Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

What if no one shows up?

I have a question for the administrators who routinely close WP:RM proposals. If someone proposes a move here on WP:RM, and no one else votes, what do you usually do? Move it, since there's no opposition? Leave it in place, since there is insufficient participation? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I've only just started monitoring this page, I'll attempt a reply as nobody else has. I'd have a look at the logic of what is proposed, and if it makes sense to me I'd do it. If it didn't make sense to me, I'd look at the requestor's history. A good edit history, especially in related areas, would override my personal preferences. If still unsure, I'd ask another admin to look at it (or possibly a candidate for adminship - kill two birds with one stone by seeing them in decision-making action) and/or post a question on the requestor's user talk page. I would never unilaterally reject a request by a good contributor.
Interested in other views on this. Andrewa 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm only a non-sysop trying to keep this page half-way usable, but I mostly concur with Andrewa. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
And your efforts are greatly appreciated! Andrewa 20:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It almost always gets moved unless it is obviously the wrong name WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses! I've proposed a few move requests with low turnouts. Another reason I was wondering is sometimes people propose moves on WP:RM but don't set up the talk page correctly (or at all). I may think the move is a bad idea, but don't have the time/interest to set up the discussion properly and then oppose. Should I worry that others will feel the same way as I, no one will vote, and the ill-advised might be performed? Or do you reject proposed moves that aren't properly set up? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no time to read through everything, so it is quite possible that this has been covered before. Why not only let moves which have reached consensus be listed here? This page should just be a maintenance page, I think. --HappyCamper 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Often the improperly set up move proposals are by relative newcomers, so IMO it would be high-handed and not at all constructive to summarily reject them on the grounds of not following the (long and not entirely consistent) instructions, and worse still to reject them on the grounds of not following undocumented practice.
I'd encourage you to comment even on poorly formatted proposals, on the talk page of the first article listed to be moved. If you can find the time to fix the entry too, that will save my time from doing this cleanup that anyone can do, and I (and other admins) can concentrate on those things that need sysop powers. This will help with the backlog obviously.
My overriding principle is to remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Having only been watching this page a few days, I'm already guessing that most of the conflict both over specific moves and over procedures is caused by advocacy of some form.
I'm playing with the idea of proposing a third vote, neutral, which means that the person casting the vote asserts that it does not matter which title is the article, and which the redirect to it. This is appropriate for example when either article name choice is in some way POV, but no acceptable middle has been proposed. This would of course encourage more gaming of the system, but it would also help to identify discussions which don't really need attention at all, because the issues being discussed aren't relevant to the goal of building an encyclopedia.
Admins do exercise a great deal of discretion. There have been attempts to restrict this, with a notable lack of success. The 60% (or any other %) rule, for example, says nothing about sock puppets, users who are not logged in, and contributors with no useful non-controversial edits. It can of course be made longer and longer to cover more and more of these situations, but there's no evidence that the rule becomes any more effective as a result, and ample evidence that two side effects of this instruction creep is that neither newbies nor new admins bother to read these supposed rules.
Or to put it another way, if the rules could be made to work, we'd just automate them. No need for admins. Don't hold your breath. Andrewa 20:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew is pretty insightful. After doing like two hundred of these I'll say a few things:

  1. On the "controversial" ones no matter which descision you make you often get a lot of... erm... "campaigning" for lack of a better term for the "right name" of a page
  2. A common complaint is that the person who gives the "opening statement" has the advantage, which at least in my experience doesn't really make a difference
  3. "Malformed" requests as I like to call them I just erase the request here and notify the user to create a place for discussion or whatnot unless it is obvious. Basicallly, even if all they do is stick the template on the talk page of the article that's enough for me. Sometimes people think a move is obvious when it really isn't and think there is no need to even stick the template on the talk page which can get sticky, especially when it has been here a month or whatnot due to backlog. I agree that it might be a little high-handed in some cases, but it seems better then the alternative of moving what could be a medium-traffic page to a "wrong title".

Often times on a lot of these I have to re-evaluate a descision several times due to controversy, such as Arabic numerals. Many of these are just as controversial as deletion...

