Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Removal of nomination

How can an admin just delete a nomination from this list? If the requested move is a bad idea, it can be refused -- why should it be deleted? RandomCritic 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because a) those moves had already been proposed and rejected, and b) consolidated discussion is ongoing here: Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. Your input would be appreciated. -- nae'blis 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My input has been and continues to be ongoing there. But your characterization of the situation is both incorrect (neither RM had been turned down; one was a RM to a move that had just gone through the RM process, which I can understand might have been irritating, but the other one wasn't and there was no cause for deleting it) and anyway doesn't answer the general question: why remove a RM from the list when it can just be turned down? Why shouldn't there be an accurate list of what moves have been requested? When changes are made (or not made) on Wikipedia, it should be easy to find out what steps were taken toward them, who proposed, who approved and who didn't approve. RandomCritic 23:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Most page moves are non-controversial and are never documented anywhere except in the page history. Some are extremely controversial and reverted without a "report" being filed anywhere. This seems to be somewhere in between, but not everything has to be filed in triplicate. I'm not sure what your overall aim is, if discussion is ongoing then a RM seems premature. (By the way, I was going by Eris (dwarf planet) being marked done, and Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 3 which shows a complete lack of decision thus far (and 1 Ceres is wrapped up in the ongoing discussion). Another RM at this time seems to be process-lawyering, so I applaud your continued efforts to reach a discussed result. Don't get wrapped up in process just for the sake of process, especially one as optional/informal as Requested Moves. -- nae'blis 04:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Other noncontroversial moves?

Perhaps the Capital Move feature could be expanded to include plural moves? ENeville 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And moves where the only history at the target page is a redirect towards the current page? -- kenb215 13:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that there should be a seperate listing for moves which are non-contravesial in nature. Obviously in such pages, there is liekly to be either an obvious pre-formed consensus in the direction of a move, or it may be a simple obstructed move that's insignificant to most or otherwise obviously the correct thing to do. This would result in a speedier process for such pages (and more inclination for more admins to work on it having less controversy) with a far shorter (unessecary) period of waiting. It would streamline the process, and take some of the load off the current page, making it clear as to which are contraversial and which aren't. Obviously the admin performing the move would have to briefly make their own judgement first by looking around the page and t's talk/relations, but it would be fairly easy, and if said admin disagrees, it can be moved to the "contraversial" page. Hopefully, it'll result in less of a backlog forming. Any opinions? --Crimsone 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I'm going to create a section on the page for non-controversial moves and see how well it works. If it doesn't work well then I can always remove it. —Mets501 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's live! Let's see how this works. If no problems arise we can depreciate {{capitalmove}} and delete the category, as it is better that everything is listed here on this page in one place. —Mets501 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly against this change. See the history of this talk page, as it has been raised many times before. Any none controversial move should still be listed on the talk page of the page to be moved so there is a record of the move. If it is not controversial then there will not be a consensus not to move it. Let us suppose someone lists the move as none controversial and unknown to other editors of the page (because they do not monitor this one, it is moved do they then have to relist it here as a controversial move and reach a consensus to move it back? --PBS 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin help for non-controversial move

I would like to request an admin to move White Mustard to White mustard, because there is no reason to capitalize the 'm' in mustard. (Just look at White tea/Green tea, Bell pepper, etc where the common words are all lowercase.) Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 00:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Done —Mets501 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And fast, muchos gracias!--Andrew c 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mormon Pioneer should be moved to Mormon pioneers. There is more info in the discussion started in late May. --Lethargy 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see there is a section for this type of request on the Requested moves page, I need to read past the first section. :) --Lethargy 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just added that 30 minutes ago, that wasn't there when you requested for your page to be moved :-) —Mets501 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:WP:RM

Just to get a wider opinion, what do people think as to the format of the {{WP:RM}} template? There are basically three options:

Old page → New Page (Discuss) Reason for listing.

Old page → New Page ... Rationale: Reason for listing. ... Discuss at Talk:Old page.

Old page → New Page —(Discuss)— Reason for listing.

Talk:Old page -- Old page → New Page —- Reason for listing.

I personally like the first one, because it it very easy to see what is being listed and the rationale, and it is easy to find the "discuss" link. Centrx prefers the second one, as he thinks that the the two-line version encourages "voting" on this page. Any other options are also welcome. —Mets501 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Second one, I think... it might encourage folk to scan the rationale on their way to click the talk page link... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? The rationale is listed at the discussion page. I think it's important that the discussion link is at the front, so people don't accidentally start discussions here. —Mets501 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... Perhaps omitting a rationale altogether from the WP:RM listing might be a solution, i.e. requiring anyone interested in a rename to visit the talk page...?  Yours, David (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Now that's a good idea. Then we could just have

• Old page → New Page (Discuss at Talk:Old page)

as the template. Why do we have the rationale on this page anyway? —Mets501 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with eliminating the rationale from this page altogether. Perhaps that will encourage people to put the move rationale and survey section (as mentioned in the instructions) on the talk page of the article(s) in question. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand... I haven't looked at WP:RM regularly for a while, but the last time I scanned through it there seemed to be an increase in the number of folk posting requests to WP:RM with rationale, but not setting up the talk page as well. (Maybe promoting a template such as {{TPSRM}} might help... or might scare, over-complicate, ...) At least if people included rationales at WP:RM they can be copied to the talk pages...

Or, on the third hand, WP:RM could become more stringent in that if you post a new rationale-free request to it but forget to set up the talk page (where you include the rationale) then your request is removed...?

