this? I understand Wikipedia has to be all Kumbaya but move proposers should at least be asked (firmly) to create a "Requested move" section for discussion even if there is to be no polling or anything that might actually stimulate some interest in the move. This new non-system simply discourages participation (I was already tired of creating missing RM sections before this change) and gives admins huge latitude in interpreting the discussions. — AjaxSmack 01:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience the single factor that determines whether a given move request is granted is how close the number of support votes compared to the number of oppose votes represents a consensus. At any given time during the polling it's useful to be able to quickly see how the polling is going. Separating and numbering the support and oppose votes facilitates this, and is why I support it. It's important to remind folks to specify the reasons they are voting the way that they are, but, in the end, it's usually the number of votes that matters. --Serge 07:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are giving enough credit to the people who close the requests. Anyway, it would only take a few seconds to count votes if that's what someone wanted to do. Dekimasu よ! 07:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's not of much use where there are only a few people participating, but this approach does not scale well. In situations that attract a lot of attention, the polling can get messy, and the separate sections add clarity and structure to what is going on. Plus, it's not only useful to the admin who closes the request, but to all those participating in the discussion it's useful to have a running count of how the decision is going. And any time the poll results have to be referred to in the future, the structure and counts are helpful. At least it has been to me. YMMV. --Serge 08:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Confused

What is the difference between Step 2 and Step 3 in Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Steps_for_requesting_a_.28possibly.29_controversial_page_move ??? Please simplify and remove redundancy. Thanks much! I'd do it myself bet I don't understand what is going on already so had better not. --Roger Chrisman 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference becomes clear when you look at the templates: {{move}} puts a big yellow box across the top of the talk page, so that everyone knows that a move request is underway, while {{WP:RMtalk}} creates a framework for the discussion. We are currently trying to simplify the instructions, and a possible replacement for the current instructions is visible at User:Stemonitis/RMheader (where they're now steps 1 & 2, not 2 & 3). Please help us to improve that; your input as a likely user of WP:RM is most valuable. Note that we will be down-playing the use of WP:RMtalk, because there has been (justified) criticism of the vote-like format of most move requests. --Stemonitis 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template substitution

Step 3 of Requesting a potentially controversial page move looks wrong, but it may just be me. I tried it and it didn't work, so I tried using "subst:WP:RM|OldName|NewName|reason for move" and that seemed to come up fine. StAnselm 06:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, and thanks for pointing it out. It now says what it always used to (before I messed it up), which is what you worked out. --Stemonitis 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot for creating each new daily section

For convenience, and for making this process a tiny bit less bureaucratic, there can be a bot to automatically create a new section for each day under #Other proposals at 0:00 UTC, so we can get rid of step 2b at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a potentially controversial page move. User:Eagle 101 has written a script to do this. Does anyone object? –Pomte 05:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

None at all, as long as it moves the notice in comments as well ("Please place requests at the top…"). Give the bot a few days to check it's working properly, and then remove step 2b. --Stemonitis 06:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason my crontab did not trigger but I manually ran the bot today, you may see at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=130460192&oldid=130458853 Cheers —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bundled renaming

I wish to propose a group of articles for renaming (micronations, some of which use long-form formal titles and some of which use short-form). Would WP:RM be the place to list them, and where should I create the discussion? If not here, what would be the correct venue? --kingboyk 13:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RM is an appropriate place. The important things are that every page should have a notice ({{multimove}}) alerting people to the request, and that the discussion should be held at a single location. If you cannot choose between the articles as a location for discussion, just choose one at random, and direct all the discussion to its talk page. For a wide-ranging move, with many complications (I am aware that micronations have led to some heated debate in the past), it may be worth testing the waters first, by placing an informal enquiry on some talk pages (given that there isn't a Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations that you could alert). An example of possible formatting for this page is given at WP:RM#Moving several pages at once. --Stemonitis 14:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for the prompt and helpful reply. There isn't a micronation WikiProject, but there is WT:MICRONAT. I think I may as well direct conversation to there than to a random article's talk page. Thanks again. --kingboyk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually going to hold off for now, because looking at it there's only a few exceptions. I'll have to investigate further to see if a bulk nomination would be best or nominating one or two which might need renaming. Thanks again. --kingboyk 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Instructions

