Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by closing admins

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

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

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

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

I found that closure unorthodox as well (although I'm the nominator, so I'm probably biased). Nobody disputed that there were other uses for the term "St. Louis", just as nobody disputes that there are several uses for the term "Paris". The dispute was about primary topic, and that dispute seems to have been completely disregarded by the closer (judging by the closing comment only – knowing Anthony Appleyard I have no doubt that he carefully reads every discussion he closes). In any case, no consensus doesn't mean that the closing admin gets to do whatever they want (although in this case a "no consensus" closure would have had exactly the same result). I'm not even convinced that there was no consensus to move, but again I'm probably biased. Maybe someone uninvolved could have a look? Jafeluv (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've notified Anthony Appleyard of this thread, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this particular discussion also brings up the point about how to count "weak" votes compared to others. Do the two "weak oppose" votes get as much weight as the other oppose votes, 1/2, or even less? To me "weak" means a slight preference for the position indicated, but no real objection to the alternative. I would think such votes should only be considered, if, without them, consensus seems to be 50/50. In this case, most of the support votes were based in policy and guidelines, implied or directly, while the oppose votes seem more to be just "pure opinion" without any argument based in policy or guidelines (that unfortunately applies to the closing admin's "vote" as well).
So, yes, I too think someone else should take a closer look, though I would prefer that Anthony reconsider his decision, and at least clarify it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(written before I saw Born2cycle's comments below) Consensus means many things on Wikipedia, but typically it does not mean simple majority voting (as you might be implying with the 50/50 statement). Usually the level of support must be much higher than 50/50, but we also must also take the broader community's consensus (in the form of policies and guidelines) into the equation. In any case, simple vote-counting ("weak" or otherwise) itself is not a basis for smart consensus; it's only a useful shorthand for the actual arguments that follow. The arguments are the basis of smart consensus. In any case, you are right that in this case, the supports drew upon policies and guidelines more often, according more weight, consensus-wise. We should certainly wait for Anthony's input before anything is done, though. -kotra (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As an uninvolved administrator, I agree that the closing rationale was arbitrary, missing the point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also troubling to me is that the closing admin invoked a "casting vote". A closing statement is not any sort of vote, casting or otherwise. Closing admins/editors merely judge consensus based on the RM discussion and broader policy-based consensus. If we want to vote or introduce a new argument, we should participate in the discussion like everyone else, and let someone else close it. If the administrator had simply said "no consensus", it would have probably been accepted without complaint. -kotra (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the lesson here is that the appropriate decision was an uninformative "no consensus" close. I've heard at least some closing admins state that they consider it their job to not merely count the votes, but to consider the strength of the arguments being made. It would be helpful to see admins close discussions as not only "no consensus", but also something like "and both sides had compelling arguments, but neither won". But in a case in which only one side even has an argument (unless you count "has other uses" to be an argument), that side should be given preference, I would hope. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well good thing that the oppose voters (including me) weren't simply saying "has other uses," then, and made an argument.
Anyway, not here to rehash arguments on the move. Interested users should check the page for that. From a strictly bureaucratic perspective I'll say that the decision was probably borderline: could have been move, could have been no consensus, could have been don't move depending on how the strength of arguments are perceived and how seriously "weak" votes are taken. However, I will also remind that by default pages stay where they are. In fact, there used to be specific rules requiring a supermajority to move a page - this was precisely because on issues in which opinions are split 50/50, the only thing a Requested Move would generate would be a coinflip based on the admin, and even worse, said coinflips would continue with each RM. If the issue is not clear, then the page should not be moved simply so this yo-yo effect is avoided. While the supermajority isn't required anymore, the spirit of this still is pertinent to RM; pages should not be moved without clear consensus that isn't likely to change. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for implying that the oppose side had no argument. But applying your argument ("the article title should be unambiguous that this is the city, not the person") to, say, Paris (to use an unquestioned-except-by-Una primary topic) implies it should be at Paris, France to be unambiguous that it is about the city, and not the prince of Greek legends. In other words, it implicitly rests on the premise that the city is not the primary topic, without arguing that it is not primary. I'm sorry, but that's very weak.

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

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

(response to Born2cycle) Certainly I agree closers are not supposed to just count votes. I've elaborated on this above (written before I saw this most recent comment of yours), and I think mostly we're in agreement about how closing should be done. As for "no consensus", I personally would have probably moved it given the strength of the support arguments and the adherence to policy/guideline, but I agree with SnowFire that a "no consensus"-style closure could also have been valid. You're right though that an explanation of "no consensus" would be better than just "no consensus", full stop. Either would have been better than the actual reason given in this case, though. -kotra (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we're on the same page. Sorry if I was unclear earlier. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

I recommend giving the closing admin a bit more time to explain before anyone uncloses it. There's still a chance we're missing something, and there's no urgency here. -kotra (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply a need to take action before giving him some reasonable time, even a few days. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • OK, OK, sorry. To an American, St.Louis means firstly the big city St. Louis, Missouri. But that may not be a main primary meaning to many Europeans; I am British. OK, OK, leave it as redirecting to St. Louis, Missouri. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think the point was where the redirect points, but rather what the article should be called. If the city is considered primary topic, it should be at its most common name as specified in policy: "If there are several articles with the same name, it may be that one concerns the primary topic for that name; if so, that one keeps the common name, and the others must be disambiguated." If there's no primary topic, the redirect should point to the disambiguation page per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current situation is just not right unless you consider this a Danzig-type situation where 1) the city is a primary topic for the name "St. Louis" and 2) the most common name for the city is "St. Louis, Missouri", not "St. Louis". I don't see a consensus for such a setting in the discussion, although I guess a "no consensus" close would warrant keeping the status quo. Jafeluv (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Even a search for "St. Louis" at google.co.uk shows that the U.S. city is the primary topic. For example, one of the top hits is the BBC weather page about "St. Louis, USA". Same with the results at books.google.com. I would hope that move requests are generally given more consideration than is being exhibited here. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal really. I think I'm just going to have a nice warm cup of WP:DGAF and maybe try again in six months to see what the consensus is then. In the meantime, I think the readers can handle seeing the "redirected from St. Louis" hatnote when their search ends up in the St. Louis, Missouri article. Jafeluv (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Anthony's explanation here really does leave much to be desired. I've been waffling on whether to re-open the discussion, but I've decided it's not worth any potential drama. If there is any lesson to take from this, it's that we should remember to be well-reasoned in our closing rationales and refrain from introducing new arguments there. Now pour me a cup of that DGAF, Jafeluv. -kotra (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

