Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Contents 1 Entry format poll 1.1 Discuss after the name links 1.2 Discuss in bold first format 1.3 Compromise format 1.4 Compromise format with italicized Discuss link 1.5 Close 2 Automated Moveheader Removal 3 Are move discussions popularity contests? 4 Need for /documentation becoming more apparent 5 Multimove? 6 Reformat question 7 Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current 8 Where have all the comments gone 9 Undoing moves for purely procedural reasons... 10 Death by Stereo 11 What makes a move "malformed" according to the new bot? 12 Mutimove integrated yet? 13 Template:Nakba 14 Request Publishing for a user page 15 Backlog 16 Relisting 17 Need admin assistance for a move (consensus reached)

[edit] Entry format poll

[edit] Automated Moveheader Removal

The bot is now running a new script, headerdelete.php, which removes {{moveheader}} from a talk page when there is no {{movereq}} to accompany it. —harej (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've finally put me out of business. :) JPG-GR (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Harej, do you ever sleep? :)--Aervanath (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something. How is an editor supposed to know to use {{movereq}} in conjunction with {{moveheader}}? Only {{moveheader}} is mentioned in the general instructions at WP:RM; {{movereq}} is only mentioned in the instructions for Contested requests. And what if someone uses {{moveheader}} but intentionally creates the discussion section manually without using {{movereq}}? The bot will simply remove the {{moveheader}}? That doesn't sound right. Seems to me that with this bot running around, the WP:RM instructions need to clearly state that use of {{movereq}} is mandatory, not optional, at least if {{moveheader}} is also being used. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The instructions do not give any sort of indication that subst:move is optional, whereas it is stated that moveheader is optional. —harej (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If the bot is look for {{movereq}}, what difference does it make whether subst:move is used? Or does subst:move include {{movereq}}? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

subst:move includes movereq as well as the pagemove proposal (Old name -> new name). —harej (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I knew I was missing something. Where can I look at subst:move? --Born2cycle (talk)

Template:Move ? —harej (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a whole lot simpler to use the format {{subst:move|NewName|Reason for move}}. It would also help to remove some of the malformed requests. Except I would prefer movereq, and use move at the top of the page. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a very specific reason for not making the description/reason a part of the template. The RFC bot used to work that way, and as a result, there were "forbidden characters" that could not be used in descriptions, lest it would confuse the bot. Internal links that were piped could not be used, as vertical pipes are used in separating template parameters. That was fixed by using "!!" instead, which is non-standard. Then external links proved to be troublesome somehow, as the bot randomly cut them off. Enough is enough, I declared, and I changed the function of the RFC bot so that templates are as minimal as possible. There are no longer any "forbidden characters", though sadly, I have not found a way to accommodate descriptions longer than one paragraph. Still, that is less of a problem than not being able to include links for arbitrary reasons. —harej (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking back through the archives, I see that there were complaints that some entries were too long. So having the length at one paragraph is probably better. After all it is only meant to be an introduction to the requested move on the WP:RM page. However if a multi-page move is being suggested, those are usually laid out with an intro and then a list of bullet points. Will the bot chop the conversation before the first bullet point? --PBS (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset) Yes, and not because I want it to. The issue is not that people have been expounding too much on the request, but that people will have, say, a brief paragraph, then some bullet points. This constitutes multiple paragraphs, as paragraphs are considered to be separated by newlines. Also, the current regex that picks out the description is /\{{2}\s?(movereq)\s?[^}]*\}{2}\n*[^→]*→.*(.|\n.)?([0-2]\d):([0-5]\d),\s(\d{1,2})\s(\w*)\s(\d{4})\s\(UTC\)/i if that means anything to anyone. —harej (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently did an epic upgrade to the RFC bot which got rid of this cutting-off-after-one-paragraph problem. I will be implementing it here shortly. —harej (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that epic upgrades are not very straight forward to implement. Is there any way of making the bot put identical time stamp entries in the same order each time? I'm on the verge of editing each so that it will quit moving them around each time. Any chance of fixing the page name, discuss link order again, so that it is the way it has been, again? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what causes identically timestamped entries to switch order regularly. A fix may involve some kind of tiebreaker; for example, it could go alphabetical if the timestamps are the same. As for the order of links in each entry, that is a feature not a bug. As I said, I am willing to create an alternate list which is updated in tandem just for the sake of the old way of things. —harej (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are move discussions popularity contests?