What happened to the colourful boxes etc the instructions were in? Simply south 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note of caution to closers

For the last few days, Template:RMtalk has been subst'ing such that {{PAGENAME}} is shown as the original name of the page in the move request. If you close a discussion of this type by moving the page, it's necessary to remove PAGENAME from that line and replace it with the old title, or it looks like the old title and the requested title are the same. I've reverted the edits to the template and the RM header because I'm pretty sure we don't want to have to do that every time, and it would be very confusing if someone closed a move request and didn't know to change the parameter... but for the next 5 days or so, that will be the state of the move requests. Just a heads up. Dekimasu よ! 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, this was only a problem during May 16 and 17, and after that it has been subst'ing properly. I've readded the changes to the template and header. Please take care just over the next day or two when closing discussions. Dekimasu よ! 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

History merge

Can someone add WP:SPLICE/Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen linkage and information to the project page? It would seem like a good idea to point to it. 70.55.86.19 05:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's listed under Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header#What can be moved?. Dekimasu よ! 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves to Wikipedia:Proposed moves. I think "proposed moves" is a better title than "requested moves". Astroguy2 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the argument for this proposal? Simply stating that "I think it's better..." would be a rather hard sell. --Aarktica 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose — not least since one of the major functions of this page is for non-admin users to request that admins perform moves that they themselves cannot. These are the "uncontroversial moves", and are not intended to be proposals to be discussed but merely a request to be acted upon. The other cases ("potentially controversial moves") can be seen as requests to the community at large for a move, but the opposite does not work. This request/proposal (call it what you will) would only make sense if the scope of the page were restricted, and that in turn would entail splitting it into two separate pages. Some people already find it complicated, confusing and difficult to find, so splitting it up would only compound those problems, I feel. Oh, and it would render the most commonly used redirects (WP:RM and related initialisms) meaningless, but that's not a good reason in itself. --Stemonitis 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Proposals for moves happen on the talk page of the article in question. Once that's done, then they come here to request that somebody put it through. This isn't a discussion area. (Meaning WP:RM itself, not the talk page, which is, obviously, a talk page.) --Masamage ♫ 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There is one exception to that, which is when it is proposed that WP:RM itself is moved, such as now. --Stemonitis 17:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be an exception if this weren't the talk page of the page in question. --Masamage ♫ 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose They are more housekeeping requests for admin assistance, than formal proposals for controversial action here. As mentioned above, the proposals are kept to the respective talk pages. Archived concerns suggest that this implication would be unwanted. –Pomte 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose little semantic difference 132.205.44.134 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Approved move reverted

Recently, the article 2008 UEFA European Football Championship was successfully moved to UEFA Euro 2008 (a previous redirect to the former title) on June 5. However, the User:JRRobinson reverted the move without considering the legal request and not knowing that this action would be applied later to similar articles. After that revert was undone by User:Chaza93, the User:Kanabekobaton revert back. The move was requested and approved! It can't be reverted without another request submission. What should be done? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

???

An appropriate title. What happened to where it was possible to suggest that a page can be moved but the name be discussed? Simply south 13:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In step 3, set NewName as "To be determined" or "???" or something. –Pomte 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay if i add this section just below the steps?

Trying to decide a name

This is really a sub-step of step 2. If you are trying to decide a name but are unsure, also add {{moveoptions}} to the talk page of the page you are trying to move.

If using the template WP:RMtalk, add either to be decided or ??? to the "NewName" part, with your reason as usual for the move.

Now move to step 3.

(Or along the line of this) Simply south 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this could be clarified in a less spacious manner, and probably under Step 1. I would suggest expanding:
Step 1 — Add move template to talk page: Enter {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article.

to the following:

Step 1 — Add move template to talk page: Enter {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article, or add {{moveoptions}} if you are unsure of the best title for the article.