Typing out loud, David (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your "third hand" :-). Listings with no talk page discussion set up should just be removed and ignored, and we can create a template to place on people's talk pages telling them that their request was ignored and that they should relist it when the discussion is set up. I think we use {{WP:RMtalk}} by the way, I don't know where {{TPSRM}} came from. —Mets501 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason for having the rationale here is for someone who wants to browse the requested moves to see if they want to comment on any, with that decision based on the issue with the move, in the same way as someone might browse AfD and comment on particular ones. Other than that, for someone commenting on all of them or deciding based only on the title or someone completing the requests, etc. it is useless. —Centrx→talk • 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think most folk browse WP:RM by title or by rationale...?  I can imagine either/both, but suspect there are more instances of by title than by rationale...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've occasionally seen fields with buttons implemented on users' pages (anybody recall any specific examples?); maybe something featuring these could be set up on a "WP:RM input page" to guide and standardiz/se people's posts... David (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Most people who wants to comment on requested moves are not going to comment on every one. Therefore, they would look at the rationale to decide whether they want to comment on a particular move or not. I don't know how much people looks through them though to comment, maybe no one does. —Centrx→talk • 02:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think most people decide what they should comment on based on the title of the page. I'm all for trying removing the rationale and seeing if anyone complains, and if someone does then we can put it back and resume discussion. Until we come to a consensus here, though, let's not change the template again, it's really getting out of hand (and I'm not repremanding anyone, I'm guilty of changing it as well, but am now see how hard it is to parse the list). —Mets501 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the talk page to be listed first as that is where the consensus building exercise takes place and I like to be able to find it easily. This is the format we had on this page for over a year and I think it is better. --PBS 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I am sure that I am posting this at the wrong place but I have gone thru several pages at the help desk and FAQ sections and can't seem to find the right spot. I need to alert the powers that be that user: Midnightblueowl is renaming the pages about Michael Palin's travel series about the Sahara and the Himalyas by cutting and pasting to new pages whose names match the opening titles of the series but not the titles of the books. I am not complaining about the renaming but, as I have read in many places, this is not following wikiprocedure because we are losing the history of the articles creation and evolution. I am not very computor literate so I know that attempting to restore and merge the pages is beyond my capabilities, thus my posting for help. Apologies for posting this in the wrong spot and if you will leave a message on my talk page letting me know where I should have posted this it will be much appreciated. Also, many thanks in advance to any wikimember who is able to straighten this out with the user in question. MarnetteD | Talk 22:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide the names of the pages he has incorrectly cut-and-paste moved? Then I can fix them. Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Mets501. So far these are the two that have been changed: Sahara with Michael Palin (original title Sahara (TV serial)) and Himalaya with Michael Palin (original title Himalaya: Michael Palin). Based on some changes that he is making since I last logged on I think that the editor may be planning on moving this page nest Pole to Pole.

Michael Palin: Around the World in 80 Days, Michael Palin's Hemingway Adventure and Full Circle with Michael Palin probably wont be touched as Michael's name os already in the title. Again, I am not lobbying to change them back. The show, the book and the DVD for each of these series have slightly different titles it is just the loss of the history page that is of concern. I am sure that this editor is learning the ways of wikip, as am I even after a year and a half of editing. I hope you will be able to help them in contributing to this project. Thanks again and good luck to you if as I surmise from you name that you are a Mets fan. MarnetteD | Talk 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RM for a redirect?

There has been a discussion for some months about what "Memel" should be, a disambiguation or a redirect (for more information, see Memel / Memel (disambiguation). As "Memel" is currently a redirect to Memel (disambiguation), would it be bad to create a RM of "Memel (as redirect) → Klaipėda"? I am inquiring about it here, as the first sentence of WP:RM says, "Requested moves is the place to request article moves that are not straightforward". Thank you for your assistance. Olessi 14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this?

Aerocar Aerocar seems to have slipped through the cracks a bit, the RM is over a month old and nothing's happened with it. Recury 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, the discussion seems stalled with no consensus... Perhaps start a new RM...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Relisting it couldn't hurt. Recury 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice about using correct template

What is the purpose of the message "Please use the correct template...". Shouldn't copying and pasting work? Or were people not changing all the links properly, or was the notice only necessary when the template was in transition? —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper Disamb

Should I change the redirect at William Wrigley from Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company founder William Wrigley Jr. to my newly created William Wrigley (disambiguation). I recently created William Wrigley III and with 3 Wrigley's think it might be appropriate. TonyTheTiger 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for review of recent move of Ulaanbaatar to Ulan Bator

The article was recently moved from Ulaanbaatar to Ulan bator based on a move request where the reason was WP:UE. Considering that the most common usage in the English language is "Ulaanbaatar" (not by an overwhelming margin though) and that neither term is technically an English word, I believe the supplied reason for the move was insufficient even though in tertms of simple vote counting the preference seems to be for "Ulan Bator". My contention is that given that it is slightly more common, plus the fact that official usage by both the UN and the US government is for "Ulaanbaatar", I think the move should be reversed. This situation is similar to the case of Peking vs. Beijing where only the English transliteration was officially changed. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Approval voting

Regarding [1], why would specifying some voting method and threshhold be better. Is discussion not encouraged? Why not refer to the naming conventions page? Is it not true that "Generally speaking, page move requests which have already reached consensus are processed quicker than those which have not"? Why revert when the change is clearly disputed, with no reasons presented? —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two seperate issues to be discussed.

1 approval voting

2 threshold.

In short having such rules helps to build a consensus for or against a move. Now for the longer answer.

Approval voting is extremely useful when during the discussion more than one possible alternative new name is suggested. If on the other hand there are only two choices, then although a poll is held where the options held are "* Support" or "* Oppose" that can be seen as Approval voting with only two choice. Why specify a specific method? Because the rules on how to hold an approval vote are clearly laid out. Without that people can walk away from a WP:RM request feeling that they have been mugged not that a consensus has been reached, and although they disagree with the outcome they can at least understand that there was method in the madness of the choice. If there is an alternative article on how to run such a poll then we can discuss using that in place of approval voting. But having clearly laid out rules for conducting theses things helps to arrive at a consensus. See Talk:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base#Requested move - 5 March.

Now to the question of a threshold. This has been discussed many times before on this talk page. Do we need to rehash the arguments? The major advantage of the 60% threshold is that it works well when only a small number of editors take part in a consensus building exercises to determining the new page name and to start to put different threshold for different numbers of editors in the discussion would make the rules complicated and arbitrary. Just link conducting a survey with clearly laid out rules having a clear cut off point for what is the wikipedia:consensus for WP:RM allows people who do not often participate in a WP:RM to understand that there is a set of rules and even if they do not agree with the outcome they can at least agree to abide by it. Agreeing to abide by the decision is part of consensus building, and having clear rules helps in that process. Without this the decision of the person who makes the move will often be disputed and that is the opposite of consensus. --PBS 08:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like having clear rules and guidelines, but I in this case, I am concerned that additional ones may make things worse rather than better. Frequently there are factors other than the vote that go into making a decision on what name an article should have, such as naming conventions and which name has the best argument. Also, moves frequently affect other articles, especially disambiguation pages. When I do a move, the first thing I do is check whether there is a naming convention that is relevant. If there is, I will follow the naming convention, unless there is a good reason not to. Then, I see which name has the best argument for its use. Finally, I consider the outcome of the vote. The name that I use sometimes gets less than 50% of the vote or is not voted on at all, but it is correct under the naming conventions or has a superior argument for its use. I do not want people expecting me to move the article to a different name because it got over 60% of the votes. I think that an AfD style thing where the vote is just a factor in the decision, along with naming conventions and the quality of the arguments made, would be better.