Also, I'm always open to criticism and whatnot too (Andrew pointed out a goofed up move I did involving article histories), so feel free to leave me a message on my talk page :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If no one turns up to oppose a vote then providing the talk page has been formatted properly it is 100% consensus in favour of the move. Howver if the administrator who makes the move thinks there is some irregularity then they can always oppose the move themselves and then it is 50/50% so the move should not happen. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Proposed listing format change

When going through entries I find it difficult to see where the move request ends and the explanation for the request begins. I propose that bold be used, as an example:

Which makes it easier to seperate the actual request from an explanation full of wikilinks and from other entries.—jiy (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a lot nicer. I haven't checked the main page to see if you were bold and changed it, but if you haven't, I would. =) —Locke Cole 11:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, a definite improvement. Andrewa 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Common names, diacritics

There's currently quite a lot of discussion going on at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I've proposed adding a few notes to the convention, including one on diacritics. Input from more people would be very helpful at this stage. - Haukur 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot! Where exactly is the discussion on diacritics? See also Talk:657 Gunlod for a current discussion. Andrewa 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) and all the archives to that page If that is not enought there is also Talk:Zürich/Archive1 ... :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 20:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
None of these pages reach any conclusions or consensus on the matter of diacritics. Talk:Zürich/Archive1 is a good example of a heated discussion that served no purpose. I wouldn't have archived it, it's all there in the history for those who want it. Andrewa 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

60%

where did the figure of 60% being a consensus come from? It's always been 2/3rds majority AFAIK ?!? Jooler 10:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

See Archive 4 consensus. It has been explicitly set to 60% since May 2005 because because most page move involve less than half a dozen people expressing an opinion and 60% works well with those sorts of numbers. (see stats 1-10 October and Archive_5 stats summary. If you read the other archive pages there is a lot more on this subject. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The 60% is not a set number as it does not have a wide consensus. However, no one really agreed on a number either except that for small debates 60% generally works well if it does not break naming conventions - several people expressed a desire for a higher threshold for consensus with larger and more controversial discussions. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My own personal threshold is 60% unless it is controversial or large - otherwise if it is between 60-66 I let it sit until it falls on either side of the equation. Well, I let it sit other times too, of course and it really depends on the move - but I don't make a "ruling" in the 60-66 range unless I have to. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

60% is a set number and there was a consensus to place it on this page. Without repeating in too much detail what has been said before and is available in the archives. The 60% works well with small numbers of contributers and any more complicated rules would lead to instruction creep. For small numbers an administrator who wishes to alter the bakance simply has to express an opinion one way or another as that will tip it either over or under 60%. You (WhiteNight) say "several people expressed a desire for a higher threshold for consensus with larger and more controversial discussions" please provide a couple of talk:pages/sections where this has been expressed. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically any of talk page archives here - for example, archives 4 or 5. I like the one where an arbitrator comes in and says that the 60% number is rediculous, myself. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

At any rate I really don't want to talk about this again - it's been discussed at length several times in the past. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In borderline cases, basically it's up to the admin. Assuming they haven't already voted, there's nothing to stop them casting a vote to resolve the issue. The difference between 60% and 67% is then academic. Andrewa 18:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page is not formatted properly

On the question "what if the talk page is not formatted properly" ie, there is no template or no ==Requested move== or equivalent section, then the move should not be made by an administrator. However, at the administrators discretion if the target page is a redirect then the history to the target page should be edited so that the move can be made by any ordinary user.

Indeed I think that a statment should be added to the "Procedure for admins" that an administraor may remove the history of the target page so that the requestor can make the move for themselves as this would ease the burden of administering requested moves. What do others think of this idea? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This would really help me out, as well as other non-admin users who don't mind moving pages. There are a few in the backlog that simply require an administrator deleting / removing history of the target page so that somebody (anybody!) can move the page. Any other opinions? --Lox (t,c) 14:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy Rename" section for those which require admin assistance?

Any thoughts on creating a speedy rename section (like the one over at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion)? I was thinking of non-controversial moves of articles that have been created and incorrectly titled, and whose redirect has more than one edit, e.g. currently:

Johnny McGovern → Jonny McGovern

can't be moved my a non-admin since two edits have been made to the correct Jonny McGovern. If of course anyone objects to a speedy rename, they can retag it with a move template. Any thoughts?