Is that clear enough do you think? --Stemonitis 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems okay although i still think ??? should be added to the new name part of the templates (in both step 2 and step 3). Simply south 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Several Pages

The instructions here arent very clear ¢нαzα93 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How about now? –Pomte 05:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ¢нαzα93 07:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Help me

I am wanting to request Click'N'Run to be moved, but I do not know the correct place. Here are the possible places:

"Click and Run"
"Click 'n' Run"
"Click n' Run"
"Click 'n Run"

additionally I would like to know if the "R" and "n" above should be capitalized. Tcrow777 talk 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to: Click'N'Run. Tcrow777 talk 04:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That page is almost empty so I would also like to collect ideas from here too. Tcrow777 talk 05:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of contested moves: subst:WP:RMC

The shifting of discussion about contested moves to the relevant talk pages seems to be working well. However, it can be confusing, and people are sometimes tempted to vote even though the request is unlikely to go through. In a attempt to clarify, I have tried to come up with a standardised text which can be put on talk pages which explains the procedure a bit more. When moving comments contesting a supposedly uncontroversial request to the article's talk page, consider using {{subst:Wikipedia:RMC}}, followed by the text copied from WP:RM. It's just a few sentences I knocked off quickly, so if anyone thinks the wording should be altered, I'm open to suggestions. --Stemonitis 11:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre, need admin to clear up page histories

Someone wrote over the pre disambig page with an article about a band called PRE (not sure if the band even meets Wikipedia:Notability (music)). I was going to simply do a copy and paste move of the article to PRE (band), and revert back to the last good version, but the newly created article would not have the edit history for the article about the band. So I'm asking an admin to take a look at this and please consider taking action to rectify. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen seems to be the best place to request this, even though this is more of a history split than a history merge. However, the band article doesn't assert notability other than the indie record label, so I reverted in the mean time. –Pomte 04:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving a talk page

The talk page for Bombing of Libya (April 1986) links as Talk:Operation El Dorado Canyon. I have tried to move it but i can't due to another page existing. This article was the subject of a naming edit war six months ago and as such is controversial. It is also uncontroversial in that the page was moved to its current heading six months ago. As such I have asked here for help as i don't know under which request heading to put it. Thankyou. Woodym555 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Talk page has now been moved, thanks Woodym555 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to this Requested Move?!

On 9 July (UTC) 2007, I requested that "Master boot record" be moved to "Master Boot Record" (just capitalize all three words). My post was removed in order like all the others, but the article still hasn't been changed; *nor* is it listed in the "Backlog" section! What happened? Here's what I posted using the itemized procedure:

Master boot record → Master Boot Record — Similar terms, such as Extended Boot Record (EBR) and Volume Boot Record (VBR) have the 'BR' capitalized as does the article's own statement: Master Boot Record (MBR). Many internal links already point to the capitalized phrase, and it exists as capitalized letters in most languages. (All the 'false starts' under the capitalized version page, precluded moving it myself.) —Daniel B. Sedory 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel B. Sedory 07:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No area for discussion was made, and so there was no discussion on the move. Without some discussion, it is impossible to gauge consensus. The request was slightly mis-handled in that nobody noticed that the request was incomplete before it got to the end of the usual five days. It is, however, normal practice for such incomplete requests to be simply removed after a short period (again, five days) if the request is not completed in that time. Incidentally, I see no reason why the term should be capitalised, so you might like to consider requesting that the others be moved in the other direction, if consistency is your primary aim. --Stemonitis 07:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize the move might even possibly be controversial. I've added the appropriate entry in the discussion page this time. It's not just for consistency (though I do believe in that), but because I think it should be capitalized; in spite of some recent lower-case examples I've seen over at the BBC's web pages. Since when are people supposed to write NASA as Nasa and ESA as Esa? I felt like asking that reporter when he or she will be writing BBC as only Bbc and speaking of the British broadcasting company. Daniel B. Sedory 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of potential language

I'm looking for somebody familiar with name conventions to review proposed language for a possible Requested Move. Could anybody check out the possible new Article Names and leave feedback there or on my Talk? The possible names are at:

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal#Trial balloon: Requested Move for "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid"

Please note that these are draft options only. thanks for your help! HG | Talk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

el cerrito

i put up el cerrito, contra costa county, california to be moved to simply el cerrito, california, what happened?Cholga^talK! 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[1] --Evil1987 01:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is consensus these days?