So can we get the bot to at least recognize:

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

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

If you'd like, I could make an extended= parameter that extends the discussion by the amount of time given. Most people, I would imagine, would spring for extended=7 days. (The amount of time stated for the extension would be relative to the date of the nomination). @harej 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be a big change to make the bot react to the {{relist}} template? I think that's what they do over at AfD. If the template could be added in the middle of the discussion, the nominator's rationale would stay intact and it would be clear at first glance what (if anything) has happened after the relisting. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Either would work for me. So for the parameter, may I assume this would be a change to {{movereq}}? That is, we would add to an existing resquest {{movereq|Article Title|extended=7}}?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of the relist template being added in the discussion at the point in time when the relisting is done. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I see no reason for not doing it the way we have been doing it - just edit the line under "movereq" to add "Relisted ~~~~" so that it shows up in the front of the line. It does not matter at all that the "short reason" is lost. But by the way, make sure you add a newline so that it does not run all together with the short reason. If you were looking for your edit to show up immediately, it doesn't happen. The bot only comes along once every half hour. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So instead of looking like this on the talk page:

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

It should look like this:

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

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

That still leaves a possibility of confusion for users who see the nomination as to who the nominator is. "Relisted" may be almost meaningless for some user not familiar with process or may be glossed over even if it would be understood. On a quick glance, what a person takes in is the graphic illustration of the move (Article Name → New Article name) followed immediately by a user's name. It's no stretch to imagine someone taking from that that the nominator is the name listed right there. Having {{relist}} be recognized by the bot is probably best but I don't know how difficult that might be. If it's too much and the extended= parameter is easy harej, can you go ahead and do it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly nobody should care who the nominator is. Decisions should be made on their merit, not on who made the suggestion. In any case you have to go to the talk page to discuss it, where it all becomes clear. The purpose of WP:RM is only to make a list of the proposals, not to discuss them. Showing the ones that are relisted as relisted is helpful because it indicates the ones that no one has looked at or need a second look. At that point that is the salient feature that needs to be in the list, not the original reason for listing the move request. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot not working

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

Working once more. @harej 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that adding a line of text like that when it is not working is a good idea. In most cases, like this, it takes me a couple of hours to notice. In case anyone cares, the line used is repeated below, located at the top of the current date that the bot failed. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

In this particular case, the bot broke without me knowing. Alas, it was for the same reason as another time. I will have to fix that. @harej 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
See I would rather you be working on fixing things like that than in adding completely unneeded functions. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Though really, I could do both. But fixing what's broken is definitely more important than feature creep (which explains why I decided on a low-tech means of relisting discussions, a means which has since caught on). @harej 19:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Closure templates?

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

They're mentioned in the Closing instructions. Admittedly a bit buried though. -kotra (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not good enough. They need far more prominence and need to be on this page! Jubilee♫clipman 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Closing discussions is a somewhat complex procedure that requires people understand a few more things than just the closure templates. I think that putting just the templates on this page would not be a good idea, and adding the full closing instructions would be way too much. I think the instructions page could be better organized though, and the link to it more prominent (or a second, in-prose link to it would be good). -kotra (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair points. The Closing Instructions page needs more work and the link to it much clearer, I agree. Jubilee♫clipman 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Closure tags are rather buried

(referring to the closing instructions page)

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

I personally am thinking about how to rewrite this page. I find that too much airtime is given to minutiae, with not enough prominence given to the really important part: how to properly end the move discussion. @harej 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Moved from WT:RM/Closing instructions to keep all discussion in one place. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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


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

  • Strong support: For the reason given above. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The process page has hundreds of requests (plural) on it and they have all been requested (past tense). Yes, the move has not been made yet but the request to move has, which is what is past tense. The move target is not grammatical. You can't even use it in a sentence except if you want to sound like you speak broken English, e.g., "I went to request move". I could possibly see Wikipedia:Move requests as a plausible substitute but it's not better or needed and doesn't help clarify anything.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Requested moves" is a noun phrase; "request move" is a verb phrase. The former is clearly more appropriate. Powers T 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For crying out loud. If there is an assignment at work that I want, I request it. It then becomes an assignment I requested, or a "requested assignment", even though it's not yet assigned to me nor to anyone else yet. Same here. If I want to move A to B, I submit a request here for that move to take place; it then becomes a requested move. Later it might be a rejected move, or supported move, and finally an actualized (if you will) move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fuhghettaboutit sums it up very well. Besides: Solution in search of a problem. — Ched :  ?  23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment *Technically* you have a point, as "requested moves" makes it sound like an archived list of all the pages that have been moved per request, but most English speakers don't think that way (e.g. if someone says "Florida is preparing for a predicted late-season hurricane" that doesn't mean it has already happened) and "requested moves" fits the pattern of other Wikipedia pages with similar names. If this were to be renamed to anything I would have to suggest "requests for page moves", but I would not recommend that because the current name is much shorter and as I said above most users even on a knowledge-oriented site like Wikipedia don't really think about minor logical inconsistences in everyday grammatical constructions. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Born2cycle. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is a list of requested moves here, and what's the point of this excercise anyways? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose the moves (more than 1) are requested first. Although "request" works OK from potential requestee's view. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absolutely The word "moves" is a plural noun in this case—not an action verb!Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See passive participle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to WP:HAGGER?????. Not. But I thought that was the plan. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. First, there are many, not one, requests. Secondly, the procedure for requesting a move states that it must be discussed first at the article's discussion page, so the request, when it gets to this page, has already been proposed. Ergo, the present tense would be wrong. In this page, we deal with requested moves.--camr nag 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Moved