Nah - this has proposed before and basically people will put a bunch of stuff that is not a speedy rename in that section, plus it gives people an excuse not to use the move template which is required for a reason. Even in seemingly obvious moves there are sometimes obvious objections - also in obvious circumstances such as mispellings it will be moved early by an admin if the backlog is taken care of. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate / Río de la Plata

There is substantial disquiet at the talk page for this river over a recent request for it to be moved back to River Plate (where I moved it and it stayed for almost a year before it was move to its present position). I think it should go back to River Plate but outside opinions are canvassed, particularly given the procedural history outlined on Talk:Río de la Plata. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the substantial disquiet began as a result of my having moved it, after a week of rather noncontentious discussion, from "River Plate" to "Río de la Plata". The disquiet is coming from people who, for whatever reason, did not participate in the discussion preceding that move. As ALoan indicates, this has been hashed and rehashed w/o resulting in consensus on the incredibly long talk page. Finally a vote was called (rather prematurely, IMHO) and when it was closed a slight majority favored "Río de la Plata". As a result of my having moved it, a sock-puppet Portable (contribs) was created by [suspected user's name withheld|someone], in order to assist in reverting articles back to "River Plate" and to argue in favor of "River Plate" a week later on the TALK page. The discussion has, on more than one occasion, become rather discourteous (to put it mildly). Tomertalk 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
As was pointed out, repeatedly, the original discussion before the move was restricted to those who were watching "River Plate", and the rest of us did not know any discussion was taking place until people started changing links to the article from e.g. Battle of the River Plate. We could only make our opinions known after the event. -- Arwel (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct thing to do now is to reopen discussion.--Urthogie 13:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dorset Premier Football League

The Dorset Premier League should be moved to the page Dorset Premier Football League. Can an administrator help me with this as soon as possible? Thank You. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What requested moves is not for

Unobstructed, uncontroversial moves: Moves of this nature can be accomplished by any logged in user using the [move] tab located at the top of every page.

This is wrong. I get

You cannot move pages because either you are not logged in, or your account is too new. In the latter case, please list the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please do not attempt to "move" the page via copying and pasting its content, as that destroys the page's history.

(account created just for the move; normally I'm an IP in the english Wikipedia). It should be changed by somebody who knows how old an account must be before it can move a page. --.x 13:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed. I'm trying to move a page (Dr Pepper Ballpark → Dr. Pepper Ballpark) and it gives me the same message. Yeah, I made my account yesterday, but I can't find any place where it says the minimum age has to be. Could someone clarify? --Kevin 01:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I realized that I don't have to move the page I intended to move. However, for future reference could someone clarify the "age" limit to move pages?--Kevin 02:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is part of the 96-hour limitation on new accounts' creating new articles. Unfortunately, this was necessary as an anti-vandalism measure. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made many new articles during my brief history (lots of redirects referring to said ballpark). Are you sure about the 96 hour limitation?--Kevin 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not certain. I have seen references to a 96-hour restriction on some things, but I won't swear to details. Sorry if my reply was not helpful: you might try Village Pump/Policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw polls

Brought page in line with Wikipedia:Straw_polls. Best to maintain one style of polling across the wiki. Kim Bruning 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Kim You really are persistent with you agenda. Where did the 60% go? There is no one style of polling across wiki, or one level of agreement which is recognised as a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus != 60% support.
If X == 60% support, then X is some variable in some procedure for majority voting.
If consensus had been that wikipedia was to be run by majority vote, we would state that wikipedia was run by majority vote. People have not stated that wikipedia is run by majority vote. Therefore, wikipedia is not run by majority vote.
If consensus is that wikipedia is run by consensus, people would state that wikipedia is run by consensus. People state that wikipedia is run by consensus. Therefore wikipedia is run by consensus.
I note that all reference to the polling guidelines have been removed. To remain consistent, Requested moves should probably also be removed from Wikipedia:Current Surveys.
We can then with clarity pursue the matter of whether or not this page in this current form is out-of-process.
Kim Bruning 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Patch

My proposals (please respond/discuss/vote on sub page so as not to disrupt regular discussion here)

  1. I am quite satisfied with the m:9/11 wiki move proposal argument style and I propose it here for all deletions.
  2. I also propose the merging of Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Articles for deletion). Perhaps a system that takes care of both moves (renames), deletion and keeps would be more productive.
    • Articles for deletion is misleading, this is not a page where only deletions are determined. Many (if not most) end up as keep or move/rename as well as delete. Also the process is more like a vote which is easily infested by "vote only accounts" and other nonsense
--Cool CatTalk|@ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to make alternative proposals. Also please explain why you support or oppose a particular view point. --Cool CatTalk|@ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

In Category:Requested moves there are many article talk pages listed where the article has been deleted. Can those talk pages be deleted? Vegaswikian 09:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==Why does movement *not* redirect links from other pages? It seems like that would be a logical automation. Fresheneesz 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving category history

I came across Category:Norma Elizabeth Boyd, wich is an article written in category space. It should be at Norma Elizabeth Boyd. Problem is there is no way to move the page I tried modifying the URL to get the move form, but as I suspected moving categories are restricted. In this case I guess a cut & paste move would be ok since there is only one editor, but a "proper" move would still be the best IMHO. Would this kind of thing be something we could bother devs to fix? --Sherool (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tabulation?