I understand polling is evil and so forth but how does a closing admin determine if there is consensus? Certainly everyone agreeing would qualify but that is unlikely in highly contested moves. In the recent case of Free City of Kraków there was a 12-8 "non-consensus" in favor of a move. At British Raj there was a 7-3 "non-consensus" in favor of a move. In each case, there were well-presented valid arguments on both sides. There was continuity of participation, no forum shopping and, in the case of British Raj, I informed everyone who had participated in naming discussions over the past year. And there were no threats of disruption if the result went a particular way. In each case 60% or more of those polled favored the move and yet the moves were denied. What, then, does it take for the mystical consensus to form? WP:CON is an unpithily (word?) vague tract that doesn't offer much guidance so I'm wondering what informs admins? I would argue that denial of moves in spite of wide support for them gives a feeling of de facto rule by admin writ and encourages working outside the system. One might rather make a controversial move undiscussed knowing that "consensus" to move it back might never be reached. — AjaxSmack 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in knowing this as well. Even in the case of the article mentioned, there is evidence and naming conventions backing up the move, which did not go through. Charles 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is when all parties agree to go with a solution even though some of them may not agree that it is the right solution or the best solution. Generally this is because everyone agrees that some solution is better than no solution even if it's worse than their favoured solution. When people do not agree to go along with someone else's solution, that is when there is no consensus. It can happen that you get consensus even when polling would indicate a 50-50 draw but one side feels strongly about the best solution and the other doesn't. In contrast you may not get consensus in a highly polarised situation even though polling would indicate that support is split 90-10 in favour of one of the solutions. So consensus is not really about the size of the majority in a poll. It is much more about the acceptability of each solution to the opposing side. The only place for polling is in the case where both solutions are acceptable to their opposition. In this case both solutions can be seen as consensus solutions but it makes sense to pick the majority one because it makes more people happy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this consensus apply when naming conventions, scholarly sources, etc are in favour of a move, but bias is shown in order to oppose the move? For instance, plenty of evidence in favour, little to none against the move, survey says to move and the moving side is just as passionate about explaining why it should be moved? Charles 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Bias in favour of a move is always shown by those who want it and bias against is shown by those who don't. Nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly natural. So there is always bias whether or not there is consensus. It won't necessarily stop a consensus from forming. For instance I am biased in favour of Vergil; others are biased in favour of Virgil. However WP calls him Virgil. The consensus is that calling him that is better than having a stupid edit war about it.

Naming conventions, sources, etc may be taken into account and may well override consensus totally. For example even if there is consensus to say "the Earth is flat" in an article it isn't going to happen if the majority of the scholarly sources don't agree that it is flat. NPOV and NOR override consensus.

As for passion, if there is only one passionate side (or none), consensus should be achievable. If there are two passionate sides it may not and so the closing admin may use other criteria to decide the move. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Derek's definition means in practice that any vandal with a pressure group can name an article anything he likes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. If people opposing the vandal are adamant that it shouldn't be moved then there is no consensus for the move and thus it shouldn't be moved. In any case even consensus isn't the be-all and end-all: The over-riding rule that I and most other admins would use is "This rule improves the encyclopedia, or at the least does not harm it". Even if there was 100% agreement to change the title of the article, Adolf Hitler, to The Evil Adolf Hitler, or to The Kindly Adolf Hitler, it should not be done since it violates one of the basic principles of WP and consensus can't be used to do that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You overlook what actually happens: the partisan moves it first, and then demands that we go to WP:RM to move it back. Since he has a faction behind him, which is adamant in typing Oppose, there is never consensus to do so - by Derek's definition (which is not, in practice, what we use elsewhere either: there is usually one editor adamantly opposed to any given deletion, for example.)