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

Multimove bot message

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

It happened because the page was listed as both the 1st request and the 4th request; all requests numbered 2 through infinity get the notification. I set it straight here. @harej 00:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops. They all looked the same. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Move requests from unregistered or unconfirmed users

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

Any uncontroversial move requests can be made at the uncontroversial requests section, including those that are made simply because the person does not have an account. @harej 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The instructions need to be rewritten to reflect that, then. If we get more requests from unconfirmed users, the list would probably have to be divided in two, to increase efficiency. Cenarium (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I already clarified the directions. There is no need to divide the list into two. @harej 13:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have clarified the header. This need may come if the volume becomes too high, but I agree there's no need currently. Cenarium (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Help/advice on reverting mass moves

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

I have remove your copy of this on the header page as it was in the wrong place. I have also performed the reversions as requested. If there is any problems then drop me a note on my talk page. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you.--Ridge Runner (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bardiya of Persia#Requested move

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

Buffalo Stampede (PBL) -> Buffalo Stampede

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

This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions on the project page. Powers T 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't request the move here. I requested the move as per instructions. See the project page. It says to post here if you need help in executing the move. LightningMan (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. It was my impression that such a thing would occur whenever an admin got around to evaluating the discussion results. I don't see any recommendation on the project page to bring such requests here. Powers T 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
That's because it says it on the Talk page for the page you're moving:

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

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

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

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

My proposal was detailed to the extreme, and included excerpts from university publications (and now extensive Google tests) presented for the consideration of an interested Wikipedian. User:Imbris disagrees with the move, and feels he must sabotage it somehow before it goes through. This is just the last of his methods, previous ones including obviously fake sockpuppeteering accusations, and deliberate malicious altering of other users' talkpage posts [2]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Mr. DIREKTOR wrote the intro of the request for the move in a not neutral manner, accusatory towards previous users of the article. He has also selected a few sources that support his POV but there are many many more sources that describe the topic, and describe it in a manner that supports the current compromisal title. His post was not detailed but slanted the evidence, the attempts to solve the request by only Google test, which is not conclusive, were successfully opposed by User:Surtsicna and myself.
The intro and the closing argument of the request if full of dubious WP:OR (the misinterpretation of the Hague Conventions) and such.
Imbris (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Contested_requests says that such request should be in the other proposals section. -- Imbris (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone move the request proposal to the proper place, the section Other proposals, also the request should be reduced. User:Knepflerle warned the requestor to shorten, and User:harej agrees to reduce the size of the request. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


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

The comment by User:DIREKTOR is not valid, the comment contradict Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:AGF, nobody requested the deletion of his request but rephrasing, reducing in size and format, as well as placing it a the proper place per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Contested requests. The fact is that WP:Concensus will prevail and that concensus is based not on the quantity of meat but of its quality. -- Imbris (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Should I contact WP:AN for this issue. -- Imbris (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Still no answer from the closing admin, or other editors who deal with the requests on moves. Why is that? -- Imbris (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta was a compromise, and as such, most acceptable. I oppose the move to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta or Prince Aimone of Savoy, Duke of Aosta because the previous move was out-of-procedure, counting the votes of users who acted in revenge, who did not supply any relevant policies and who supported the proponent of the request on the basis of their personal faith in everything that editor does.
The entire request was written in a biased way, full of supposed facts supplied by the proponent.
This section will deal with the out-of-procedure and irregular move.
Imbris (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note: The Imbris account has been indef-blocked for sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with moving a page

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

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

Creating move request question

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

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

Kiev

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

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

Closing instructions

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

I think it's much cleaner, but would suggest that
"If there is no consensus, the status quo is maintained."
be changed to
"If there is no consensus, the article is left at most recent stable name."
for consistency with the expanded instructions in the following section. Kanguole 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
That is a good idea. @harej 13:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User space --> mainspace moves

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

I have found in some instances that the move request process is used actually as a form of peer review -- before it's sent to the big land of articles, they want to make sure it belongs first. @harej 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So should the mover evaluate the notability of the article? I'm a bit uneasy about doing that because, even though notability is raised as a concern, there is usually enough stated notability that it would go to AfD rather than CSD and one person does not make a consensus. I guess, what I'm asking is, how would one discern the intent of the requester?--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You can continue to treat them as uncontroversial, procedural moves, though I would advise against that in obvious cases. If there is further agreement, we should amend WP:RM to note that requests from user space to article space should be treated as procedural. @harej 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
What I normally do is clean them up a little and move them to un-controversial. Why I did not do that on the last one I have no explanation whatsoever. As stated, notability is not an issue, but being ready for prime time is, and mostly a user is asking, is this ok now? I think that wp:My first article even suggests such a step. I see however, that sends you to help:move, which sends you here (to wp:rm), which leaves users scratching their head wondering which section to use. However, their move still could be either controversial or un-controversial, so I think it is best for them to do the proper head scratching to see which to use, rather than us telling them. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bot name

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

Is User:Rmbot too obvious? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess that could also be RM bot, or RMbot though. It's funny that I have always thought of RFC bot as Rfcbot. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Voorweg Laag RandstadRail station to Voorweg RandstadRail station

Request for move

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

Bot question (listing order)

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

Please! And it was bad enough when the bot was flipping them back and forth when they had the same time stamp. This reverse order is terrible. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Just another example of why this process didn't need a bot in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have noticed, but it has been fixed for like a day now. 199.125's comment is kind of ironic since the glitch was caused by my fix to the switching-back-and-forth-when-the-timestamps-were-the-same bug. In any case, both problems are gone now. @harej 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is more likely to get an ouch when something is broken than a thanks when it is fixed, especially in the case of the bot when we never know what it is doing. I have to second JPG's remark because I still find most of my time spent fixing bot glitches rather than looking at move requests. The following was to fix a missing timestamp.[5][6] 199.125.109.126 (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot is definitely much more robust than it used to be. I've taken the two other redirects, {{naming}} and {{afr}}, and placed similar notices on them. As you see a glitch, please tell me so that you don't have to keep doing by hand what the bot could correct. Furthermore, once the Git repository is up and running, I will be able to open up the code development to more people. (While I am at it, I should get a legit bug tracker). @harej 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I db'd afr because there is no history that needs to be saved. Easier to just do that in case someone wants to use afr as a template for something in the future. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of move

