Wikipedia talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Part of the Requested Moves automation initiative was to have a system that cleans up after itself, and this was largely achieved. The multi-move templates are used as of now to post on the top of talk pages when a move discussion is going on at a different talk page. This system is spotty at best; either they are not being used when they are supposed to, or the existing uses are outdated. I could simply employ bot management of the multi-move templates, but then I thought of something better. Instead of having yet another yellow box in the foray, how about an automatic message added to each talk page of each page that would be affected by a multi-move? It would simply be text: "There is a move discussion going on at Talk:X that would affect this page. Please participate at Talk:X#Section. Thank you for your participation. —RFC bot". —harej (talk) (cool!) 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be an improvement. A template at the top is easily missed by editors since those aren't expected to change often at all. An automated message would also discourage starting the same discussion on several talk pages. Also, if there's an automated message that a discussion is ongoing, no one can use the "this should have been discussed here first" argument anymore :P Jafeluv (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new messaging system is now in effect. I will now phase out {{multimove}}. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work. One suggestion: could the talk page link lead to the "Requested move" section, instead of the top of the page? Jafeluv (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will do that now. There was a good reason why it did not at first, but then I realized there was a very simple fix. —harej (talk) (cool!) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Template:Moveoptions been overlooked? The automation of RM has left the instructions on this template outdated; it is not clear how one now uses the template, or how one should go about requesting a move where the name of the target article still needs to be chosen.--Srleffler (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current substitute for {{moveoptions}} is {{movereq|?}} or something that shows that the page should be moved but no one knows where to. This is because I did not integrate Moveoptions when first coding this bot, then figured that I did not really have to. Maybe I can integrate the template so that if someone puts "?", then the Moveoptions template shows up. —harej (talk) (cool!) 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Movereq}} now takes on the features of {{Moveoptions}} if you specify a question mark as the requested page name. —harej (talk) (cool!) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like creating a WikiProject entity for all the move-request gnomes who hang out here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Article names. —harej (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move request for Moroccan British seems to have fallen off the bottom of WP:RM. Can an admin take a look at Talk:Moroccan British and take the needed action based on that? Thanks, cab (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — It's subst:move, not subst:movereq. —harej (T) 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too soon for these to be moved? Talk:Film_series#Requested_move. Articles exist for at least one of the pages, so may need admin to assist. Robsinden (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These should have been processed a while ago — it's a wonder they weren't already. @harej 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move manually? Think I could do this for all but List of film duologies -> List of film series with two entries as this page is already extant. Robsinden (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why it did not appear on the list: you did subst:movereq instead of subst:move. @harej 02:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object changing the parameters of {{move}} so that we'd have this kind of syntax:

{{subst:move|NewName|My reasoning.}}

This is to make the template automatically include the user's signature. It's a common reason for malformed requests that the user forgets to sign the request (and rightly so, because the alternative template {{RMtalk}} does include the signature). Also, it'd be great to have the template display a warning message if someone forgets to substitute it. What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may work, this may not work, but it cannot be implemented until I make the necessary code changes. In any case, I really think the template syntax must be kept as simplified as possible. Furthermore, the reason would have to be outside the template once it's substed (i.e. substitution would yield {{movereq|newname}} reason). This is because when you put things inside a template, you get "forbidden characters" such as | (vertical pipe) that are treated as template parameters, causing [[pipe links|like this]] to not work. This caused an immense amount of trouble with RFC back in the day. There is also the matter of multi-moves. @harej 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I tried the piped link thing with {{subst:RMtalk}}, and it seems to pose no problems (at least in preview). I guess that would be a problem if the rationale contained a separate | character, but it's pretty unlikely, I think. Also, if I understand correctly, the changes I'm proposing could be done without altering the bot code at all. After substitution, the new syntax would produce exactly the same wikicode as before. The only difference would be that it would no longer be possible to forget signing your move request, making the request appear at #Time could not be ascertained. Jafeluv (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that you were saying once it's substituted, so I guess you meant that the reason should be outside of {{movereq}}. That was my intention all along – the resulting wikicode shouldn't change at all as a result of the changes. Jafeluv (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could write a test version of the template in my sandbox, so that it can be tested for any potential problems before replacing the current template with it. Jafeluv (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock Church should be moved to the existing but blank, Rock Church page, as it is the official name of the church. See website www.therocksandiego.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavius Constantine (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at KGB (USSR) has reached a consensus, all to none. Could someone move it now? --Yossarian^Complaints 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @harej 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Yossarian^Complaints 09:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:RFC bot will now add {{moveheader}} on all the pages where a move discussion is in progress. Once it is added, it can be re-oriented to the user's will; the bot does not care where it is, as long as it is there. As usual, the bot will remove the tag once the discussion is over. @harej 10:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I just went and edited the template so that it wouldn't include the Category:Requested moves though (I added the cat to the doc page however, so that the template itself will stay categorized). The reason why is that if you correctly closed a discussion whole removing {{movereq}}, it would still list the page as an ongoing RM, leaving it here in the backlog for example.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no need to categorize something twice, yes, {{movereq}} gets removed after a move discussion ends anyway. @harej 09:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a clear wording on the project page on whether non-admins are allowed to close move discussions or not? Currently, the page says nothing about the closer needing to have admin tools (and indeed, no admin tools are technically required to close discussions). When I first started contributing here, I was told more than one time that anything at RM can be performed by non-admins as well as admins (well, except for moving over redirects and other things that require the admin tools, of course). There's an ANI thread going on where Vegaswikian is arguing about Chzz's closure at Talk:Durham being inappropriate, based on him not being an administrator: "I'll note that I could not find the closer listed as an admin. If that is in fact the case, then that editor should not have closed a discussion like this." Also, I noticed kotra's message on User talk:Ohms law to "leave the closures for administrators or at least uninvolved editors". I'll gladly refrain from closing any more move requests if there's consensus for requiring closers to be admins, but I really don't see the point of making people go through RfA in order to perform tasks that they don't even need the tools for in the first place. I mean, even deletion discussions can be closed by non-admins in certain cases (although most of them are restricted to admins for obvious reasons). Move discussion closures are revertable by any editor regardless of user rights in about 100% of the cases. I always thought that admins are just regular editors with some extra buttons, but I can understand if some people feel differently. Any thoughts? Jafeluv (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor that is capable of determining consensus can close a move discussion. @harej 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that quote of me, the fact that the user was not an administrator was not so much the issue; it was that they had been significantly involved in the discussion and closed it in their favor. And my full wording was "please (emphasis added) leave the closures for administrators or at least uninvolved editors"; meant as a request and not a hard-and-fast rule. But, concerning the current instructions on closing, it does seem to imply that administrators do the closing: "If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop"; the closing instructions are named Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators and are linked by the text "administrator instructions"; "the closing administrator" is mentioned several times in that particular page, with no mention of non-administrators closing; etc. Right or wrong, looking at the process as it is now, it does seem to say that closing is for administrators only.