As for approval voting being the standard, I prefer a system where you can vote support or oppose on each option. For example, there might be three choices for a vote. I find the first one good, the second okay and I think that the other one is a terrible idea. I vote for the first choice. The people who like the second choice the best are okay with the first choice and think that the third choice is terrible, too. They vote for the second choice. The people who like the third option the best vote for it. With approval voting, the third choice might get just a few votes more than the others, even though it is hated by the majority. My next favorite system is one where you indicate what your first, second or third choice is. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Even more fundamentally, voting is not appropriate. Articles must follow the naming conventions, or follow some reasons, regardless of the number of Pokemon fans who exuberantly vote otherwise. —Centrx→talk • 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am not against a different type of survey from approval voting, last time I looked (and I have not looked recently) there was no other simple voting system to handle such a survey if it had more than a binary option. If one has been written since I last looked, I would be interested to read it. The trouble with roll your own versions is that it can leave some of the minority feeling cheated, which is not the way that consensus building should work. As to your comments about reading the naming conventions and making your own decision, all the other participants are free to do the same and make up their minds. I do not think it is the job of an administrator to ignore the opinions of others and make arbitrary rulings on the issue. After all if one disproves of a move one can always express that opinion in the survey with the reason one thinks the move should not be made, and then as a administrator not make the move the page. For most page moves there are so few contributors to a debate about the move that the administrator is free to make a the decisive decision one way or the other. --PBS 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And a minority of people who present reasons won't feel cheated when a page move advocated by a host of people who are not presenting reasons and who have not considered the naming conventions. If you are just counting votes, you are ignoring the reasons given by anyone in the minority. If you base a move solely on votes, it is arbitrarily based on whatever sockpuppets and fans chose to leave some empty votes. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is a contriversial move with passionate arguments then it is worth asking the participants to identify who is and is not a sock puppet. Further many contriversial moves are not covered by the naming policy and guidelines or different policy and guidelines support mean that the choice is not clear. Here are some examples Talk:Zürich/Archive1, Talk:Wilhelmstraße, Talk:Dokdo, Talk:Kolkata/Archive 3, Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1. Would you have discounted all the people who expressed an opinion on the move of Côte d'Ivoire in the Survey but did not add a comment with it? If that is widely known, then all people will do is add a comment like "I agree with XYZ", do you then disregard those? --PBS 12:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "discounts opinions"? Why would strictly measuring a vote, without looking at any opinions at all, not discount opinions more than looking at the reasons given? If someone takes the time to read the whole discussion, considers it all carefully, and leaves a well-reasoned response, why are we not discounting him by valuing several unexplained votes by passers-by who didn't read the discussion at all and spent 5 seconds on the decision? Why can we trust admins to evaluate the reasons of who is a sockpuppet and who is not, but not the reasons given for the move, or is that to be a vote too? (What about non-obvious sockpuppets?) Also, look at Talk:Zürich/Archive1, the lower section I see is a comment about the vote being a "tie"; is there really no consensus there or if it had been 59%, yet if someone were to happen by and pop off a single "Oppose" all of a sudden we would have consensus? I note at the top of Talk:Dokdo there were apparently two votes taken: the first one moved it away, and the second one moved it back. Which one was right? Are you discounting the votes of the people who voted in the first one but who didn't happen to come back for the second vote? Why not consider reasons? If someone has something to add to the discussion, they comment. Anyone who disagrees with some other comment will do so. The problem with framing it as a vote at all is that you have people leaving empty votes with no reasoning; it is totally unnecessary to have that. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Centrx here; having done a plenty of RM's recently, I generally listen to the arguments, try to find the appropriate naming convention and/or precedents rather than mere votecounting, and provide an elaborate closing argument where controversial. The only (pretty much rigthful) objection I got is right above you (Talk:Ulan Bator) where I votecounted 5:1 for the move, but I was lazy to thoroughly check the arguments of the sole vote against. Duja^► 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A question about controversial and unconversial moves

I listed a move as potentially controversial, because it involves a template which is still used, however, it has attracted no responses on its talk page in five days so far. The template's talk page only has scattered comments which are weeks apart, not a real conversation, but those comments would seem to support the move in principle. If no one votes at all, do I go ahead and consider in an "uncontroversial move", or is there another way to approach this? Thanks, -- Bailey^(talk) 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple-page move

There seems to be a consensus to call Indigenous Australians "Indigenous Australians", as opposed to "Aboriginal Australians". The corresponding adjective would be "Indigenous Australian". I've tried moving some of the articles using the adjective "Aboriginal" but there seem to be too many of them. A list of articles that need to be moved can be found here. Is there a quick way to setup a poll to move these pages? Is a poll even necessary? (It appears a good majority would support the move.) Any help would be appreciated. Zarbat 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Instructions on how to make a move request for multiple (related) articles are located at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Multiple page moves. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that seems to be for a chain kind of move (A->B->C->D...) whereas I'm doing independent moves (A->B,C->D,...). In any case someone helped me do it: [2]. Zarbat 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving templates

Is RM the right place to propose template moves? The introduction doesn't say either way, and I think it should. We have recently done one (professional football) but I'm a bit nervous of the consequences if a more popular template were to be renamed. Andrewa 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Either RM or TfD might be appropriate; one compromise would be to use RM to change the template's primary name, and then RfD to delete the redirect if appropriate (using {{rfd-t}}). --ais523 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So RM is a reasonable place to arrange a move. Are there any particular cautions to observe when moving templates? Andrewa 12:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The main problem that can occur if one is moving a template is if the new name then needs to be used for another template. For example, I recently wanted to use the name Template:e, but that's taken. Since there's already a template there, to move it, all of its instances would have to be changed (if it's complex or uses meta:ParserFunctions) or all of its instances would have to be substituted (which should be done anyway if it's a very simple template, like {{e}}) or {{tl}}. The new template could then be inserted without risk of damaging any articles. In addition, ALL documentation that suggests use of the original name of the template needs to be updated to point to the new name. Nihiltres 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Is this documented somewhere already? If not it should be, and if so it should be more prominently accessible IMO. Andrewa 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's documented in any specific spot - I'm just applying my knowledge of templates and template use guidelines to figure out what the main problems would be. It should be, though - that's another reason that we need specific information available about moving templates. I could see a subsection of RM being created, titled perhaps Wikipedia:Requested template moves (WP:RTM), for this purpose. It wouldn't get much traffic, but since templates are special cases for moves, it's probably a good idea - do you think it would add much instruction creep? Nihiltres 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you created a new page, it's possible no-one would watch it. I'd be more in favour of renaming TfD 'Templates for discussion' and letting it handle renames (with the template redirects handled by RfD, which I find is more suited to them). It wouldn't be too hard to create a {{tfr}} tag or something like that.