I've reverted the move of Elian Gonzalez affair to the accented form of the name. No link to the request was put on the talk page, where there was a fairly recent discussion which ended by favoring the unaccented form. I am not sure if this was listed as an uncontroversial move, but it obviously isn't one. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BRFA

The RFC bot spinoff dedicated to this process is now up for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RM bot. @harej 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Subst:Move-multi

Good news, everyone! I have invented a template, {{subst:move-multi}}, which is similar to {{subst:move}} except used for multi-moves. Up to 10 pages are supported. I have added the documentation to it on WP:RM (which I will put on the actual template documentation shortly). This should make it easier for people to file properly-formatted multi-moves. (I'm such a bureaucracy wonk. I am saying things like "properly-formatted multi-moves".) @harej 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the prior way of doing this still works, since all this template does is make doing that easier. If you have memorized how to do multi-moves, don't worry about learning this new way (unless you want to). @harej 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
When you get time can you add support for 20 or 30 article moves? Eleven and twelve are not unheard of here. I think the Colombia move was closer to thirty. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added support for up to 20. Anything more would be an unnecessary server strain, considering how rare >20-article multimove requests are. (I have also based this standard on Template:Navbox, which supports a maximum of 20 rows). @harej 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unclear page

This page is unclear about the question whether to place a move request on this page or (only) on the talk page. Uncontroversial moves on this page and potentially controversial moves on the talk page, right? Please, make this page more user friendly. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Basically, if there is not a chance that anyone would oppose the requested page move, you can simply list it on WP:RM's uncontroversial moves section. Otherwise, you request through the article's talk page and a discussion takes place. @harej 22:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of animal RMs

I recently proposed a lot of RMs for rodents, moving them to their scientific names (see User:Ucucha/Titles for an overview of discussions, plus relevant arguments), in agreement with consensus at a WikiProject discussion and four RMs (so far--several others are pending without any opposes). Una Smith just suggested at my talk page that proposing lots of RMs, as I have been doing, is probably not the most efficient way to handle this, and I quite agree (User talk:Ucucha#Requested moves). However, because I am handling these pages one by one, rewriting and (slightly) expanding them in the process, I don't like the idea of a mass RM for all these pages (there are hundreds more pages which should be moved according to the same arguments I used in previous discussions). Any thoughts on how to handle this? Ucucha 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggested bundling them. I would like to gather Ucucha's latest batch of proposals to move water rat articles, into one multimove type proposal. --Una Smith (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's the best way--I was seeing more difficulties than there really are. I now have twelve RM's put together on Talk:Coues's Rice Rat. Ucucha 02:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedures at Talk:Avatar

Procedures have not been strictly followed regarding opening and closing requested move debates at Talk:Avatar and one editor objected strongly; the ensuing debate it is becoming a distraction from the move request itself. Could an experienced and uninvolved editor, preferably a respected admin, take a look and resolve any procedural issues? Many thanks --MegaSloth (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the procedural error. But when dealing on an apparently touchy topic, I will profess that I followed the exact instructions given in the template which say "the discussion should be closed after 7 days". I know I had an option to reopen the debate.
However, I like User:Megasloth, am convinced that the editors on that religiously based page are putting their well intentioned loyalty above the good of a digital encyclopedia and would also appreciate a few more respected admins to comment. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

A while ago, I changed the "Contested moves" section to be a subsection of "Uncontroversial moves", since that list was part of that process. Then that was quickly reverted. I don't mind either way, but why is Contested Moves maintained as a separate section? @harej 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Because a contested uncontroversial move is nearly an oxymoron. JPG-GR (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)

Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.
WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.
Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
The above user tried to close the request on New Moon and claim the result was "Keep as it" despite the fact that its only been 5 days (not 7) and the current consensus is to move (it's 5 support, 2 oppose). They also ignore the fact that the studio itself considers "The Twilight Sage" to be part of the official names and that all of the typical movie sites (like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, etc.) all consider "The Twilight Saga" part of the names. So both the official and common names use "The Twilight Saga". Assuming the above user doesn't try to break the move discussion guideline to try and make sure they get their way, maybe we can continue the discussion)TJ Spyke 23:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The studio MARKETS the movie as The Twilight Saga: New Moon. The sites like RT, BOM, list the movie as so because the movie markets it that way. They do not take into consideration marketing and fail to actually have any say what a movie is called on Wikipedia. However, the quote above clearly states from a STUDO representative, yes, a guy who actually works for Summit Entertainment, that The Twilight Saga: is there for the soul purpose of grabbing people who liked Twilight to see the sequels and for other people to actually recognize that New Moon is related to Twilight. On Wikipedia, we have this established. As an added factor, we also have a great option of having a line in the opening sentence of the article displaying that "Yeah, we have the article as New Moon so other people won't be confused, but we acknowledge the fact that there is another name and that it is marketed and seen on posters as The Twilight Saga: New Moon."ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
The studio, both on its website and the New Moon website say the name is "The Twilight Sage: New Moon". The "source" you are stating is almost a year old and out of date (movie names do change over time). Articles on Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible, the movies name is NOT "New Moon", that is just a short name used by some fans. You keep ignoring the fact that the studio currently says the name includes "The Twilight Saga". Based on the move request, it seems the consensus agrees with me. TJ Spyke 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The user is now canvassing to try and get people to support him, he has posted the same 4-paragraph plea to at least 7 users asking them to help oppose the move. TJ Spyke 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bombshells

Would an admin please move Bombshells now? The move is not controversial but requires an admin because the target is on a blacklist. This is a new article, hence candidate for "Did You Know?" if moved before 7 days. --Una Smith (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

NS VIRM to NS DD-IRM

Requested move

{{subst:NS VIRM|NS DD-IRM}} Can you move this, to its proper name. —Chris0693 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Those of you involved in this process (if any of you are left...) should take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Consolidation. The apparently building consensus there to make a change may involve this process.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Seven sisters group → Seven Sisters Group

This is primarily a question rather than a requested move. Should Seven sisters group be moved to Seven Sisters Group? The organization writes its name in lower-case letters. If the article had been created within the past week, I would have moved it, but since it was created with the existing capitalization in March 2009, I thought that I should ask here first. - Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bringing back moveheader

Some time ago, the bot automatically added {{moveheader}} to the talk pages of articles where a requested move was in progress. After many high-profile glitches, I disabled this. Considering that the bot is more robust than it used to be, I am considering bringing this back. (The bot will also remove the headers once it's done). Is it worth bringing it back or do we not really care about moveheaders anymore? @harej 07:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Section headers

Please bring back English headers per the MoS. The ISO dates are not called out in this case. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done @harej 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot faulty?