Are there any guidelines for how move discussions are evaluated? Or is it pretty much the discretion of the admin?

I'm wondering about discussions in which participants are clearly ignoring naming policy and guidelines and simply treating it like a popularity contest... the most popular name wins, period, regardless of why people prefer it over the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion are just that - discussions and are closed when a consensus is reached (or no consensus is reached). JPG-GR (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules is a valid option and it is insulting to many editors to disparage those who take that option. That you choose to reject the reasons they gave you doesn't mean their input doesn't count. See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.--Dbratland (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention anyone in particular in my comment, and did not mean to disparage anyone, especially not anyone in particular. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't "reject" any reasons. I was just wondering whether in the consensus-determining process opinions based on following established policy and guidelines were weighed more than opinions that didn't. I thought I read something to that effect somewhere once, but can't find it now. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I read WP:IAR. Don't forget:

• "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.

So IAR might be a valid option for ignoring all of WP:NC when discussing the reasons to change or retain an article name, but only if a good reason for ignoring WP:NC is provided, when asked. I don't know whether simply referring to WP:COMMON would count for most as a good reason in such a context. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I review moves under similar considerations one would expect an admin reviewing XfDs to exhibit. I have no problem with ignoring rationales that boil down to WP:ILIKEIT\WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and other oft-cited arguments to be avoided. Arguments need to be based in policy and guidelines for them to carry any weight. Wikipedia has never been a democracy, and simply stacking the polls to achieve majority should not be a valid option for those who want to "win" discussions. That's just my 2 cents though. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, so it is totally up to admin discretion? Can you please be the closer for the Ford Motor Company → Ford RM? ;-) I think there are only 2 votes in favor of the move right now, but they both cite arguments based in policy and guidelines, while the 400 or so opposes either wrongly assume the article is only about the company (and not the brand), or are essentially variations on WP:ILIKEIT.

Seriously, any interest in making this approach more formal? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, the many editors who have happened to see issues differently than you have given explanations beyond simply mentioning WP:IAR and WP:COMMON. The problem is that you are pretending those reasons don't exist. You are pretending that on the flimsy grounds that those reasons differ from your opinions and interpretations of what various policies and guidelines mean, and they are based on different opinions than yours as to what constitutes and improvement in an article. One can hardly filter out every opinion which is based on a different understanding of the underlying policy. Not without abandoning the principles of openness and consensus altogether.

There are those who have given up on Wikipedia entirely in favor of other repositories of knowledge with a more authoritarian approach that gives greater weight to people who have demonstrated they have mastered the rules and give "correct" interpretations. Perhaps you feel they are right.--Dbratland (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussions are purely optional, yet a very good idea when a page move that could theoretically happen is contestable. The point is that pages should be complying with page name guidelines, which are based off of a general agreement of how pages should be titled. Page titles which are clearly against the convention could be moved with no discussion because it's not as though there is going to be a substantial objection. But when the violations are not as outstanding, it's a good idea to talk it out. Ask around, and figure out the different insights from people. WP:RM is the infrastructure in place to coordinate these discussions that are happening all across Wikipedia. —harej (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I pretty much agree with Parsecboy; as with all discussions, you have to take the weight of the arguments into consideration. However, as I said to an editor the other day, WP:CONSENSUS implies that you have to be able to convince others that your view is correct. If a lot of people disagree with you, then they may have good reason to. Anyway, here's my general method for evaluating discussions:

First, I read the discussion, trying to ignore the various bolded "support"/"oppose" votes and focus on the actual arguments. Once I've finished reading the discussion, I make a tentative decision based on my impression of consensus. Once I've got that in mind, then I go back and look at the numbers. If they reflect the same impression I've already formed, then my decision's done. If the numbers are close, or are weighted in the opposite direction from the consensus, then I have to re-read the discussion and determine exactly how to weight the arguments versus the numbers. For a discussion I closed relatively recently that went against the numbers, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_18#Normal_114788_6298_ful.jpg, which resulted in a delete closure, despite the numbers being 6-3 in favor of keeping the image. I've seen even more lopsided decisions in the past. So, in sum, while it would be a lie to say that numbers of !votes are meaningless, they can certainly be ignored with a good enough rationale. However, you do this at your peril: very few closes against the numbers go unprotested. This is one reason I hate high-profile, controversial closes, since there's always drama afterwards, and no one's ever satisfied. See the current state of my talk page for the fallout from my close of the Military history of Britain requested move. Ugh.--Aervanath (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a brief discussion on this topic (closing) at WP:Moving guidelines for administrators. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need for /documentation becoming more apparent

Something that still needs to be done - /documentation pages for all the modified templates, so you don't have to go to WP:RM to figure out how to use them (if you can even figure out to get to WP:RM in the first place...). JPG-GR (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How many templates are we talking about? I would think that all of them should have a link to WP:RM. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

{{move}}, {{movereq}}, etc. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another request for documentation, as I'm curious why my serious (but test in nature) move request here isn't showing up. JPG-GR (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot has stopped. This was it's last edit, at 0:00 16 June 2009.[2] Have manually added all, except for the three relatively frivolous ones (moving automobile to personal transit vehicle or something like that), by the same IP user. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Multimove?

Is there a way I can do a multiple move proposal, given the new template automation? --Una Smith (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would recommend including the word multimove in your short description. You will not be able to list the pages on WP:RM. Pick one for the location for discussion, and subst' move there. Add {{moveheader}} to each of the other pages to be moved, using the page= link back to the central discussion location. Make sure you add a list of all the pages to be moved at the central location, but do not try to get the bot to list them:

subst move for one page Multimove blah blah. sig 199.125.109.126 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• This
• That
• The other
• Like this with a second sig here. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reformat question

Why have we switched from the well-known wiki-markup for bold and italics to the rarely-used-on-Wikipedia <strong> and <em> tags? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't feel comfortable filling up my code with single-quotes that are not used to put something in quote marks, but I will try it out. —harej (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At the same time can you move the italics inside the parentheses for the discuss link, like this (Discuss)? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That looks really bad, at least on Firefox on a Mac. The last S is in the parens. Dekimasuよ! 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It looks ok to me (Firefox on a PC). Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That is the way it has been since 2006, until the bot took over just now. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves/current-oldstyle. —harej (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current

Why has this redirect been put in place from quite an active discussion page, I suspect something is going on that some one does not wish to be seen. Or could I be wrong.dolfrog (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to discuss in two places. /current is a subpage of this page, which is (normally) updated by a bot. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been throwing me off lately that when I edit the main RM page, after I save I find myself at the /current sub-page, and in my contributions and watchlist, the edits aren't where I'm used to seeing them. I'm assuming there's a good reason for that change, that's probably explained on this very talk page, and that I'll get used to it.