Substituting {{e}}, possibly. Substituting {{tl}}, not a chance... that one must have a really large number of transclusions (there isn't a policy on whether to transclude or subst it, and I've done both before), and the name is too well known now to have any chance of changing it. --ais523 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, suggest that you sign your posts individually when replying at two different levels of indent. Andrewa 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Review of Arpad Elo and others

Re the 17 November 2006 requested moves[3] as discussed at Talk:Árpád Élő

• Árpád Élő → Arpad Elo
• István Fazekas → Stefan Fazekas
• Iossif Dorfman → Josif Dorfman
• Michał Waszyński → Michael Waszynski
• Stanisław Ulam → Stanislaw Ulam
• Povilas Tautvaišas → Paul Tautvaisas
• Elmārs Zemgalis → Elmars Zemgalis
• Kārlis Ozols → Karlis Ozols
• Géza Füster → Geza Fuster
• Lucijs Endzelins → Lucius Endzelins
• Luděk Pachman → Ludek Pachman
• Pál Benkő → Pal Benko
• Vladimir Vuković → Vladimir Vukovic
• Gedeon Barcza → Gideon Barcza

I request that the appropriateness of this closing be reviewed.

1. Arpad Elo was already closed by administrator Sjakkalle after more than five days of discussion with edit summaries "(moved Árpád Élő to Arpad Elo: Discussion on the talkpage. Consensus that Arpad Elo is frequently referred to by the simplified English spelling in English texts, hence Wikipedia should follow same standard.)"[4] and "moved 'Talk:Árpád Élő to Talk:Arpad Elo: Ditt the Arpad Elo article"[5]
   • Sjakkalle did not dot all his i's and cross all his t's in closing the nomination, not adding the proper templates on the talk page and not dealing with the entire set of nominations.
2. Administrator tariqabjotu improperly failed to consider part of discussion, because in discussion area Mibelz added a second level header (==, the highest level conventionally used on Wikipedia). It and the third level header below it were part of the discussion, but the "/div" was placed above them, so they are not included in the part identified as the closed discussion.
3. Administrator tariqabjotu improperly found a lack of consensus. See summary below.
4. After closing it, and at the urging of User:Husond here, tariqubjoto moved Arpad Elo previously closed by Sjakkalle to Árpád Élő with the edit summary "(moved Talk:Arpad Elo to Talk:Árpád Élő: per result of requested move on talk page (page started here and so "no consensus" should default to it being here))"
   • Since this nomination was an objection to recent moves made without consensus (and without discussion either, and contrary to already long-existing discussion in the case of Arpad Elo with ), the proper "default" should be the name prior to the moves objected to if there is no consensus.
5. N.B. In order for the procedure to make multiple nominations to be reasonable and to have any purpose at all, it cannot be proper to count objections to considering them together to be objections to the individual moves.

According to the discussion:

• Support: Gene Nygaard (nominator), Duk, Septentrionalis, Quale, Andrewa, Masterhatch, Endroit, Croctotheface
• Oppose: Husond (but see below), Mibelz (original mover, counting him there though he doesn't explicitly say so, but could be reasonably though not necessarily implied from comments he did made[6] [[7] [8][9], some of which was part of the discussion though not considered to be so by tariqubjoto)
• Oppose considering all together: Valentinian, Kusma, Duja
• Support Arpad Elo and similar, oppose Luděk Pachman and similar, "So we should deal it on a case-by-case basis, I think": Ioannes Pragensis

I see that as at the least

• 8 support
• 2 oppose
• 4 consider separately

The opposition by Valentinian, Kusma, and Duja was also expressly stated to be objection to lumping all of them together, and Duja at least was specific in saying "No prejudice against some moves on individual basis."

For Arpad Elo, at least 9 (including Ioannes Pragensis) of the 14 editors (64%) involved supported the Arpad Elo name, vs. 3 opposed (21%), a 3:1 ratio of those addressing it favoring the Arpad Elo name actually used by this 80-year-long American.

Husond, in addition to his oppose vote, specifically identified his opposition as being to certain specific moves.[10] Omitted from Husond's list were István Fazekas → Stefan Fazekas, Iossif Dorfman → Josif Dorfman, Lucijs Endzelins → Lucius Endzelins. Gedeon Barcza → Gideon Barcza

Ioannes Pragensis: "I support in some cases the English variant (Arpad Elo for example), In other cases I oppose (e.g. Luděk Pachman"

As pointed out by Croctotheface[11] (agreed to by Stuff of Interest[12] and expressed separately by me[13])

"my understanding is that one editor undertook all of these moves at roughly the same time and without discussion or establishing consensus. If they are all related in that way, i'm OK with putting them back where they were before and then placing the burden on those who wanted to move them to where they are now (with diacritics) to establish a consensus for a move."

Gene Nygaard 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Gene; but I do here. I'm not sure no consensus describes the result; but its effect should be to restore them to where they were; anything else encourages move wars. Septentrionalis 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Gene; he's correct that most of the opposes, now that I look at them more closely, are in opposition to having a mass move instead of in opposition to the move, period. I'm not sure how I missed that the first time, as I thought I had noticed a couple of those oppose votes. As for not dotting is and crossing ts from the previous admin... um... yes, that would have been nice: the move was still listed on WP:RM, the {{move}} template was still at the top, and the {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}} templates were not used. Regardless, it appears the best course of action might be to do individual move requests. About the Árpád Élő article, I have no problem skipping an individual move request for that article and moving it back to the version without the accent marks (although I'm not going to do it now, because someone may object). Regarding doing what Husond asked, I don't want anyone to think that I was doing that just because he requested it; if the move should have been closed as no consensus rightfully, the article did belong at the version with the accents as that was the original state of the article, as the start of the move request. -- tariqabjotu 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to pile on but I've also seen some sloppy goings-on with move requests lately. Someone even forgot to move a talk page with the page itself recently, in addition to forgetting to remove the {{move}} tag. And of course I've been reminded (ever-so-nicely I might add) to fix category re-indexing, esp. when accent marks are involved. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Tariqabjotu on the close because as Gene points out, no consensus should return pages to their names before Mibelz' mass renames and Mibelz should make his arguments for each move individually. Even more importantly I am very disappointed that he chose to ignore WP:V when rerenaming Arpad Elo. As repeatedly pointed out, there are no WP:RS sources supporting the Árpád Élő name so the page belongs at Arpad Elo, where I believe it was before he moved it at Husond's request. Add WP:ENGLISH ("If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.") to the WP:V problems, and this is beyond ridiculous. Admins refusing to follow established policy and guidelines make trying to improve Wikipedia an endurance contest against POV-pushers rather than an enjoyable activity. Quale 04:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All I'll say is that when I close a move request, I evaluate consensus (or lack thereof) and act accordingly, even if that consensus is contrary to my opinion or a policy or guideline (see Talk:Yoghurt for a classic example). Now, in regards to this move, I feel this whole discussion has been blown out of proportion; as I said upfront, I admit I made a mistake – no one is perfect. Gene could have just pointed out the mistake on my talk page, much in the same way Husond did, instead of making it look like I had sinister motives. Quale, there is no need to pile on accusations of transgressions because it's not going to do anything. -- tariqabjotu 13:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't accuse you of having a sinister motive, just of doing a lousy job. Often following consensus against policy is a mistake, and following supposed lack of consensus against policy is, in my opinion, a really bad idea. Quale 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was a lousy job, although I know what you mean. There are some underlying logical problems with Wikipedia policy here - most of which I don't think we'll fix in a hurry. They may not even be fixable. What can't be cured must be endured, as one wild boar said to another in Asterix and the Black Gold.