There isn't a faction in favor of Adolf Hitler, because we block them as they show up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What most concerns me about the Free City of Kraków is that most of the 10 opposes were "Like he said". In second place is that the arguments that were made on that side were almost entirely WP:OWN violations and appeals to policy for things it does not say. A minority with no arguments should not be able to block reasoning and evidence — or we will get even less reasoning and evidence than we do now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we be clear about what we're discussing here, please? There is nothing wrong with discussing either a) consensus in general, or b) the recent move request at Free City of Kraków, but this seems discussion so far seems to be one masquerading as the other. The two topics should be kept apart, in order for either of them to be productive. --Stemonitis 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

With due respect for the closing admin, the Free City was a particularly bad example of tendencies which are more widely spread, and of which any frequency is too often: National bloc !voting, sophistry, and null arguments masquerading as !votes. These do not constitute, they should not block, consensus of the evidence and policy. If someone wants other discussion of consensus in general, they should ask questions; that's all I have to say now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to User:Pmanderson (and I agree with some of his concerns), my original question had to do with consensus in general. Pulling away from Free City of Cracow and moving to British Raj as an example, 7 users supported a recent move proposal. All of the supporters were long-time and frequent contributors. Four had significant past contributions on India-related topics and both speakers of Commonwealth and American English were represented. I provided seven reasons for the move (all valid if a bit redundant) and only one supporting argument could be considered specious. Yet the unqualified preferences of these 7 contributors were ignored in the face of 3 users opposing the move (admittedly also with well-presented cases). If an informed, reasoned 70% threshold is still not consensus (90+%was mentioned) then the RM process is merely administrator fiat benefitting from others' research. If moves are to be largely decided by admins then it should be specified in the WP:RM guidlines. — AjaxSmack 04:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not have been surprised to have that closed move; nor would I have been outraged. But there were arguments against (I made two), and one of the support !votes was the argument that we should not follow British and Indian English on that article, which is -er- weak at best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacing Free City of Kraków with British Raj does nothing to generalise the question, but I'll take you at your word that it is the general question that wants answering. Firstly, to clarify that "90%" figure: that was a figure which would exemplify "a very clear majority", and nothing more. Where there was 90% support and both sides were behaving reasonably (i.e. had understood policy/guidelines and were discussing the request accordingly), I think anyone would close such a request as having consensus. That's rather a trivial case, and it's rather a trivial figure. It doesn't make any indication about how lower levels of support would be treated and was not intended to be seen as any kind of limit. The lower limits are indeed quite vague, and that may even be a good thing. The real issue here is that admins. are expected to exercise discretion when closing moves, and not to be mere vote counters. Without allowing a trustworthy disinterested editor (which is all an RM admin. is) to work out for him/herself who are the meat-puppets, who are the POV-pushers, who are the trolls, and who are the reasonable editors, move requests would routinely turn into smear campaigns. Because discretion is being exercised, though, the process necessarily loses some of its transparency, but that's a means to a worthwhile end. The alternative is to reduce it all to majority voting, and I don't think anyone here is in favour of that — it would open up the whole of article naming to meat-puppetry and vote stacking. The setup relies on all those taking part in discussions having faith that the administrator will do his/her best to assess the situation fairly. As long as that is assumed (which is usually the case), and as long as that assumption is justified (which I think is almost always the case), the system works. --Stemonitis 17:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You point about meat puppets, POV pushers, trolls, smearers, and vote stackers is well taken and that is how I previously understood the role of admins in the RM process. The reason I asked this question though was precisely because the example I gave had none of those elements. As you say, "the setup relies on all those taking part in discussions having faith that the administrator will do his/her best to assess the situation fairly" but because of your failure to clarify specifically how you choose decide against the clear, well-reasoned opinions of a majority of discussants, I no longer have such faith. Unless there is some more concrete evidence that WP:RM decisions are not admin fiat masked in vague undefinable consensus, I will rely on my own judgement and no longer propose moves here except in cases requiring admin assistance to move. — AjaxSmack 03:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass uncapitalization?

I was looking though Category:Tornado outbreaks by intensity and found about half of the article titles are in the form "(Date) (place) Tornado Outbreak" against our naming conventions saying that the last words should not be capitalized because they are not a proper noun. Is there a better way to propose a mass renaming other than following the instructions to mark each page? ←Ben^B4 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I better ask on WP:VPR. ←Ben^B4 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RM-nominated article moved "arbitrarily" without closing discussion

I nom'd Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine for RM on 22nd. Today, User:Neil, according to what he left on the article's talk page[2], "I just moved this completely [to George Foreman Grill ] arbitrarily without realising there was a requested move."