My initial impression is that the system has become more confusing, and I'm not sure why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if something changes, and you think that the cause is that "something is going on that some one does not wish to be seen," you'll be wrong roughly 99.9% of the time. See Hanlon's razor for one side of the explanation - although not the one that applies here, because there's nothing stupid about a redirect from a completely empty (and not "quite active") discussion page, to the active one right here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

what really annoys me (or my pet WIKI hate) are those who use numbers instead of names or letters to mee they could all just be the same person with multiple accountsm trying to hide their real identity from everyone else to operate anyway they wish. They all appear to be the same to me, but that could be due to my information processing disability. They do not inspire confidence that tyey know what they are doing, and from my experience never want to really understand or research the issues involved before they rush off like butterfly to the next issue. dolfrog (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, 199.125.109.xxx is always the same person. Dekimasuよ! 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. It's an ISP and I have no way of knowing how many others are using it, both as IP users and as registered users. There are also both dynamic and static IPs from the same ISP, and there is no way of knowing which is which. It's safe to say that most of the edits to this page from this ISP are from the same person, but not for other pages. But everyone should also realize that IPusers are far less anonymous than registered users. Not liking people to edit using an IP address is something that one really needs to get over in a hurry, though, as anyone can edit is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. By the way I see that someone finally cleaned up that page. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I was referring to this page. Dekimasuよ! 06:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then it is most likely correct. In fact if I did see someone else from this ISP edit this page I would likely go work on something else, and let them carry on here, just to avoid the confusion. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(commented on user's talk page) -kotra (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with IPusers editng articles, but when a user gain administrator status, as part of becoming an administrator they have to use a registerd account for all their activities. If as an administrator they persist in being an IPuser then their adminsistator status should be withdrawn until tyey use a registered account.

dolfrog (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? No IP has admin tools....as for admins using IP addresses, there are legit reasons to use alternate accounts (I use one for example). Whether or not they are an admin makes no difference to those rules (Nor would it make a difference were they socking). --Narson ~ Talk • 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an administrator, and I sometimes edit without logging in. I see nothing wrong with that. If I'm doing anything significant, I log in. Our friend 199.125.xxx.xxx is a very helpful contributor here at Requested moves, and I don't care whether he or she has an account, is really seven people, or anything else about his or her identity. Unless he's registering opinions in discussions and then logging in to agree w/ himself (abusive socking), I see no problem, and I'm pretty confident that the person in question here is not abusively socking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is probably an innocent explantion, but what aroused my suspicions is the history of the move I have requested. I am currently editing the Dyslexia Article, and the support dyslexics recieve varies from one country to another, which can be due to the variation in Writing systems and the neurologicla skills required and the neurlogicla deficts a dyslexic may have( see Management of dyslexia ) So to provide moreinformation regarding the special education support that dyslexic will need will again depend on the staturory and support structures in each country. So what My move is trying to do is to create Special Education or Special Educational Needs articles by country. So each article should state which country the content refers to. I first made this move myself back in May 2009, but this was reverted by WhatamIdoing . So this time applied via the WIKI channles which has led me hear. On the Talk:Special Educational Needs There have been comments very similar to since i made the application by both User talk:199.125.109.102 and User talk:199.125.109.126 and all three use the same type of langauge and refuse to have a potentially friutful discussion about resolving any problems. As I said at the start there could be some innocent explanation, but as an ordinary user something does not appear to be quite right. dolfrog (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my first edit was in 2006, as a registered user, as I mistakenly thought that usernames were required, as they are in many Internet forums, but since I had forgotten both the username used and the password used (and have still been unable to find it, despite a very concerted search), I decided that since it was not required to use a registered username, I would push the envelope and see what could be done as an IP user. However, about a year later, I registered 199er as a username, just in case the requirements ever changed. As it quickly became apparent that would never happen, this username was never used, other than for this one edit. And now I will log out and continue on as before. I would, however, like to become an Admin someday (soon), but not under this username. 199er (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, your initial question was, "Why has this redirect been put in place from quite an active discussion page?" Which "active discussion page" were you talking about? There is no edit history at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current; nobody has ever used that talk page for discussion.