I placed a template which should have within 15 minuites was supposed to have added it to this page. It has been an hour since I placed that template and nothing has been added so I'm wondering is there something wrong with the bot? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

it has been resolved. @harej 02:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Correcting an error in request

I had a brain fart when requesting a page move from Boardercross (see talk) to Snowboard cross; I accidentally capitalized the "c" in cross. I have corrected the error (diff) on the linked talk page (as instructed here), but the bot has not picked up the change and it is still listed as Boardercross→Snowboard Cross here. Help, please? (I will also ask at User_talk:RM_bot.) Wine Guy Talk 22:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. [7]. @harej 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I don't know how I missed that. Feel free to whack me with a trout. Thanks. Wine Guy Talk 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lemon (disambiguation)

I used the multimove template on Talk:Lemon (disambiguation). It somehow mixed up the targets...? See the recent page history. --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem arose because Una placed the page the {{movereq}} was placed on under |current2= in the movereq template. Among other things, this caused the bot to place a notice of ongoing discussion at the wrong page (Talk:Lemon (disambiguation) instead of Talk:Lemon). Harej, you might want to consider whether the bot should be robust enough to prevent this. Ucucha 08:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kūnyú Wànguó Quántú

[Text and template moved to article talk page]. Tevildo (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Backlog in Category:Requests to move a userspace draft

Category:Requests to move a userspace draft needs attention. Sole Soul (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RM for the article "Jew"

The RM at Talk:Jew#Requested move has been turned into a bit of a mess after a disgruntled user reverted the move. The same user then started an ANI against the admin who closed it. Some additional attention in resolving that situation, one way or another, would be appreciated by all I'm sure. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

renaming a template

When were templates moved out of scope for this process? See Template talk:Avatar and Template talk:Avatar (film) where it is mentioned that we should use WP:TFD instead. But WP:TFD has no way to rename them, they handle merging and deleting templates. TFD doesn't have a template for it, only the deletion template template:TFD... Is this template change in scope because of the frequent backlogs from this process (WP:RM) ? 76.66.195.93 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Humm... maybe I was thinking of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? I'll be happy to revert myself if it turns out that I was mistaken. There was an earlier discussion that pretty much established this though, I think... if I can find it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah yea, I was thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Unreferenced#Requested_merge.2Fredirect Now that I think on it more though, that's not directly relevant, since the nom there was asking to turn one exiting template into a redirect pointing to another existing template. Anyway, let's give this 24 hours to see what others say. I tend to think that Wikipedia:Templates for discussion would generally be more appropriate for template renames regardless, primarily due to the technical aspects involved with templates, and that process is supposed to be about more then just deletion now anyway. I left a note on Plastikspork (talk · contribs) talk page pointing here, so hopefully we'll get his opinion as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The most common procedure for renaming a template (that I have seen) has been to start a proposal on the talk page of the template. This discussion can be publicized in the various WikiProjects to make sure anyone who is interested has a chance to provide input. This sometimes works well, for example here. Sometimes it doesn't work so well, for example here. One of the many outcomes of a TFD may be move, but I don't think I have ever seen one that starts out with that as the proposed outcome. That's not to say that it couldn't become a common practice in the future, but at the current moment, it doesn't appear to be the case. I can see pros and cons of using TFD as a place for proposing template moves, however, as it was stated before, I don't think there is currently a formal procedure for it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right of course, as I said above (and I'll likely revert myself on the two template talk pages linked to above, later), but the question here now is: do you think that it's best to keep template moves at RM, or to fold them into WP:TFD? I don't really care either way, personally, but Templates are slightly different in character from articles. There's little doubt that RM is primarily designed to handle articles after all, is there?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way. If you haven't already, you could always post a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, and one of the WP:VP. I don't know if anyone feels strongly enough about it to write up a formal policy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk)
RM seems a perfectly valid way to handle template moves. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 26 - they said it was highly inappropriate to list renames there. 76.66.192.15 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
And maybe this is my oldschoolness showing, but it seems inappropriate to list anything on TFD but a deletion request. harej 05:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
based on what happened here, it doesn't seem that you're alone. It might be time to open a discussion at TFD about reverting the name change there. If the participants in that process don't want to deal with anything other then deletions, then we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:Templates for discussion deals with deletions and merges. The merging of templates is more complicated than the merging of articles. That's why the name was changed from "Templates for deletion", because it was a better venue for handling template merges than WP:Proposed mergers was. Renaming a template, on the other hand, is not any different from renaming an article, so even after the name change, the instructions for TFD have continued to say to take renaming discussions to WP:Requested moves (see WP:TFD#What not to propose for discussion here). --RL0919 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Made (uncontroversial) move request, request removed, page not moved

What can I assume, that the page won't be moved at all, or that the page mover will be getting around to it? Pasta of Muppets (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the page you are talking about? Ucucha 00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Judas Ø, I requested it to be moved to Judas O.I can't move it because the latter article is redirected to the first. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It's being discussed on the talk page now. Jafeluv (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of French titles listed as uncontroversial

How is it that a number of persons with French titles being Anglicized already have been moved and/or are listed under "Uncontroversial requests"?