My immediate question is, the result needs more attention so how do we fix it? Having done that, we can then look at how we could do better next time... without recriminations or blame. I'm doing this for fun. Andrewa 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I also noted this closure with some concern, but had not decided just how to proceed. As noted above I voted to move all the articles back to their previous names, without the diacritics, and I believe that we probably had consensus to do this. Be that as it may, we certainly had consensus to move Árpád Élő back. Andrewa 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I should also note, I think the presence of the diacritics in the titles, while still a hot topic in general, is fairly clearly contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines in all these instances. Andrewa 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Tariq for reversing his decision on the Arpad Elo article and moving it back. Like I said in the close when I made the move, I felt there was sufficient consensus and arguments for keeping that article to the title with the simplified spelling based on the arguments that Elo had spent all his adult life in the United States and not Hungary. I think I also mentioned that this was not to be used as a precedent for the other articles listed in the same request, so I deliberately abstained from taking any action on those. I saw there were several "opposes" on the straw poll, but many of them were opposes to mass moves rather than a move of Arpad Elo. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tariq. I made the request here, then spent the weekend without my internet connection working, have it back again now. Gene Nygaard 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete requests (2)

I see this has been covered above under #Incomplete requests, but I'd like to bring it up again. When we receive incomplete requests, either because they used the {{WP:RM}} template instead of the {{WP:RM2}} template, or because they failed to set up the discussion on a page, do you all think it would be reasonable to reject the request? It's extremely hard to sift through opinions, and it certainly seems people are less willing to give our opinion (I know I am one). I am even ready to take the extraordinary step of stating at the top (if your request is not finished, it may be removed as incomplete) or something like that. I know it's not a vote, but the request headers are set up the way they are for a reason. Thoughts? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; my opinion is that the admins managing the RM have more than enough job to be able to monitor whether the RMs were properly filled in. The procedure for setting up the RM debate is simple enough that it takes only a bit of basic RTFM and minimal effort for the interested editor. If the user doesn't care about the subject enough to spend 5 minutes to do the job properly, why should we care then? For my part, I routinely remove the malformed requests from the backlog. Duja► 10:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How to report non-consensus controversial moves

I've got a situation where a group of editors are carrying out hundreds of controversial page moves, even though a guideline page is clearly in dispute, and there's an upcoming mediation. What is the proper venue to report these moves, so that articles can be restored to original names, or a "freeze" can be put on things until consensus is established? Should I take this to WP:ANI, or is there a better venue? --Elonka 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of the situation is misleading. Support of the guideline as it stands has been broad with only a handful of people dissenting. The default position is that the guideline should not be changed until the consensus changes. While a case could be made that a "true" consensus to keep the guideline has not yet emerged (though I and others believe it has), there is certainly no consensus to change it to support Elonka's position. Further, the upcoming mediation is only tangentially related to the specific naming issues and may not result in a decision on that matter directly.

The moves pertaining to Lost specifically were ratified by consensus at a requested move which received a full debate. Other WikiProjects which had an previously established consensus to use the dab tags (WikiProject Star Trek and WikiProject Buffyverse) have been allowed to keep them in the short term. Minor series without a WikiProject or many active editors were moved unilaterally under the assumption that if move requests were held, the previous consensus evidenced by the Lost vote and discussion at WP:TV-NC would prevail. Since dozens of moves were involved, it would be a waste of everyone's time to hold a vote for each one. There has been no disruption as far as I am aware and no one, other the original dissenters at the guideline level, has protested. –  Anþony  talk  23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Anþony is incorrect. There is considerable dispute about the moves, involving objections from multiple editors. The guideline page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) has been the subject of edit wars, and is currently clearly labeled as disputed. A few editors continue to insist that they have consensus, and are moving forward with hundreds of moves. I have been choosing not to engage in move wars with them, since I know that anything that's moved, can be moved back once the situation is resolved, but the longer this goes on, the more pages that are being moved (if allowed to continue unchecked, this will affect thousands of pages), which will take considerable damage control to reverse, so it's better to just stop the moves before they happen in the first place. An admin's assistance is requested. --Elonka 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, at least five administrators have already examined and/or participated in the discussion at WT:TV-NC, and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline (which Elonka opposes). For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq[14], Steve Block[15], Radiant![16] and wknight94[17](along with many other comments on the subject). This debate is not exactly unobserved by administrators. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the guideline were changed the way you propose, reasonable exceptions would need to be agreed on for any given set of pages. Removing the unnecessary disambiguation would still be an acceptable course of action until such exceptions are agreed on. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You say I'm incorrect, but provided nothing that contradicts anything I said. I do not deny that there is dispute, but I maintain that it is due to a minority group that has not come close to achieving consensus in their favor. Being in dispute does not negate the application of the guideline, otherwise we couldn't decide if something is notable either. In the case of the Lost moves, we do not claim that we have consensus, we have evidence of it in the form of a successful requested move. We could do a RM for every one of these hundreds of moves, but there's no reason to think they wouldn't succeed as well. If you disagree, I invite you to post a RM for an example article and prove me wrong. Vague charges of non-consensus and thinly-veiled threats on the other hand are not helpful. As far as admins go, four (or is it five?) of them have been directly involved in this debate and expressed no objections to the process being used to move articles. –  Anþony  talk  03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since both of you are already a party to this dispute, you're hardly neutral in this matter. I repeat: All page moves of this type should stop, until the dispute is resolved. --Elonka 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat: Being in dispute does not negate the application of the guideline. I fail to see why your statement trumps mine, as you are hardly neutral yourself. –  Anþony  talk  03:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can one of the "Move Admins/Closers" look at this?