Now, which page are you asking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus until I started this thread here i was under the impression that i had been participating in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current hence the title of the thread. And the reason for this thread was to find out why there was suddenly a redirect from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/curren where i had been discussing this issues regarding the move of -Special Educational Needs → Special educational needs in the United Kingdom — dolfrog (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC) and thne when i went to my Watchlist on the 16 June 2009 there was a redirect to this discussion page, as I understood it for no apparent reason. Whether i had been on a mirror discussion page i do not know. The main contents of the now unaccessable discussion were similar to the content of Talk:Special Educational Needs disussion page regarding the requested move.

I hope this explains the issue

And on another issue which has cropped up on another issue, can you tell me waht the power structure of WIKI is how many levels are there? are their different graded between ordinary user and administrator, and how does the ordinary user know who is who, and who can do what.

I do have a communication disability, but trying to understand how WIKI works is like trying to spin a complex spiders web without any instructions.

dolfrog (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where have all the comments gone

Where have all the comments gone (long time passing) ...? I put in a requested move (10:32, 16 June 2009 ) which at first was listed here with its comment now the comments have gone why? --PBS (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at how the bot looks for the comment, but it may have to do with using an mdash before your sig. I tried taking it out to see if it finds the comment. It was first listed here with the comment because all of the RM's on the 16th were manually added[3] while the bot was down. When the bot started updating again it followed it's own rules, and dropped the comment.[4] [5] I have been more concerned about having RM's be listed than how they are listed. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, that worked. There are a few common sig formatting types that cause problems for the bot - using an mdash, using span, or small, and I think also checking to see if the sig is included. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the regex I put in to detect descriptions, either. It was from when the bot operated differently and I abruptly changed the format of entries. I'll make it better soon enough, I promise. I have a lot of free time now. —harej (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing moves for purely procedural reasons...

...is a bad idea. I've just been informed that it's "SOP" (Standard operating procedure, I assume) to move pages back if they're preemptively moved before discussion has reached a consensus. I strongly disagree that this is appropriate. We should refrain from doing anything for purely procedural reasons.

I therefore suggest that we renew what I believe used to be our policy: Leave the thing alone. If someone moves it, leave it there. If no one moves it, leave it there. In the spirit of Wikipedia:The wrong version, I strongly oppose a policy of insisting that a page be moved back to the prior title, as if that is somehow necessary in order for the discussion to continue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that moving things back and forth is a bad idea, but there is a procedural issue with the bot - it reformats the move request using the current page name, so you end up with the request saying Page → Page. In the old manual insertion method that wasn't a problem, because WP:RM would still say Oldpage → Newpage. Come to think of it, the problem is introduced because the bot is picking up {{movereq|Newpage}}, where instead it should be picking up the static Oldpage→ Newpage that is right below that (and if it isn't there it should be). That might also fix the other problem above where the bot strips out everything up to the last mdash it finds, stripping out the move reason if mdash is used as a prefix to a sig. I see that RMtalk was causing part of the problem because it used two mdashes. That has now been corrected. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, reverting a bold-ish move fits exactly in the WP:BRD cycle. Furthermore, moving an article in the midst of discussion is really bad form and smacks of a total disregard for consensus. Being able to work together well is a key component of the collegial atmosphere that makes a project like Wikipedia run smoothly. Doing anything that detracts from that only increases incivility and causes problems.

Unless the discussion results in a decision to retain the "new title", it absolutely should be returned to the previous one (or a different name, if consensus decides so). Even a "no consensus" closure should result in a move back to the last stable name (since, if the page had not been moved unilaterally, the "no consensus" would have left the page at the "old title"). Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that moving a page in the middle of discussion is a bad idea. That doesn't make moving it a good idea to move it right back. I know about the BRD cycle, but I tend to be more of a 0RR kind of guy. If the new title ends up being preferred, then the move back was purely procedural, and there are three moves in the history instead of one. Not a great loss, I know, but silly nonetheless.