But this discussion is about how it should be. I don't have a problem with non-administrators close RM discussions per se, as long as they do it with consensus and policy in mind. So I wouldn't mind if closures are explicitly made available to non-admins as long as it's explicit that they follow Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators (or whatever it's renamed), or at least are reminded to follow consensus and policy, and not close discussions they've participated too heavily in. But if we agree to allow non-administrators to close, that should be made explicitly clear. -kotra (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out several times on this very talk page, JPG-GR effectively ran this page for quite a long time before getting the bit. Non-admins certainly can close move discussions. The only speed bump is when a redirect with more than one edit stands in the way, and {{db-move}} can handle that with ease. If the page as it stands now makes it seem as if only admins can close requests, then it needs to be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've been aware of your points on this talk page, but since I'm a relatively recent participant in these parts (about 5 months), I wasn't sure if times had changed to become more administrator-preferential since JPG-GR's pre-bit days, or if the instructions had always been like this. In either case, the fact that non-admins can close moves has, at least during the time I've been here, seemed to be a "secret" constricted to this talk page and individual practice; the main page and the instructions page have had a different message. If nobody objects, I'd be happy to change the wording to reflect that non-administrators can close. -kotra (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason to relegate closures to admins only, and requested moves are in fact uncontroversially closed by non-admins, but I see it as best stated in similar form to non-admin closures of Xfds. I have edited the instructions page accordingly. I have also added a section on conflicts of interest. Please review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those changes pretty much cover it. The close in question was by someone involved and it was clearly lacking a consensus and the close left the article where the appropriate guideline said it should not be. Clearly an uninvolved administrator should have closed that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Talk:Durham closure or to the Talk:Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 1: Unlisted Demon 101 and Talk:Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 2: Attack of the Mecha-Vulcan closures? Just to clarify. -kotra (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that Vegaswikian is referring to Talk:Durham. The thing is, no one was likely to close that as a move. With the thing having occurred to Una, and all of the drama involved in that discussion, it just wasn't going anyway. I think Vegas is correct, and it's perfectly clear to me that the page should move over for a DAB page, but the people squatting on it are able to make it stay just by making enough noise about it. The thing is, there's no time limit to these things. Let it sit for a couple of days, and someone will movereq it again. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and more importantly there is no deadline, so everyone just relax and we'll all just keep doing what seems appropriate. Nothing about page moves is permanent, regardless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@Fuhghettaboutit) I think your changes are good, especially the COI section. I think "(although not necessarily encouraged)" is not necessary to mention and could be interpreted as "non-admins are discouraged from closing"; they shouldn't be discouraged if they follow all the criteria you added. So I've removed that bit. Would it be appropriate at this point to move Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators to Wikipedia:Closing and moving guidelines for Requested Moves or something similar? -kotra (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little long but I can't think of anything better. The only change I'd suggest is that requested moves should be lowercase.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions? I think it should be a subpage, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions and other similar pages are. Jafeluv (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That name seems good to me as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and moved to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. -kotra (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it's already fairly settled, but I'd like to at least say something. First, I generally don't close discussions. There was quite a backlog yesterday though, so I worked to clear a few of what were clearly "no consensus" or "not moved" cases. I see the two... manga? movies were mentioned, so assuming that this is primarily about them the issue that I saw there was simply that no real discussion occurred at all. Personally though, I only participate here in between actually editing articles. This is a fairly straightforward process, and is and should remain much less controversial then any of the deletion discussions. For the more controversial issues (the Church article springs immediately to mind) everyone should obviously be a bit careful, but otherwise I don't see an issue with re-listing requests that have been closed.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of discussion is not an issue in fact; it's not like XfD. However, one way RM is like XfD is the drama: people can get just as worked up about 'their' article being renamed as they do about 'their' article being deleted; I'll probably never understand why, but that's what I've seen. RM should be straightforward, but since RM can be such a source of drama, closing them requires some care. -kotra (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but lack of discussion wasn't actually a problem. I tried to discuss the issue... Anyway, I'm very aware of how some react to RM's, I assure you. I don't though, and their fundamentally not like any deletion discussion, in that they simply don't carry any sort of permanence to them. I've been sort of wanting to avoid mentioning this point as well, but part of the problem with the two specific movereq's that I think you're worried about is/was the attitude that I picked up from the nominator, which was basically that the request was being made just to do it. If anyone else has spoken out about it, I never would have touched them. Everything together created a view supporting WP:SILENCE, to me. But hey, this is an RM we're talking about, so just renominate them! I won't be angry at all about that, I can assure you.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, and I didn't mean to sound condescending about your RM knowledge; I'm sorry if I did. Concerning those closes, it really was basically just that you were one of the two main participants in the discussion and you had closed it in your favor (I think most uninvolved, clueful editors would have closed it as "not moved" as well, but that's not the point). Anyway, those closes aren't the focus of this discussion, so if this goes on much longer we should probably take it elsewhere. -kotra (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is actually a point here directly related to the wider discussion. Those articles and several others had sat in the backlog for some time, which is all that prompted me to take some action. I well recognize that it's difficult if not impossible to see intent or emotion (or lack of) online, but it should be apparent to anyone who really looks that I wasn't sitting there with baited breath just waiting to slam the discussion's closed (I would hope, anyway). That and... why only speak out after the close? I don't really think that you were trying to be condescending earlier, by the way, but I mention that here only because it goes towards the issues expressed in WP:SILENCE, which I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying that it was wrong to bring this up or anything, but it does seem a little, um, odd? Hopefully you can see what I'm trying to say, here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this discussion for a while. To address your points: 1. I don't see it as a major problem if items are in the RM backlog: to me it often just means they need a little more time to discuss. 2. I find it's best not to give people fodder to assume bad faith, whenever possible. Even if it's clear to you and me you weren't waiting with bated breath to close the discussion in your favor, people on the other side of the discussion are often not as objective. 3. I brought it up on your talk page just to give some friendly advice from one editor to another, as I hope you will do for me if you see me do something you disagree with. As for bringing it up on this page, that wasn't me... I just clarified what was said. Anyway, I think we probably just disagree about this issue, and it's not a big one to me, so I think that's all I have to say. -kotra (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out below in another discussion, the templates for closure/archiving need to be displayed prominently somewhere on this page. That way, any non-admin moving a page according to consensus on a talk page will know immeadiately how to close the relevant dissusion properly if they visit this page. Jubilee♫clipman 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified my views a little. See below. The Closing Instructions page needs to be better organised and the link to it more prominantly displayed on this page. Jubilee♫clipman 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at the wording of the instructions displayed by the template:movereq – there is nothing there to suggest there are special rules for closing such discussions. Take the closure at Talk:Durham for example: an editor who had expressed a strong view in the discussion nevertheless closed it, believing the discussion was not approaching consensus. He used the wrong archive template, being unaware of the RM templates. From the WP:RM perspective that was a clearly faulty closure, but there was nothing in the instructions at the top of the section to suggest that he should have done otherwise. Further, the instructions in the header mention only consensus, while WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions also mention naming conventions and policy. I suggest that the template should point at these instructions. Kanguole 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including the link is an improvement, but it still gives the impression that this is only for technical assistance, not that there are special considerations in closing moves. Kanguole 11:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing to probably be careful about here is making it seem as though the nominator or another participant in the dispute/discussion is encouraged to close it (see all of the above). Closings should at least be someone only involved in the move discussion, I would think. Aside from that, the recent change has beefed up the pure size of the message rather considerably. Anything more isn't likely to be actively noticed by normal users anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that this process is unnecessarily obscure to newcomers because there is no archive of past requests. I know they're in the history, but that's very inconvenient to use. Kanguole 12:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please don't suggest archiving the WP:RM page. The history is more than enough of an archive. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with archiving? Sure, all the information is in the history, but it is extremely difficult to access. Kanguole 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that a centralized archive would be too much to maintain, and over time, it would be too large to be of any practical use. @harej 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most WP processes seem to be archived, and don't seem to require much maintenance after the initial setup. Kanguole 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The archives exist on the Talk pages of the affected pages. Generally speaking, movereqs are much less of a pure process then deletions or most other mechanisms. Their also very much more taken care of on a case-by-case basis, since names just naturally vary for so many reasons. I suspect that this is the root cause of all the recent conflict over the Naming conventions guidelines. One issue that I don't think that (some of) the warriors fighting over the current conventions seem to grasp is that the conventions have been fairly vague over the years on purpose. Anyway, there's really just no need, that I can see, to keep a central list of archived results. It wouldn't be particularly informative even if it was done.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. The thing to understand is that no discussion ever takes place on WP:RM other than a brief "should we be discussing this somewhere", and therefore it is the individual talk pages that need archiving, not the list of what pages had typos in their names, which is a fairly absurd thing to archive, other than in the page history. WP:RM is solely a central notification of page move discussions and requests for admin/autoconfirmed user, etc., help, and nothing else, in it's simplest definition. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the need to archive these discussions in a central location, since the discussions are still on the talk page of the individual articles. The reason deletion discussions et al. are archived is because they take place on a separate place that would easily be lost if no one tied down an essentially permanent location. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting archiving the discussions (which as you say are elsewhere), just the index. Kanguole 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But... to what purpose?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent, since we've arrived at the start again)
As I said at the top of this thread, an archived index would make the RM process less obscure to newcomers. At the moment, the only way to get a feel for how it operates is to hang around here for a long time. Kanguole 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, a far better place to put the necessary information on how it works is in Help:Moving a page. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't understand how the current process is "obscure", anyway. What is there to get a feel for, anyway?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a review of the first section "Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name" of the Naming conventions policy, which could result in fundamental changes to the policy.