An anon user put up a merge tag on Violence against women back on Nov 21st but didn't complete the process with a request here. On the talk page, we have established users opposing the move with a few anons (potentially SPA or even duplicate users) voicing POV-based support. Considering the length of time, it seems like the request should be "closed" but since it was incomplete, did it really even start and thus need to be listed? Agne 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merges are handled less formally than moves and not here in any event. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is a place to optionally advertise a proposed merge. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger outlines the steps involved with suggesting a merge, but basically all you have to do is come to a consensus on the talk page. It seems the discussion has gone on long enough with enough participation. As an uninvolved party, I've closed the debate with the result of no consensus. –  Anþony  talk  13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeliness of RM notifications

Yesterday I put up a RM for seventeen pages. I put up the talk notice first, followed by the post here at RM three minutes later, then the first proposed move notice on an individual page three minutes later (a total of six minutes after the inital RM post). Although I had edit windows of all pages open before starting the move, it still took a few minutes (less than 20 minutes total) to complete all of them, particluarly since I was double checking and verifying wikilinks. One user is now continuing to complain that I failed to post notification, particularly on one article where he got there before I did (three minutes after my first RM post) and insists that he had to post notification himself since in his opinion, I had failed to do so. Is there a reasonable timeframe in which the multiple posts of an RM (particularly one of multiple articles) should be completed? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(as the editor refered to as "one user") - Notify prior to "opening the polls", especially in such a controversially and hotly disputed situation (see the talk page of WP:TV-NC) - You have all the time in the word to add the needed notification, as a sign of good faith to show that the poll (since when was it a poll anyway?) is indeed legitimate, especially as the opening to this page reads "Do not discuss moves on this page. Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, thanks for sharing your side of the story. I'd appreciate input from RM regulars on this, thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Moves via copy/paste instead of using the move feature

I have come across a situation where a user is using copy/paste to switch an article and redirect instead of actually moving either page. I've warned him/her and reverted, but they did it again. Any recommendations on how to handle this? I assume you're not supposed to do moves that way, although Help:Moving a page doesn't explicitly say you shouldn't. Moves are here: [18] [19]. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If they continue to do it after they have been clearly told how to properly move a page, they should be blocked for disruption. Cut and paste moves are substantial burden because they need to be fixed by page history merge, and can also be a copyright problem with the GFDL. —Centrx→talk • 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What happens when a consensus has been reached?

What happens to my requested move when several days have passed and a consensus has been reached? Do I just wait for a bored admin to come and do the move? I think this should also be documented on this article so that users will always know what to do or what to expect. -- intgr 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I find acting as an admin anything but boring! But remember we're all volunteers here. Sometimes there is a bit of a backlog. Please don't blame the admins for this, that's just likely to discourage some of the requested moves team, and then the rest of us will then be even busier, and the backlog will increase.

I think you're probably referring to the current IBM token ring move. Yes, we do seem to have consensus IMO.

As to better documentation, suggestions and contributions are welcome. Good to talk here before doing anything too radical. And beware of instruction creep.

In my experience, many problems are caused (and a lot of my time wasted utilised) because people haven't read what we already have. If discussions could be kept to discussion sections (not the requested moves page itself or the survey section) that would be a big help for one thing. And that's already clearly documented.

And when these directions aren't followed, it doesn't need to be an admin who sorts it out, but it nearly always is. So another thing you could do is to fix things that don't need sysop powers, so those who do have them will have more time to use them. Andrewa 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mess created, help needed

Muscovy has been moved and forked into Grand Duchy of Moscow and Muscovy (Grand Duchy). History is now disrupted, WP:FORKs exist (even two possibly) and revert war may be going on. The move was controversial in the first place; the issue is disscussed at User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Article_moves and soon likely in other places (update: Talk:Muscovy_(Grand_Duchy)#Moving_the_article). As I am somewhat involved in the discussion, I'd appreciate if a more experienced 'move handler' could step in and clean the mess as much as possible (hopefully reverting all moves, merging forks and starting a proper RM).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I second Piotrus comment: all changes should be rolled back and then a proper move request & discussion iniciated. - Evv 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, your current attempts to escalate the anti-Ghirlandajo crusade by moving it to public noticeboards are being discussed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Half a dozen commentators advised you to withdraw from Russia-related topics. Please keep the discussion in one place. I will post an addendum concerning your latest outburst later today. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps half a dozen commentators did. More than a dozen agreed with me and criticized you, and another twenty don't support your view, neither. And I have already posted comments about your worsening behaviour, so please, go right ahead and add your side of story there, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like also to ask someone to intevene. All this started with Ghirlandajo stating that he was in charge of that article and he was the only one to decide what's to happen. Here is the original post:

It is me who is in charge of the article about Muscovy. If I consider it prudent, I will move it to Muscovite Russia. The term "Muscovy" is (ab)used throughout Wikipedia primarily in Poland-Ukraine related articles, since it has derogatory connotations in the languages of those two countries. Its use in post-1552 context is certainly misleading. Since you don't deny that alternative names include "Russian Tsardom" and "the Russian state", I see your efforts at purging these from the text as tendentiously motivated. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been virtually no discussion, things are done rashly, without consideration of other users. An outside intervenition is urgently needed.--Hillock65 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a case of WP:OWN - Ghirla also wrote at my talk page: Please don't try to decide for Russian editors where they want to keep their articles.... I am afraid I have to disagree. It is the entire community who should decide on that, and WP:RM was created just for this purpose. PS. Dear Hilllock65, could you provide a diff for the comment you cite above?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So that's the reason you want to "have Ghirla deceast"? No death threats, please. I've had enough of that today. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not a death treat, I meant to use the words 'Cease and desist' and critically failed on my English language knowledge roll in a hurry mergin them into one :/ I apologize for the confusion - but that doesn't make your actions any better. Now I see you have moved a FA article, creating double redirects, breking talk templates to archives... this has to stop.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here Piotrus said earlier that he won't object to such move. But now, this seems like an attempt to add to the ongoing hysteria. --Irpen 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I still may not object when RM comes to pass, I will heave to read more sources, but I certainly don't agree with carrying out a disputed move while disucssions are ongoing, and such incivil behaviour that an experienced editor is considering leaving the project.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, over the years we've seen threats to leave the project from many users, including Ghirla himself. Thanks god most of these threats were not followed on. Moreover, most users who want to leave the project just leave without warnings. So, worry not. Balcer won't leave. BTW, I say so without regret since I value his contributions despite many disagreements we had in the past. --Irpen 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that some users have left after such warnings, and in any case, we should do our best to avoid creating situations where a user feels such pressure. Considering as this situation was created by a user who ignored WP:RM, WP:CON and was quite offensive to Balcer in edit summaries and on talk, the issue who is at fault seems rather clear to me. Alas, I am biased here for obvious reasons, which is why I have not used my admin powers, but am asking others for input. You, who have often supported Ghirla, are also biased. Now that the two of us has stated their POVs which should not suprise anybody, let's stop this cycle of 'he did, he did not', and see what others say - I very much doubt any of us can say anything suprising to the other one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that one user should not make such authoritarian and controversial article moves, as Girla did. The moves should be reverted and discussed. (Irpen needs to recall AndriyK's arbitrage, and all of his "discuss first" ideology). --KPbIC 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have merged the histories of Grand Duchy of Moscow and Muscovy (Grand Duchy) please discuss the correct name for the article. Please move the personal discussions of editors elsewhere Alex Bakharev 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Alex, we still have Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) to deal with, but yes, there is no need to go OT and discuss editors (although perhaps a note can be dropped to the editor who moved the articles that he should try to reach consensus first?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Help from an admin