I agree with you about closures, but that doesn't change how I feel about procedural moves. In a case where the consensus isn't leaning towards the new name, I'd be much more inclined to move it back, but I object to the idea of doing it automatically. If consensus is leaning towards the new name, then moving it back seems overly... procedural.

Any issues with the bot can surely be fixed by adjusting the settings. I can't imagine that we're somehow a hostage to one particular implementation of code, not on Wikipedia in 2009. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be disruptive to ask what page you're discussing here? I moved a page back during a discussion yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I had a good reason. Hoping that's not the one you're talking about. Dekimasuよ! 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is, but only indirectly. The page in question is Designer baby, now nominated for AfD. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it came up with Designer baby, but I'm more interested in the general case. I just didn't think it should have been listed as an uncontroversial. Moving it back could be a good or a bad idea, depending on the specific case. I just don't think it should be automatic. Maybe it's not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators#Determining_consensus touches on this a little bit. The reasoning that led to the "procedural reversal" was that there is often a bias in discussions against making a move, so that editors may !vote "leave it where it is now", which supports a new title which doesn't have consensus. The compromise we reached before was: let the discussion run its course, and then, if the discussion reaches no consensus, revert the move.--Aervanath (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Death by Stereo

I'm not sure where to request this, but this seems a likely place. Until recently there were 2 articles: Death by Stereo, about a Filipino rock band, and Death By Stereo, about an American rock band. 2 different topics, but somehow had wound up at nearly identical titles (the only difference being the capitalization of "by"). On June 15 "Death By Stereo" was moved to "Death by Stereo" after a requested move was filed here. I believe that in the process the article about the American band was overwritten. I didn't notice this until today, when I recalled having come across the 2 articles a while back and decided to disambiguate them. I moved the article on the Filipino band to Death By Stereo (Filipino band), and wanted to move the other to Death By Stereo (American band), but can't find it. In looking over the various redirects I came across a notification of the requested move, which is what leads me to believe that the article on the American band was deleted or overwritten in the move. Is there a way that it could be restored to the dab'd title? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the article that was deleted was Death by Stereo, on the 15th. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To further complicate the issue, it looks very much like during the move the article on the Filipino band was attached to the talk page about the American band, so now the talk page doesn't even match the proper article. If someone could restore things to how they were before the delete/move on June 15, this whole mess could then be sorted out. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the American article was deleted as G6 (uncontroversial cleanup for a move) it seems clear to me that the deletion was accidental and I've restored the article. I also placed a deletion tag on the Filipino band because it's not clear to me that it's notable (the one on the American band seems to have some problems too, though). Dekimasuよ! 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So, there's one article now, at Death by Stereo, and it's on the American band. There is a talk page that's been deleted, and I suppose I can undelete it, although there's not much of use there. Dekimasuよ! 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And what happened to Death By Stereo (Filipino band)? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted under A7 meaning that the article did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.--76.66.182.47 (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What makes a move "malformed" according to the new bot?

Well... what makes a move "malformed" according to the new bot? JPG-GR (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The move request has to be formatted in such a way that the bot cannot infer the various details for a move request. —harej (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes... duh... but, how so? Some recent ones have appeared to be formatted correctly, yet still show up as malformed... JPG-GR (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The ones I've seen recently have been spit back out because they used {{movereq}} directly instead of substituting {{move}}, which leaves out the line with the permanent record of what the move request was. Dekimasuよ! 09:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps someone should document all the changes they've made to the templates? JPG-GR (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Be bold? Dekimasuよ! 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel well-versed enough on all the changes harej has implemented to do so. JPG-GR (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can take a stab at it, if someone would be so kind as to create Template:Movereq/doc. There is already a Template:Move/doc, and I have updated it, though it needs to be <noincluded> onto the template {{move}}. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Extra mdash
• Missing timestamp in first paragraph (this will soon disappear)