I wonder if I should move back, and should I give User:Neil a warning?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to warn someone for a good-faith edit. 60.40.52.234 23:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move after no consensus

I recently discovered an article that had been moved anyway after an RM with no consensus. Specifically, Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel → Nobel Prize in Economics back in September 2006 (1 year ago). Some questions about this:

What can be done when an article is moved after an RM with no consensus?
Was this specific move case justified? And if so, on what grounds?
Using a page title of Nobel Prize in Economics was obviously not satisfactory as the topic has come up again one year later. After a discussion about this on the talk page, Wikidea moved the page back to its original, longer title at 08:26, 28 September 2007. Then Vision Thing, who was opposed to the longer title, undid the move and changed the article back to Nobel Prize in Economics at 20:32, 28 September 2007. Now Wikidea has made a formal request in WP:RM and Vision Thing has started a survey. Now what? Should the survey that has now started on the page really be about moving Nobel Prize in Economics → Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel → Nobel Prize in Economics? It's already obvious that there will be no consensus again.

–panda 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is better to start from the established title, which in this case, would be where it's been for the last year. I hope it's not obvious that there will be no consensus, because that kind of defeats the purpose of holding discussion. If necessary, you can ask an administrator to protect the page against moves while the discussion is ongoing. Dekimasu よ! 16:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the established title was Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, since this was the article's title from around April 2003 until Sept 2006 (3+ years), which is a much longer time than the current title (1 year). Correct? –panda 21:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Which has precedence? Wikpedia policy such as WP:NCON or the results of a WP:RM survey that violate WP:NCON either via WP:CON or not? –panda 04:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i have severe objections over machinations and manipulations user panda is attempting here. there has been a spirited debate and discussion over the naming of this article, and with each request for comment, the consensus has favoured the name Nobel Prize in Economics. each time the consensus goes contrary to panda's view, he throws a wrench into the works with tweaks and addenda designed solely to muddle and frustrate the survey. once again, as panda is being rebuffed by consensus, his sole attempt here is to make a bad faith, end-run around policy. --emerson7 06:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be closing this discussion now and replying in detail on the relevant talk page. Emerson, please assume good faith and have another look at our canvassing guideline to make sure that you aren't violating it when you leave messages on the talk pages of users during a poll. Dekimasu よ! 11:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

CREEM

I'm thinking whether or not it's worth requesting CREEM being moved to Creem (magazine). As far as I know CREEM is not an acronym. The article was originally Creem (magazine) and then moved to CREEM by another editor sometime ago. One of the anonymous editors then subsequently removed all lower case lettering and italics arguing that it's CREEM not Creem. It's my understanding the current titling is in violation of WP:MOS-TM Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. But who am I to judge? MegX 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a clear-cut case per WP:MOS-TM and WP:MOSCAPS, hence it was dealt with pretty quickly. If anything, stuff like that should only be filed under "Uncontroversial proposals" if the Manual of Style-compliant variant is blocked by a redirect. - Cyrus XIII 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

I recently closed a move discussion at Talk:Iao Valley, and afterwards I received a message on my talk page, saying that my remarks in closing the discussion were inappropriate. I thought my words were appropriate, and in keeping with the role as the person closing the discussion, and I replied on my talk page to that effect. Having thought about it for a couple of days, I'm interested what other people think - if there's a consensus that I'm somehow overstepping my bounds in such closings, then I'll be sure to avoid that in the future.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the matter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's more to this story, I honestly don't see where you said or did anything even the least bit controversial. I guess this is an issue that comes up again and again but the Wikipedia community is unable to reach consensus, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)/Archive 3#Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks. Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii states that "Its secondary aim is to establish and document community guidelines and naming conventions for all Wikipedia articles dealing with Hawaiʻi" -- but if they have established any guidelines, I don't see where they have documented any. Ewlyahoocom 20:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacing a redirect

From the "Requesting uncontroversial moves" section:

"If the move is uncontroversial and the target name doesn't already exist (or is a simple redirect), you should move it yourself."