I think anyone who is involved in the WP:RM process on a regular basis may like to monitor what is being said at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Main principle?, hence the "heads up". --PBS (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About fucking time. Thank you, PBS. Good to see you back on this page, especially since you asked me to automate this process to begin with. I will be sure to pay plenty of attention. @harej 09:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good god... guys, there are at least 4 different conversations regarding Naming conventions all going on a the same time now. If I start a sub page (here, or elsewhere, doesn't matter to me) and summarize all of the arguments, can we just do an RfC/centralized discussion and settle all of this? This is getting kind of crazy.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is just great. It looks like an April Fools joke or something. @harej 02:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone moved to the saint's page, huh... maybe it's a miracle! Dekimasuよ! 04:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't beat yourself up over it too much. Bots are just hard, as there's simply a lot of unforeseeable issues that can occur. Anyway, the main problem seems to be the attempted movereq on a category page. You may want to seriously consider adjusting the bot to ignore the namespace completely, and to change the move/movereq template to display the "incorrectly placed" message when it is used on Category talk pages as well. Categories have their own process at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion that takes care of categories specifically, because there are some special issues involved with adjusting them.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't despondent over it, I was laughing over an unintentionally funny glitch. In any case, the requested move on the category page actually listed a bunch of articles. It's certainly an unconventional place but there's nothing wrong with it, since all involved pages get cross-notified. @harej 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I thought he was asking to move the category itself, my bad.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reposting here from AN/I)