I went ahead with these moves for the stated reasons and because consensus has been reached on both discussion pages. I did exactly as stated, see my original post:

• Supreme Court of Georgia → Supreme Court of Georgia (country) —(Discuss)— and then Georgia Supreme Court → Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state) —(Discuss)— After looking at the titles of the Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. State) and the Supreme Court of Georgia (Country) I think "Supreme Court of Georgia" should link to a disambiguation page. The Georgia Supreme Court is not the commonly used name for the Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. State). The U.S. State of Georgia has double the population of the country of Georgia, and this is the English Wikipedia, making the Supreme Court of Georgia more commonly known for the court in the U.S. State of Georgia. I propose moving Supreme Court of Georgia to a disambiguation page with links directing people to either the Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. State) or the Supreme Court of Georgia (Country). This would satisfy both sides, and be a hell-of-a-lot less confusing for the casual reader.

The move went fine, but for some reason I did not realize the amount of pages that need to be redirected to their new correct corresponding pages. I was wondering if a friendly, helpful admin could swoop in and help me move all these pages? A redirect page has already been created, just a bunch of redirecting to their new homes that needs to be done. Thanks! KnightLago 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, an admin never appeared so I believe I have taken care of everything myself. Please feel free to check. Thanks! KnightLago 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The survey template and "Discuss, don't vote"

I think the {{subst:WP:RMtalk|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} template should be used with caution, per Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. Very often a page is at the wrong name because someone (and all it takes is one person) didn't read the style guidelines, and a short discussion on the article Talk page is all that's needed.

I'd like to change the text on Wikipedia:Requested moves to, "If one does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want moved for discussion. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow. If a formal poll would help clarify whether consensus exists for the move, you can use the template {{subst:WP:RMtalk|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} ." Kla'quot 06:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An excellent nomination

Credit is I think due to those involved in Talk:Estonian Liberation War#Requested move. It's an example of how well things can work. Andrewa 23:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

why were these requested moves removed?

link in question

I came to check on the status of a page move as it is a bit urgent. I was at the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header page the other day and there is a section for uncontroversial moves that says to list requested moves right there and so I did (there was already one requested move listed there), and when I checked the page today, the moves had been removed with a rather puzzling minor edit.

I know that this isn't the page to request a move, but I'm now more than a bit confused because what replaced the requested moves was a where to go to request moves that redirects the user to that page and that section...

I'd appreciate any help that someone could give me. A user performed a very controversial change to the page--the user changed the name of the page and the name everywhere in the article and in navboxes and everything. The edits have been undone and everything is as it was while a controversial change of this magnitude is being discussed, but the page move that was performed can't be undone by anyone but an admin, which is why I requested the move back--so that everything could be normal without gazillions of redirects and pages that are named one thing but the article uses a different word. Then, if the discussion ever finishes and comes to a conclusion, we can come back here.

But it seems I can't do that now because I have no idea where I should request this. Help? TStein 09:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header is a template which is automatically transcluded into Wikipedia:Requested moves, but it should not be edited directly. Requests should be submitted to the appropriate section on Wikipedia:Requested moves itself. (Either "Uncontroversial proposals" or "Other proposals".)

Incidentally Animal Forest only has one edit in history, you should be able to revert the move without admin assistance. In the purposes of furthering discussion, I suggest that you submit a controversial move request for the original move at the same time, noting of course that you do not support the move yourself. –  Anþony  talk  12:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to fix it myself. I do see the problem, because it's a header it linked to itself because the requested moves page is supposed to link to itself there. I had thought that I got directed to the header page from the move error but I checked and I didn't. But I did get directed there somewhere, so I've edited the header page to make those specific links. I don't know how I got incorrectly linked to the header instead of the actual page, but I did and so did someone else and this will at least correct the course of anyone who does land up there incorrectly.

I would suggest though that if someone does accidently post a requested move incorrectly in the future, it's removal shouldn't be a minor edit. Whoever posted the requested move will be watching the page but they may not watch minor edits. TStein 12:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa - hold on there, TStein! It appears that when you edited Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header in edit version 97713901 (Revision as of 07:35, 1 January 2007), you changed the links from (these are generic examples): #SectionTitle to WP:Project/#SectionTitle. After a bit of head scratching, and as far as I can tell, that slash, together with transclusion of the header template, means that instead of redirecting to sections within the main WP:RM project page, you've pointed the links to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/, and requested moves posted there by unsuspecting editors (like me) will be overlooked entirely since they are more or less "hidden". I think I've fixed it now, by removing those slashes so that editors who arrive at the main WP:RM page will be taken to the right section within that page, and those who for some reason accidentally end up at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header instead will be directed back to those same sections of WP:RM. Hopefully someone who actually knows what they're doing (unlike me!) can check my work to make sure I've got it right. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. First, yes, all of the links you did are correct, checked them all and they lead you to the right section on the WP:RM. I don't know what happened. In my last preview I checked all of the links and they worked fine and then....?? But that was the day that I moved a page after having just reverted the page move, so I think that my browser was submitting things all funky--I had to fix I lot of things I did. When you have more tabs open than you can possibly count, who knows what can happen. The page looks good now and I went back and checked all of my edits from before I gave in and rebooted and I think everything's fixed. TStein 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for double-checking my edit. Glitch happens sometimes, but aren't wikis wonderful? -Tobogganoggin ^talk 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Backlog banner

Isn't it the standard to give moves, or especially contentious ones, 10 days or so? I ask because I'd listed an article a second time (justifiably, by my figuring) and I got a fair amount of heat for it. One user specifically cited the backlog here in opposing my request (see: Move request 2 at Talk:Tirez sur le pianiste). If this is the standard maybe the banner should be removed or the header modified. Perhaps "Overtime" would make people less testy? Or a commemorative title, "Louis Armstrong's Backlog" (Everybody loves Louie!) Anyway, thanks, Doctor Sunshine 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looking at that one: no: it's normal to give it 5 days, but when there's no consensus, often it's just relisted at the top. In the first case of yours, the closing user did not do so; but, anyway, the last oppose probably had nothing to do with the backlog. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens when a controversial move is voted down?

A controversial move has been voted down. The discussion page for it (the discussion took place elsewhere) has been locked. The move has been removed from here.