• I thought I fixed this? —harej (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's why I wrote "this will soon disappear". I'll check. It's fixed, but I am not sure that stripping out all the cr's is the best solution. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• No timestamp (only looks for UTC?)
• Missing [[From]] → [[To]] formatting, below the {{movereq}}
• An asterisk in the first paragraph
• Raw signature with special formatting

Unfortunately it is a moving target, because the bot is still under development, and it is almost useless to look at the code, because the published code may or may not be what is being used (only harej knows). There may be a way to examine the code on meta, but I have not found it, nor is code necessarily easy to decipher. What I have done is try something and see if it works, and if not, try something else. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point I cannot see the syntax changing significantly. As for documentation, I have added the documentation onto {{move}} and {{movereq}}. There was documentation for {{move}}, but it got all mixed up from the page moving. I will get to documenting the other templates, including the ones which are currently out of commission because I have not found a way to incorporate them. —harej (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a way to "rudely" point out that move has to be subst'd. Not that it is nice to be so rude. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is, but the big issue is people using movereq directly. Which is undesirable, as the point of using {{move}} is to establish the permanent record of the requested page move, as earlier discussion pointed out that there is a need for a lasting record once the discussion ends. —harej (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mutimove integrated yet?

Hey, has the multimove template been integrated with the bot yet? I.e. will the bot remove the multimove header on other pages once the linked discussion is closed, or does this still have to be done manually? If it's not integrated yet, an easy way to do it would be to check the "what links here" for {{multimove}}, then check the linked discussion; if the linked talk page has no {{movereq}} tag on it, the bot could just remove the multimove tag. (This is pretty similar to what the bot is doing with the {{moveheader}} template, I believe).--Aervanath (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, and no. As far as I know the bot only looks for a sig in the first paragraph. The instructions have pre-maturely stated that you only need one sig at the end. I believe that the bot does not currently remove any multimove headers. They do create an entry in the Category:Requested moves, though, but unless we implement the suggested limitation of only allowing one move request at a time, it is somewhat tedious clicking on all of them. The bot will concatenate all paragraphs up until it finds a sig. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two multimoves right now. With one the bot is picking up the section heading, the other not. Not sure why not. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to think of a workable syntax for an integrated multi-move. I don't know how many people would like this, but I am thinking it could be along the lines of: {{ subst:multimove | oldtitle1 = Old Title 1 | newtitle1 = New Title 1 | oldtitle2 = Old Title 2 | newtitle2 = New Title 2 }}, etc. etc. Also, would you be open to the idea of multimoves being listed in a different section? I am willing to do it either way. —harej (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly advice against moving yet another template from being located at the top of the talk page to being located at the location of the section heading. I believe that when that was done with {{move}}, the name of the template should have been changed. Ditto for {{multimove}}. If you are going to create a template that is supposed to appear at the section heading of the move discussion, for goodness sakes, please don't call it multimove, which is intended to go at the top of the talk page. I for one would strongly oppose creating a separate section for multimoves. There are already enough sections to keep track of without adding an artificial additional one or ones. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out all of those things. Would it be okay for multi-moves to use {{move}}? —harej (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If we could figure out a way to add multimove functionality to {{move}}, that would be great. Maybe add a "multimove=yes" parameter, which would then trigger a different parsing method?--Aervanath (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nakba

Will somebody please move "Template:Nakba" to "Template:1948 Palestinian exodus?" I tried to do it myself, but it didn't allow me to because its a redirect or something. The discussions here and here call for it. Thanks in advance. --GHcool (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the move request was only filed 2 days ago, so that's a little premature, as requested move discussions usually last at least 7 days. Also, the RfC you link to was only filed a few days ago, and the standard time for an RfC is 30 days. Yes, at the moment the RfC seems like more people support the move you proposed, but this could change. Just be patient. :) --Aervanath (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently sitting in "uncontested". I suppose it could just be left there a few days... 199.125.109.124 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request Publishing for a user page