• There is an open RM at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II.
• There is an open mass RM at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion, affecting the above. The purpose is a mass rename from the descriptive title of a lot of articles to a prescriptive title that is yet uncertain (and in my view violates policy, and I have a lot of other issues with this proposal)
• There is a merge proposal at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion, affecting both of the above.
• RfCbot appears to be malfunctioning, the moveheader removal bug this time did this [1]. I have not restored because I don't want to edit war with a bot.

I ask administrators to maintain the move and merge proposals:

• I ask to close the RM at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II once the bot's edit is reverted, because the other RM superseded this RM and several editors who participated in this vote now voted en-bloc for something different on Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion.
• I also ask to put on hold the merge proposals as long as the interflicting RM is open, or the other way around.
• I further ask to monitor the RM at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion
• And I ask someone to repair the RfCbot

Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. The supervision of an outside administrator would be helpful. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: RfCbot has removed all some moveheaders to the affected articles of the mass RM, that were added manually by Labattblueboy. An IP has reverted RfCbots wholesale deletion of the talkpage (diff above), RfCbot has not yet reverted again. All other problems still stand as listed above, help appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)/06:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the script that removes {{moveheader}} after the discussions are over no longer blanks the page by accident. So as of now, the issues with the pages are administrative and not technical. @harej 10:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what I screwed up: I made a move request for As I Lay Dying (novel), which has partially showed up here, but my reasoning hasn't been replicated. Can someone less incompetent than me have a look?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fixed now. -kotra (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is getting pretty large (over a week old, 25 entries). I'm going to try to close a few that I haven't participated in, but would it be helpful to post a note at WP:ANI or WP:AN? WP:AN tells us to just add {{adminbacklog}}, but I don't think that's helping much. -kotra (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this note, I think the shape of the backlog has improved. I think part of the problem was that the list was broken for two days. @harej 06:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed improved. Whatever the cause was, thanks to all for reducing it back to normal! -kotra (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it looks a lot better now, although a backlog of 25 entries isn't actually a disaster when compared to other backlogs out there (Wikipedia:New histmerge list with its 20k entries, or even WP:PM which goes back to October 2007). Regardless, according to some people we seem to be "struggling to keep up" :P Jafeluv (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to brag. This page used to have ridiculously long backlogs. Sure, at first, the backlog didn't seem bad. Then as it turned out, there were move requests from 2007 not getting processed because they were not on the list. Now our efficiency rivals that of WP:AIV because we have a process capable of cleaning up after itself. @harej 11:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the opposite is true. The backlog has been quite impressive at times since the switch, often much more impressive than prior. JPG-GR (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "impressive"? @harej 07:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive, as in "damn, that's a huge backlog." JPG-GR (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. Really, there was no way to know for sure how big backlogs got before automation because the list was pretty much regarded as "optional". @harej 05:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any template that properly transcluded {{move}} was listed at WP:RM or the template was removed fairly regularly. That used to be part of my daily routine. JPG-GR (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the meatbag predecessor to RFC bot. Now the task you used to carry out is now carried out by the bot up to 48 times a day. Huzzah! @harej 11:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 9, 2009, Wikipedia:Requested moves will turn 5 years old. How will we celebrate this occasion? @harej 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we move it? Is Wikipedia:Requested moves ON WHEELS!!!!! taken? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, move it, what an excellent suggestion, then we can have an RM to move it back! 199.125.109.138 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My vote goes to HAGGER?????. Five years, five question marks. Who wants to do the honours? Jafeluv (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful! Admins have been known to stuff beans up their noses. -kotra (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a good celebration would be a nice, long discussion on moving the Main Page to Main page. It's not a proper noun, and I've never understood why it's capitalized in the first place. Jafeluv (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Wikipedia:Main page? Since it is not an article. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should write up a paragraph in honor of the 5th anniversary of RM for the Signpost. There could be a nomination for lamest move war. And include a few links to the naming conventions, to educate people. Personally, I think User:GTBacchus/RM closings is instructive in terms of what is actually done here. A link to that page (or something similar) could be used as an example. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a genuinely good idea (unlike my babbling above). Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions is probably the place to suggest such an article. Someone who's been around for a while could give it a shot and make a draft. Jafeluv (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest someone set up RM on simple since they don't have one. :) 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to create two special sections for file moves: one for non-controversial moves and another for file-move discussions. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't they be integrated with the other move requests? @harej 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion—files can be moved only by administrators, while other pages by anybody. Ruslik_Zero 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already many pages on this list — most, I would argue — that can only be moved by an administrator due to the fact that a redirect occupies the desired title. In fact, the entire Uncontroversial Requests section is based on this idea. And they are all mixed together with the move requests that are only there for the sake of determining consensus on a name. @harej 11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for separating file moves from any other kind of move. Ditto for categories if it becomes possible to move them, with WP:CFD relegated to deletions and merging, though those folks may want to have us shoo categories over to them instead. 199.125.109.138 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should a move button for categories ever come to prominence, I'd lobby for having category move requests come over to WP:RM for the sake of uniformity and being the second-most efficient bureaucracy on Wikipedia (a ranking I made up). @harej 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me now that you're after the ultimate dictatorship of Wikipedia. I should have seen the signs when you invaded Poland... Soon enough, you'll control every single internal process. Someone stop this man before it's too late! Jafeluv (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make WP:MFD the Czech Republic? @harej 21:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say leave category moves at WP:CFD, where they've always been, and are handled in a timely fashion anyways. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) considering that WP:RM is backlogged again, leave categories at CfD, and category moves require deletion to implement. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think file renames are handled at WP:FFD, are they not? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My page is in need of a move from my personal user space to an actual space. User:Darkreliant/Rose iverley :Rose Iverley —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC).