Does anyone else think that logging each requested move as an entry in a table would make for easier reading?   Given what the current procedure requires, I don't think it would be any more complicated or potentially confusing. In fact, implementing a tabular approach might offer an opportunity to simplify the process, e.g. the only method for logging a request given in the instructions (i.e. for those folk not yet au fait with the process) is a subst:template method along the lines of the current subst:WP:RM, say:

{{subst:WP:RM|CurrentTitle|ProposedTitle|Rationale}}

...which would produce: 

|-
| [CurrentTitle] || [ProposedTitle] || [Rationale]

...in the table (e.g. of class=wikitable) set up for that day's requests. As presently, the instructions would need to emphasise that the {{subst:WP:RM}} must be added immediately above the most recent entry. Also, I suppose some version of the bot currently used to start a new day's section in WP:CfD would be needed to set up each day's table, e.g.:

===[Day] [Month] [Year===
{| class=wikitable
! Current Title !! Proposed Title !! Rationale
|colspan=3| Please enter your request as a {{subst:WP:RM}} immediately below this line; thank you. Please see [[WP:RM#Instructions|instructions above]] if you are unsure what to enter.
[blank line here]
|}

...or the like. As is the case with the present system, it wouldn't be difficult for a more experienced user to sort out a mistake left by someone not quite managing to follow the instructions. What do people think?
Thanks, David Kernow 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As the sole admin who deals with this shtuff daily (well, okay, occasionally one or two other admins pop in and do one or two), I think it's worth trying. Feel free to go ahead with it. Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea as it complicates things for people not used to the format and quite probably not used to tables. Keep it simple. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not yet exploring the possibility, but an instruction along the lines of {{subst:WP:RM|CurrentTitle|ProposedTitle|Reason}} to produce the above – coupled with an example – seems more straightforward than the present suggestions (note plural). Regards, David Kernow 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

subst:WP:RM|PageName|NewName|reason for move

Recently people have been changing the formats produced by the template:WP:RM. I think this is a really bad idea as it has not been discussed on this page first. The template is meant to make it easier to format a request in a standard way as descibed in the section "Steps for requesting a page move", but until I reverted it just now it was producing a new format which is not discussed on the WP:RM page.

The reason for having the Talk page listed first is two fold:

  • It makes the talk page easy to find as it is always in the same place not a variable way along a line of text.
  • It makes it easy to copy from the "PageName" to the end of the entry for pasting onto the talk page. If the talk page is between the PageName and the signature at least two copy and pasts or one copy and past followed by a delete are needed-- either way more work.

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was I, experimenting with something that hopefully would be easier to read (wider spacings between the RM elements) and, in an attempt to invite people to read a rationale before finding the talk-page link, presented a different ordering of the RM elements. It also indicated why the talk-page link was there ("Vote/discuss at...") for those new to WP:RM. Do you feel the WP:RM page looks cluttered?  Regards, David Kernow 23:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There are people who get very upset with the four letter "Vote" word, see Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 1 and wikipedia talk:Supermajority, hence it is better to use survey and opinion :-O.

The template is meant to reflect what is done by hand, otherwise it is the tail wagging the dog. I have given the reasons above why I think it is better to have the talk page first. A further reason is that the same format can be used for multipage moves with few changes. Anyone new to this page can read the lead in section which covers your concerns with: Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.So I do not think it needs reiterating for every single requested move placed on this page --Philip Baird Shearer 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; the previous disquiet over "vote" also noted. I'm not on a crusade to reform the WP:RM page, but am still thinking of following up the table idea at some point. Multiple page renames, though uncommon, may or may not (be able to) work well with it. Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 02:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this: I really like the new format, and as I am the admin who takes care of this daily, I think that should suffice as a reason. If you must know why in particular, it's a mixture of a better layout, the fact that the important information (what shall be moved to where?) comes first, and that the actual link to the discussion comes *last*, so that people might tend to read the whole entry first before voting. I've reverted your revert of my revert. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is where the discussion takes place. The page where the survey is taking place is just as important as the other pages mentioned. What about the ease of use for the person who has to copy and past the arguments from the WP:RM page to the talk page? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When I see a move debate, I first want to know *what* shall be moved *where*, and only then where the discussion takes place... IMO at least. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The debate is not on this page it is on the talk page. This page only contains the proposal for to move. I do not believe that you (or anyone else) can not skip the first link and go onto the rest of the entry on this page if that is what interests you most. With the format you are advocating, it is mored difficult to do this if one wishes to go to the debate without reading a long proposal first. Another advantage of placing the talk page first is if it is in red then one knows that it is not worth reading the proposal unless one intends to help fix the talk page entry. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As another maintainer of this page I like Nightstallion's way as well. Besides, one could argue that even in Philip's argument where it is "more inconvenient" that people should really read the proposal before discussing - however, I fail to see how someone is forced to read the proposal as before Night's changes it was slightly less clear. Anyway, I'd recommend "share your opinion" instead of "discussion/vote" but that's a definate personal preference. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 11:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the copy and past issues? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Obstructed but uncontroversial moves.