Today, there are more than a dozen people with "d'Orléans" as part of the name being listed for moving to "of Orléans". Surely that is incorrect, as English sources almost always use the French "d'Orléans" (who has ever heard of "Madame of Pompadour", the "Marquis of Sade" or "Otto of Bismark"?). I only became aware of this after seeing the move for Princess Clémentine d'Orléans (no discussion), though I expect it has happened, and I'm unsure as to how to contest these. Is there is a way to stop this from happening again. • Astynax talk 20:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I saw all those, and I was sure some discussion would happen & prevent...so I said nothing. The "Marquis of Sade" is an excellent example. Actually, I just checked and it looks like they weren't moved or have been restored...no worries. — Avé 08:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here also. Unfortunately, Wiki Naming Conventions aren't very specific apart from focusing on British titles. Though there seems to be a consensus for following English-language conventions for names of nobility, I don't see where this has never been integrated into the guideline page(s). In the case of France, conventional usage seems to be to leave the French titles and house/place name unanglicized. You are correct that someone has put the articles back, but I'm not sure that someone might not request a move again. Not "uncontroversial" in any case. • Astynax talk 08:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

An editor is cut-and-paste moving at Nimród Antal. Could someone please have a look and see what should be done? Ucucha 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I undid the edits and left a note on the user's talk page. - Eureka Lott 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Diadem (diambiguation)

The bot won't let me correct my typo above - DiSambiguation in this Feb 10 nomination. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The bot looks at the {{movereq}} template, where you had not corrected the typo. It should be fine now. Ucucha 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - I thought I had. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Change Wikipedia:RM into a disambig page?

In Wikipedia, RM or rm can mean:

{{disambig}}

Like this?, instead of the current overloaded hatlink on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Move has been carried out" - but it hasn't

Don't quite know why this is happening, but I requested a potentially controversial move of Banciao Station to Banqiao Station, and the template text on the talk page says the move has already been carried out. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. Taiwantaffy (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me. Not sure what's going on. Heavydata (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure which article Heavydata's talking about, but in Taiwantaffy's case we have an article Banciao Station (with redirect Banqiao Station) but a talk page Talk:Banqiao Station (with redirect Talk:Banciao Station).
Looking at the histories, it's a bit complicated. Basically, it's a cut and paste move from January, that was first undone and then accepted (see history of Banciao Station, history of Banqiao Station). I have listed them at WP:REPAIR. I haven't looked at the whys and wherefores of the naming, but Banciao seems to be the one accepted at the moment, so I've asked it to be merged there. Pfainuk talk 12:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Community de-adminship

For those that are interested there is a Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/RfC for which I gave this process as one where administrators might hesitate to close controversial some moves if it could lead to them facing a "Community de-adminship" process. If you have not already done so there are a couple of days left before the RfC poll closes, so there is time to express an opinion as others who lurk here may hold a different emphasis to me, and think that such a process would on balance improve the decision making here. -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Philippine TV series on Wikipedia

I originally brought this issue at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, but they declined.

The page was originally Diva (TV series) until User:Peparazzi moved it to Diva (Philippine TV series) and Diva (Philippines TV series). I just wanted to correct it because there is no other series in Wikipedia that is called Diva, so the "Philippines" in the title, that Peparazzi added, is not needed. However, I was pointed out that there is another series titled Diva on IMDb, however, is there need to have to move Diva (TV series) to Diva (Philippine TV series) when the other Diva on IMDb do not have a Wiki page no seems to be interested into making one. I believe while there is no page for the Diva on IMDb, Diva 2010 series is the most notable to recieve the "(TV series)" title, and not "(Philippine TV series)".

Can you help me find a solution to restore it to Diva (TV series), this isn't the first time this happened, Peparazzi also redirected First Time (TV series) to First Time (Philippine TV series), which I also tried fixing. In this case, there is no other TV series on IMDb titled First Time. It is only right that the "Philippine" in the page title removed. Another page is Panday Kidz, it was originally Panday Kids, however the series image uploaded on Wiki has a "z" instead of "s", however the shows' official site titles the series as "Panday Kids", with an "s" and not with a "z".

Please consider my request and action is taken. Thank you very much for the time. -- ISWAK3 (talk) 13.45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: user User:Peparazzi had also moved The Last Prince to The Last Prince (Philippine TV series), without reason really, even though there is only one series or page in Wiki called "The Last Prince" -- ISWAK3 (talk) 20.22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Whether they're move or not, wouldn't they mean exactly the same anyway? Afterall, they were all really made by the Philippines.
True. But isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Therefore, shouldnt we strive tomake it enclopedic by having the proper page titles?-- ISWAK3 (talk) 20.54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This is possibly an example of systematic POV bias. Either this is Wikipedia for all English users or it is not. If this is allowed, argument can be made that all other TV series should be identified by nation as well (US TV series, British TV series, Canadian TV series, Australian TV series, etc.). Lambanog (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Who decided what is a proper or not proper page name for wikipedia pages. It would be 'not proper' if its really obvious as a vandalism, but adding "(Philippine TV series)" doesn't really seem to be a vandalism. And yes, Wikipedia is worldwide, based on other pages, there are other pages that has exactly the same name as those show such as Diva the word, the film, the magazine etc. Previous users have already told you that the title of the page doesn't matter whether its has "(TV series)" or "(Philippine TV series)" on it, after all they mean the same thing. And please stop bragging them from page to page, its actually getting kind of annoying. Higher users have told you to wait for the decision, so you should be patient to grant your requests.--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Therefore shouldnt those Diva examples should containt Diva (French film), Diva (Britich magazine), etc. If they mean the same thing, what is the point of moving them to begin with. Fine, with Diva, but cases such as The Last Prince, what is the point of having a "(Philippine TV series)" in the beginning? Just like Lambanog, shouldnt all TV series contain the country and then TV series if the case is so. Bragging from pages to pages? I was told to make a request on for this matter Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves, and I did. And then I asked for ClueBot's assistance on what to do. Yes, i brought this compain on this specific page, but i was refered to go to request moves and consulted ClueBot's response. And yes I am waiting, what more can i do that makes me seem inpatient? -- ISWAK3 (talk) 23.02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Something going wrong

Something appears to be going wrong. I have recently initiated 2 move requests, of George IV and Louis-Phillipe, but they have not come up. Has the backlog become so great that new move requests are not being listed? If so, this should be dealt with urgently. PatGallacher (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I treated this as a one-off glitch, but something similar has happened again. I submitted a move request for Scott of the Antarctic (1948 film) several hours ago, it has not appeared, and another submitted later has now appeared. Can someone clarify what might be going on here? PatGallacher (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

page move of Yue Chinese

See Talk:Yue Chinese. there is a discussion on the appropriateness of the closure of a recent WP:RM, and the issues taken into account by the closer. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close

There has recently been a move request for Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, several Wikipedians have said that this should be speedily closed for a number of reasons, this may be a consensus. PatGallacher (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Did i do this right?