I would like to request the publishing as an article of the user page : bouchta el hayani and moving it to the wikipedia main area as an encyclopedia article

thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khatibimaroc (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It already is an article: Bouchta El Hayani.--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

The backlog seems to be a week behind. Is something amiss? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to be as diligent in processing them lately. I probably won't have a lot of free time until the fall, so I hope someone can step in and start closing them. I should say that non-admins such as yourself can close move discussions; many of them don't require admin assistance. If they do, you can use {{db-move}} to request the deletion of the page which is getting in the way.--Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And what little time I have had has mostly been spent fighting with the bot formatting for the bot. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking that for the first time since the bot was implemented, I have been able to resolve all the formatting issues, and gone through all the RM's to see what they said - and then noticed that I was only up to the 28th... 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to lend a hand with the backlog here and there. I'm relatively new to this area though, so I'm treading cautiously (slowly). If it gets much worse, maybe it should be mentioned on WP:AN. -kotra (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing up the backlog flag should be enough. I wouldn't worry too much about being bold - everything or at least almost everything can be reversed, and you will certainly get pretty much instant feedback if someone disagrees with what you have done. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone through and nuked the backlog, so we're good for the next...hm...11 hours. :) Question: does the bot automatically place and remove the {{adminbacklog}} tag, or does it need to be done by hand?--Aervanath (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By hand. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting

How can you relist an article so that the bot moves it to the top again? There's no explanation on the RM page or on the bot's page that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Added to Administrator instructions. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Is that something only admins should do, then? Jafeluv (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just relisted the highly controversial Neda move. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jafeluv: No, anything on WP:RM can be done by non-admins as well as admins. See my comment in #Backlog, immediately above.--Aervanath (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Except blocked moves. Dekimasuよ! 05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's even a way around that: non-admins can place a {{db-move}} template on the article which is blocking the move, unless that page is full-protected for some reason. Even then, you could file an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page of the article explaining the situation. More admins monitor CAT:EP than this page, anyway.--Aervanath (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need admin assistance for a move (consensus reached)

I feel like I'm asking this in the wrong place, but this is where a template at Talk:Tagged (social network) lead me, so here I am. There seems to be consensus to move Tagged (social network) to Tagged, but Tagged has a short history which prevents a non-admin making the move. I'm not sure whether the history is trivial enough to apply {{db-move}}. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So how does anyone request help? There's a whole long-winded page ABOUT requesting help, but NO INFORMATION on how to ACTUALLY DO SO. Joe Suggs (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM and follow the instructions. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This RM has been completed now by another user. For the record, it sounds like Adrian J. Hunter was just prodding someone to close the RM already, which I think was fine since it'd been backlogged for 9 days and there was a consensus. -kotra (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually was going through the backlog, and the first one I decided to close happened to be the most intense one. So that kind of occupied my time for a while. I will try to do the rest, though. —harej (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kotra. Actually I wasn't just giving a prod, I was following the "request further assistance" link on the proposed move template at Talk:Tagged (social network), visible in this version from before the discussion was closed. The link leads to this talk page, not to WP:RM. But even after reading WP:RM, it's not clear what an editor is supposed to do after consensus is reached. Is the idea that we just wait for an administrator to notice? I've seen move discussions last weeks, so I'd assumed it was normal process to notify admins when discussion is over. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You can wait for someone to go through the backlog, or you can try listing it in the uncontroversial moves section and noting that there has been a consensus reached on the talk page, if the result is very clear. Hopefully you haven't seen many discussions last weeks, but in any case, I'm sure they weren't the type of discussions that were uncontentious. Dekimasuよ! 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the instructions "Most move requests are processed by a handful of regular contributors". If the backlog is getting too long, the handful is too small, or none of them have been able to clear the backlog. It is relatively abnormal right now to have such a long backlog. Part of the long delay is from switching from 5 to 7 days, part of it just for lack of enough people working on clearing the backlog - and part of it just getting used to the changes introduced by using the RFC bot. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)