Should such moves just be listed normally here (as i have done in the past) or is there a better way to handle them? Plugwash 17:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should be listed normally here. In fact that was what this page was originally intended for. However since delay and discussion is only required for controversial moves, it would probably be a good idea to have a separate section within the page for obstructed but uncontroversial moves. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a bad idea it has been discussed a number of times before most recently in the section above #"Speedy Rename" section for those which require admin assistance?. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

photo rename

Hello. Wh[ere] do I go if I want to rename a photo that I've uploaded? __earth (Talk) 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi __earth. So far as I'm aware, the only method is to reupload the image under the new name, then mark the previous one for (speedy) deletion (e.g. use the {{db}} template). Regards, David Kernow 10:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
THanks! __earth (Talk) 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unable to move

Unobstructed, uncontroversial moves 
   Moves of this nature can be accomplished by any logged-in user using the [move] 
   tab located at the top of every page. See Help:Moving a page.

Unfortunately, I get: 

You cannot move pages because ... your account is too new ... please list the 
page at Wikipedia:Requested moves ...

Not well documented, eh? And how long has this lovely little rule been in effect? Sorry, I don't even know what the time restriction is, or I'd fix it. -Dan 06:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been in effect for quite a while. What are you trying to move? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I took care of it. Discussion on the village pump as to the general case. -Dan 08:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

why was my RM removed?

On March 2nd I put up List of slang used in hip hop music for a move to hip hop slang and there was noone who disagreed with it on the talk page, and yet it was still removed. Why?--Urthogie 17:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason could be its non-notability. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe because you didn't follow all the suggestions at WP:RM#Steps for requesting a page move e.g. Step 3? Your original suggestion was Glossary of hip-hop slang which is still free -- maybe you should just move it and see if anyone complains? Ewlyahoocom 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion was hip hop slang, nothing about glossaries. and yes, hip hop slang is notable, as its a cultural phenomenon that has been covered by the mainstream press throughout the world. it is notable for its role in culture, music, and lingustics. so can someone move it?--Urthogie 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The reasons were that you didn't follow all of the steps and that the article had meanwhile been butchered due to its non-encyclopedia-ness. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I'll re-do the whole thing, process-perfect!--Urthogie 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: "My suggestion was hip hop slang, nothing about glossaries." Oops! I guess I misread your comment. Ewlyahoocom 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested wording addition for main page to address new users

This page should tell new users not to request here as they will be able to move pages a few days after signing up (AFAIK)? 218.102.220.129 13:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I changed the title of this section from 'new users'. If someone can confirm that after creation of a new account there is a period of a couple of days prior to their ability to move a page, I would suggest the following addition to the end of the first paragraph of the project page text (unless such addition would be considered not appropriate per WP:BEANS):
    New users are unable to conduct page moves for a short period after account creation. This is normal and is a feature of Wikipedia used to help reduce page move vandalism.
Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do in 'no consensus, leaning on move'?

Conversation refactored per mutual agreement of both parties. Original version can be seen here. --04:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page in the middle of the RM vote

Please see Sigismund III of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Today it was proposed that Zygmunt III Vasa is to be moved to Sigismund III Vasa. Shortly after the vote begun this mess happened. I would request that a neutral admin steps in and do whatever he feels is appopriate, I am afraid that my attempt to straigthen this mess (which currently invalidates the RM) would probably not be taken in the good faith spirit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As soon as this issue was resolved, a similar one appeared at Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_6&oldid=1046418711"