As of this point, there is still a proposed move tag on the talk page--mainly because I don't know what to replace it with. I've seen post Afd tags ("result keep/speedy keep" etc.) but I've never seen post proposed move tags, and I don't know where to find tags like this. I've looked at all of the move tags and I can't find anything fitting. There are post move tags, but are there not post proposed move tags? TStein 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any post-proposed move tags. Feel free to just leave an explanation on the page, in ordinary text. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason there are post-AfD tags is that otherwise, there's no record in the talk page that the AfD took place. The AfD notice goes on the article, not the talk page, and the discussion goes in a subpage of AfD. With RM, the discussion is normally already in the talk page, so there's no need for a separate notice there.

In this case, I assume it was a proposed multiple move or something similar. A section headed requested move with a wikilink to the talk page where the discussion took place is a very good idea IMO. If you're really motivated, I guess it would be OK to propose a standard template for this situation... But maybe that's instruction creep. Andrewa 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to standardize the multiple-move format using {{multimove}}, but I'm not sure how much it has been in use since. Duja► 12:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it used a few times. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a proposed multi-move, but the talk was on another page because the proposal, if it went through, had the possible impact of affecting what terminology was used in multiple articles. I'll put something at the top of the page and I might make a template or two. I don't think it's instruction creep really--it's not necessary in most cases, but when the discussion takes place elsewhere and is something that affects multiple articles, or is something that is regularly proposed, as is the case with some name changes, I think this would be helpful. Besides, when discussion isn't on an article page, it's often much harder to find the discussion later on when looking through archives. You're looking for a link to a discussion which is harder to spot than what is most often multiple paragraphs and votes etc. TStein 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin help request Talk:Death of Jesus

Kamran light (talk · contribs) totally messed up Talk:Death of Jesus. The move needs to be reverted for sure so that the Talk page is restored. While I do not think the newly created Ahmadiyya's concept of the Death of Jesus exactly meets any speedy criteria, I personally believe it should be deleted. After admin review, I will probably PROD that page, assuming some other action isn't taken. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page, and deleted Ahmadiyya's concept of the Death of Jesus as "housekeeping". If Kamran light (talk · contribs) wants to recreate that page, he can feel free to do so in the correct location. —Mets501 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial yet following Wikipedia core policy

Current articles are divided into uncontroversial and controversial, but how about if the opposition to the move cannot verify their claims (WP:V)? Since core policy cannot be overridden no matter how much controversy, then isn't it in a separate case of its own (i.e. articles that should be moved WITHOUT consensus)? falsedef 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves that completely follow Wikipedia policy can be controversial, however. It all depends on how different people interpret the policy, even if there may be an obvious interpretation to others. —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "other" interpretation of WP:V if claims cannot be verified by one party, yet claims can be verified for the other. The case is pretty straightforward. No matter how much controversy, the move should be made without consensus. falsedef 06:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you got an example in mind? I'm not sure I know what type of situation you're describing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently Ethnic Japanese is using a wrong name. The people in support of "ethnic Japanese" are unable to provide a single reliable source outside of wikipedia (their single cite attributes Wikipedia for their definition). The page I'm requesting a move to , Nikkei people, is sourced, accepted by Asian (American) departments in the United States and South America, used in English documents (academic such as the Japanese American National Museum, UCLA, etc.;international organizations such as the United Nations; encyclopedias like Encarta) and numerous books. It's difficult to have dispute resolution when the other side has no evidence of their claims and could go on for quite awhile before "consensus" is reached. The article needs to be moved away from its current location to maintain accuracy, and Nikkei wins in common usage in documents. falsedef 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin help to fix

Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) tried to move Nicene Christianity to Late Antique Christianity, but the move was done with copy and paste, so the page history was not moved. I reverted it but could not move the page myself due to a conflict, so I am asking an admin for help. Presumably this move is non-controversial because it covers the 6 councils after Nicene, therefore covering much more than just Nicene Christianity. -Andrew c 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I started a move request on the talk page of Nicene Christianity just to make sure this is right, and invited lostcaesar to the page. I'll keep an eye on it and finish the move if this looks like the right thing to do. The only reason it might be even slightly controversial is that Special:Whatlinkshere/Nicene_Christianity has many more incoming links than Special:Whatlinkshere/Late_Antique_Christianity. -- nae'blis 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for history merge

Copied from WP:AN/I. Can any admin more experienced than I please take care of this? Thanks, Asterion^talk 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of moving the page The Councillor of State to The State Counsellor, user Vidor created a new page and copied the contents. The page move is correct, but could someone please restore the history? In addition, the changes he made on the new page are also correct, to complicate matters further. Thanks in advance. Errabee 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Joachim and TenaciousT

TenaciousT (talk • contribs) has made some controversial, copy and paste moves, without prior discussion of Joachim. To complicate matters, there is a AfD in progress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim. Just wanted to notify anyone with admin privileges if they felt moved to undue any of these page moves, or at least examine the recent page histories. Thanks.-Andrew c 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion, the editor reverted their own edits and created a new article Joachim (Star Trek), however there is a little bit of page history at Joachim that should probably moved to the new article to cover the brief time the Star Trek article was at Joachim.-Andrew c 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything was fine, until earlier today, an admin, completely ignoring the discussion at the AfD that supported a revert back to a pre-TenaciousT version of the article, decided to make the disambig page the top level article, and to move the longstanding Joachim article to Joachim (Saint). I brought this issue up with the user, and in response the Joachim redirect was changed to point at the 'saint' article. However, I find this problematic, because there was no consensus, or even a discussion, to move Joachim to Joachim (Saint). This move is problematic because it ignores that this Joachim is the most notable individual by that name, it ignores that this article had occupied the Joachim page for a number of years, it ignores that saint should at the very least be lowercase, and it ignores that saint is a POV term because not all sects of Christianity accept sainthood. I implore an admin to please move Joachim (Saint) back to its original place, Joachim and allow anyone who wants to move the article to go through appropriate channels.-Andrew c 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything was fine, except that your edit histories were an absolute mess, and it took me a good long time to untangle it. You can breathe more easily now, in that it should be as you wanted, but I must say, you will get better responses in wikipedia with politeness. Ignore the AfD? For goodness sakes, untangling the edit histories and keeping both articles was exactly the main point. Well, I hope you are satisfied now.AND, you're welcome. -- Avi 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for template to go on article page

We should create a similar template to go on the actaul article page instead of the talk page, so we can alert people that the page is being discussed for a potential move.--Sefringle 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. U-Mos 13:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too Johnbod 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Template issues

Thought I should mention somewhere, it would seem none of the templates needed to request a page move work for 2 + 2 = 5 (song). I assume this is because of the symbols. Maybe it should be mentioned in the article with manual code for the templates, as it's quite awkward to list a proposed move for articles like this as it is. U-Mos 13:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)