Is this saying to "copy 'n' paste" move a page if the target is only a redirect? What about the history? Some clarification is needed. Rocket000 03:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, don't copy/paste move. If the target is only a redirect to the current page, with no other edits in its history, then the move button should work for non-administrators. If that's not the case, then an administrator is needed to delete the history at the target before moving the article over it. Does that answer your question? Can it be phrased more clearly on the project page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that answers my question. Thanks! I was not aware the move function worked (for non-admins) when there was any content on the target page. I think "or is a simple redirect" should be re-worded to say something about the history or what is meant by a simple redirect (as opposed to a not-so-simple redirect). Rocket000 08:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Move notice in the main article

There is sometimes problem about the notice about the proposed move request. Accidentally it might result in improper move as happened to me. There is a RM template that can be put to the talk page but there is not a template that can be put in the main article to notice readers. I created this template: {{Movenotice|{{1}}}} that can alert readers. As an example please check this article Eduardo Pérez (exactly this revision [3]). What do you think about that, I think it should be a part of the RM process ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. This template should be deleted.

But most of all, Tulkolahten admits here that he made an "improper move", using that terminology. But he has taken no action to correct that mistake. He has not undone the improper move. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why it is a bad idea ? Please explain. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have slapped your newly invented template back on the page, after someone came from here and took it off. Fix that first, then we can discuss it here. Gene Nygaard 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not hold conversations ransom to some action being taken. If you wish Tulkolahten to remove the template, then please civilly explain what's wrong with it. I tend to agree that we don't need RM templates on the main article, but I haven't got a particularly compelling reason for that. What do you think Gene: why is that template a bad idea? Let's talk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

...And now it's taken down, so there should be no obstruction to having the discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to fix something somewhere and then you will gratefully discuss with me about this template? Or you think that any of my edit before obstruct this discussion? Who gave you this right? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The template is contrary to long-established procedures on WP:RM. It is not something to be taken lightly and implemented unilaterally without discussion.

We have long had (ever since I can remember):
- Step 1 — Add move template to talk page I'd be very surprised if this issue hasn't been discussed in the past here. I'm sure there are people still around who have been involved in setting up the procedures here, and writing the instructions which appear on the project page. I would certainly hope that some of them can drop in and enlighten us on that aspect of it.
- In addition to the long-standing established practices here, aren't there various other places where what should appear in the articles and what should appear on talk pages are discussed?
If you are considering moving an article, you should always check the talk page before doing so. Even if there isn't a requested move currently in progress, as there was on this page, it may have been discussed before, whether with or without a consensus having been reached, whether under the auspices of WP:RM or otherwise. If it has been discussed at all, you need to consider the reasons the name is where it is, addressing any points that have previously been made, if after considering the existing discussion, you still feel that it should be moved.
If you are watching a page on your watchlist, then you are watching its talk page, too.
- That is automatic. You cannot even change it. You will get notice on your watchlist of the talk page discussions, including the placement of requested moves and any discussion related to them.
In this particular case, Tulkolahten, it was more to it than that, as you and Carcharoth have already discussed in ping-pong fashion on both of your talk pages. You had special reason to believe that your move would be controversial, and thus a special obligation to check the talk page. Gene Nygaard 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I have observed that moves involving the addition or removal of diacritics tend to be controversial.

As to whether the move request template should go on the main article or on its talk page, it's true that we've done it one way for a long time. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best way, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the way it is for a particularly well-thought out reason (although it may be). I'm not certain where the most appropriate place is to discuss this question. This doesn't seem to be the worst place. Perhaps the question could be advertised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crown of Hungary

Rather than wait for the requested move to finish, an editor has copy and pasted content (I think) and therefore the history of this page has been disrupted. Can an administrator fix this properly? Thanks. Noel S McFerran 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Move tab

I cannot see the [move] tab in the pages. Is there any proble with MediaWiki software ?. --Nukeless 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that your account is only a couple of days old. The move tab should appear once the account has existed for some minimum amount of time - I think it's three or four days. If it's still not there in a couple of days, let us know, and we'll look into it. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)