Did i do this right i dont see them coming up on the list ---pls see here --> Talk:Native American art#Requested move and -->Talk:Native American studies#Requested move..thanks guys ...Moxy (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris Mordetsky and Oleg Prudius

Consensus has been achieved on WT:PW for these two articles to be moved to Chris Masters and Vladimir Kozlov respectively, however, we need an admin to carry out the move. Help, please? Feedback ☎ 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

help?

Blacklisted?

That may well be a legitimate argument against the move, but does it mean that it should have been ruled out of order automatically? PatGallacher (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

I tried to separate two articles Irritable bowel disease and Irritable bowel syndrome. These two article do no belong as redirects to each other as they are totally different. I did the move but it reversed the redirect of the two and didn't separate them. I've never done this in all my time here so I think I screwed up. I tried to undo my edit but it didn't work. Could someone help me sort this out please? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging books

New Place Old Place

Independence Day

There is a request to move Independence Day (film), and I suspect it was not really listed here because of a different section heading. The discussion can be found at Talk:Independence Day (film)#Requested move (with section heading now fixed). Will it be listed at the backlog now? Or can a neutral editor close the discussion? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the move req tag. It should show up in the backlogs when the bot next runs (within the next 15 minutes or so). --RegentsPark (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that it is re-listed now. Thank you! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
An admin closed the discussion as having no consensus and adding nothing further, and this closure is being disputed. Can another admin take a look and provide a detailed explanation for a closure? This kind of discussion would have repercussions for film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Without commenting on the appropriateness of the title, the move closure was not out of line (imao). Could you point to where the closure is being disputed? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth

A RM was started to move this article back to its original name of Creation according to Genesis. However, hardly anyone is pursuing that title any more, and the current almost-consensus is for Genesis creation narrative. An RM was started for that as well, but it doesn't appear on this page, while the old one still does. How do we get the old one cancelled and the new one put in its place? And how do we request that the existence of a consensus be confirmed here? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For a demonstration of the consensus, please see Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#Requesting_a_move_to_the_consensus_title_of_.22Genesis_creation_narrative.22. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I closed the first move discussion (I guess the bot only picks up one). It should show up in the backlog now and someone will close it sooner or later --RegentsPark (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This should probably be closed as "no move" on procedural grounds. It needs either someone to be brave enough to discard the personal arguments ("As a Creationist, this title offends me"), the pandering arguments ("Move it, if only to make this argument go away"), and the contradictory arguments ("scholars agree that it is creation myth, but they don't use these three words in this specific order") — or someone prepared to suggest that the open request for mediation on this matter should not be pre-empted. As far as judging the discussion goes, much of the supporting reasoning seems weak and seems to be unduly favourable to one religion. Comments that jump out at me are "The current title is not a common phrase in scholarship despite the fact that most scholars do consider this an exemplary creation myth" (contradictory?), "If someone sincerely objects to the characterization of the tales of Zeus, Athena, etc as "myths" they are free to take that issue up on that article's talk page", "As a Creationist, I find this current title offensive and miseading", "i think after months of bickering i think this is the closest we have come to consensus", "I find the term personally offensive", "let's please change the title and move on", "Although I'm loath to give in to the special pleading of Christians, this is clearly an argument that just won't go away". As someone that has had comparatively little involvement (the extent of my participation has been to clarify that there exists a term of art in scholarly works, and Wikipedia aims to be one), this to me reads a lot like the legendary GNAA AfDs (and VfDs before them), where we saw a pile-on of similarly empty arguments - reasoning, not numbers, should prevail. I would suggest that anyone that decides not to take the shortcut of "don't pre-empt the mediation" should take care to establish participants' actual intentions (e.g. IMO comments such as "support because it won't go away" are not genuine support). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact, "support because it won't go away" is "oppose." Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there are many more editors supporting "Genesis creation narrative" than there are opposing it. And those who are opposing it, in almost all cases, are doing so because they are vociferously devoted to the term "myth", which carries a negative connotation, despite the denotive scholarly meaning.
The article was changed to "Genesis creation myth" by a "consensus" of a very small number of editors, there are now a very large number of editors, most of whom prefer "Genesis creation narrative" as the NPOV title.
Regardless of the bad reasons given by people on both sides of the disagreement, I would like to request that the move be considered strongly and implemented due to the large consensus in favor of it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A majority in favour does not equate to consensus. Especially not given the above. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Myth is an irrelevant and gratuitous notion as concerns its presence in the title of this article. This article has as its essential identifying terms the word Genesis and the word creation. Any other terms only serve the purpose of linking these two terms into a satisfactory title. Narrative, story, account — all are fine, as was the previous title's word construction: "Creation according to Genesis." Yet another possibility is the locution "Genesis and creation." Those who support the present title, "Genesis creation myth," have argued that "creation myth" is the "proper name" used in "academia." I think that is an argument against its use in the title of the article. If it's use is confined to the academic setting, that use would be a use that is only supported by a small segment of people referring to the subject of this article. That problem is only compounded by what all agree is a double meaning of myth. This brouhaha exists because most people see myth as representing falsehood (as one of its meanings). The other terms and locutions I've listed above do not take a stand on whether or not the subject matter in the article is true or false. An article title merely needs to identify subject matter. It is in the body of the article that the various facets of subject matter can and should be explored. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is not the appropriate venue to continue these arguments. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

File moves

We normally do not get these, but we have one now, and the normal colon (:) at the beginning is not being placed, apparently because the Rmbot parser notices there is already a colon (File:) in the item. However, by not having a leading colon, the image is appearing, instead of just the title. Adding the colon every half hour is tiresome. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We never do these, because it simply isn't possible from a technical standpoint. To rename an image, it needs to be deleted and uploaded under a new name. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So that explains why we seldom get these. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That's actually not true. Files can be moved, although currently only admins can do it. To request a file rename, use {{rename media}}. Jafeluv (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fire Team Alpha move

Hi, this is just a notification that I moved a subpage from my userspace to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm not really acquainted with moving procedures, so I wasn't sure if this required a request for moving. However, the move succeeded and the new page is Wikipedia: Fire Team Alpha as opposed to the old page User:Deagle_AP/Fire Team Alpha. Hope it isn't too controversial. Deagle_AP (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

{{RMtalk}}

Is this actually still in use? I've only seen people using {{Requested move}} or {{Move-multi}}, but not this one. It might be good to deprecate it, since polling is not a substitute for discussion. 78.34.216.249 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people do use it, since you've seen people use it, its obviously still in use. In fact, it is a far better template than the current default one. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Editcountitis

Can I please suggest that Wikipedia: Editcountitis gets a news name, such as "Wikipedia: Editcount addiction"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this proposal, and have explained my rationale on the article talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Editcountitis#This_whole_article_needs_renaming. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Move-specialized

FYI, {{Move-specialized}} has been nominated for deletion 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about moving a page

It says if i move a page to another name, the old name will still redirect to it. But if so that seems pointless because it will still come up first on google and take people to that page. I was hoping to use that page name for a disambiguation page, is it possible to do that? Because there are others with the same name that are just as important, if not more so. (i read the help page but as usual they don't make things clear and it's confusing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.15.181 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the old name came up first in Google; Google use a complex algorithm for search results, that takes content into account.
Regardless, you can still create a disambiguation page over the redirect. If you go to "the old page" it'll redirect to the new page, and you'll see a link to the redirect. If you click on the link it'll take you back to the redirect page, and you'll then be able to edit it. Remove the #REDIRECT ..., and replace it with disambiguation text.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 12:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll try it and see what happens. I'll probably end up back here again though because i messed it up :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.15.181 (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Faust Vrančić

Hi. I've just come from the talk page of our Faust Vrančić article, where I've been conducting a sort of experiment. I'm posting here for two reasons. First of all, I think the discussion there has come to a conclusion, and that the request is finally ready to be closed. At least that's my impression; obviously each closer will trust his or her own judgment.

The second, and main, point of this post is the method that we used. Many times, questions about the COMMONNAME rule are decided by something like counting "ghits". This can, of course, be refined by searching Google Books, or Google Scholar, and by restricting results to English-language pages. However, the numbers are still often misleading. In this case, there was an ongoing argument, and I suggested that the disagreeing parties help collect an actual list of sources, broken down by which name they use. A few editors spent a few days collecting and organizing lots of (mostly online) sources. Over the next few days, a few editors worked a lot of those sources into the article, thus improving its quality. After this, it was much clearer, looking at the article, that among the sources we were able to find and use, one of the two spellings was more common.

Now, the way I've just told the story, it sounds very good and agreeable, and I've glossed over plenty of details. I'm certain that you would get a very different summary from another participant. Anyway, I would invite RM regulars, and indeed anyone interested, to look over the (very long) discussion there, and consider this question: Is there something useful to learn from this experience? Might it be a good idea to address intractable naming disputes via an article improvement drive, in which supporters of different naming options work to prove their cases by finding and using high-quality sources? What would the advantages and disadvantages of such a method be? Any and all thoughts on this matter are very welcome. Thanks for listening. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted discussions

Whereas I'm fine when discussions are relisted, it's currently a bit difficult to read the WP:RM page when there's only the "relisting" notice. I'd suggest writing something like "Relisting, reason for move request was yadda yadda", so one understands the original reason (possibly with a template to ensure consistent formatting). What do you think? --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What I usually do is add "Relisted. ~~~~" after the original move rationale and move the original proposer's signature to a new line.[example] That way the bot knows to add the original rationale on the RM page, although it can be possibly confusing since the original proposer's signature is separated from their comment. Jafeluv (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I mean and how it should be done, IMO. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I'll begin relisting that way then. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Complex series of moves re Lost Highways

I am not sure where or how to go about requesting this series of moves related to Lost Highway.

None of our current uses seem to be able to put forth a valid claim to being the most likely target of a reader, hence,

Currently sitting at Lost Highway is an article about a country song written by Leon Payne but made famous by Hank Williams (and our article claims sometimes falsely attributed as being written by Williams, although cursory glance at sources provided didnt seem to actually back that claim).which has been covered by a number of artists. I am thinking the best target for that article would be Lost Highway (country song) although arguments for Lost Highway (Leon Payne song) or Lost Highway (Hank Williams song) are also possibilities, but my initial impulse "Lost Highway (song)" is not, (see below).

Currently sitting at Lost Highway (song), is an article about a Bon Jovi song. Because of existance of the other song covered by many people (see above) the Bon Jovi article should be moved to Lost Highway (Bon Jovi song) but that already exists as a redirect back to the Bon Jovi Album by the same name.

Finally, the Lost Hiway (song) should be converted to another disambig or redirect to main disambig. Help! Active Banana (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


I would also be in favour of making Lost Highway the disambiguation page. It is a very popular country song by Leon Payne with many cover versions by Hank Wlliams and many others, it is also a separate song by Bon Jovi, a film by David Lynch, an album by Bon Jovi and an album by Willie Nelson. Probably best would be to keep Lost Highway as the disambiguation page. It is also a very good point that the Bon Jovi version is not the prominent version. So the Leon Payne version should be the one to have the Lost Highway (song) main entry and the present Lost Highway (song) moved to Lost Highway (Bon Jovi song). Bon Jovi song is not a prominent song. A brief look at its performance on the charts reveals it hardly made the Top 20 in any country whereas Leon Payne song is hugely known in country music. I am FOR Leon Payn's Lost Highway to be the actual Lost Highway (song) entry. Probably Lost Highway (1997 film) should also be moved to Lost Highway (film) which is now a redirect werldwayd (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)werldwayd (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I can support those suggestions. Active Banana (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_17&oldid=1137436220"