Responded at User talk:Darkreliant/Rose iverley ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate the help of an uninvolved admin at List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

A recent discussion showed a consensus to move this to List of Arab towns and villages that were depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. The reason for the move is that there are several locations listed that were depopulated before the Arab-Israeli war began.

Nableezy moved it, but Brewcrewer unilaterally moved it back. He then edited the page so that only an admin could undo it. [2] [3] I don't want to use the tools myself as I'm involved.

It is the second time Brewcrewer has done this. There was consensus to move it in July to "depopulated in the 1948 Palestine War", but he unilaterally moved it back to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war then too. [4]

Help in making the move would be appreciated. Discussion here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Zero0000. Jafeluv (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I found that closure unorthodox as well (although I'm the nominator, so I'm probably biased). Nobody disputed that there were other uses for the term "St. Louis", just as nobody disputes that there are several uses for the term "Paris". The dispute was about primary topic, and that dispute seems to have been completely disregarded by the closer (judging by the closing comment only – knowing Anthony Appleyard I have no doubt that he carefully reads every discussion he closes). In any case, no consensus doesn't mean that the closing admin gets to do whatever they want (although in this case a "no consensus" closure would have had exactly the same result). I'm not even convinced that there was no consensus to move, but again I'm probably biased. Maybe someone uninvolved could have a look? Jafeluv (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Anthony Appleyard of this thread, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this particular discussion also brings up the point about how to count "weak" votes compared to others. Do the two "weak oppose" votes get as much weight as the other oppose votes, 1/2, or even less? To me "weak" means a slight preference for the position indicated, but no real objection to the alternative. I would think such votes should only be considered, if, without them, consensus seems to be 50/50. In this case, most of the support votes were based in policy and guidelines, implied or directly, while the oppose votes seem more to be just "pure opinion" without any argument based in policy or guidelines (that unfortunately applies to the closing admin's "vote" as well).

So, yes, I too think someone else should take a closer look, though I would prefer that Anthony reconsider his decision, and at least clarify it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(written before I saw Born2cycle's comments below) Consensus means many things on Wikipedia, but typically it does not mean simple majority voting (as you might be implying with the 50/50 statement). Usually the level of support must be much higher than 50/50, but we also must also take the broader community's consensus (in the form of policies and guidelines) into the equation. In any case, simple vote-counting ("weak" or otherwise) itself is not a basis for smart consensus; it's only a useful shorthand for the actual arguments that follow. The arguments are the basis of smart consensus. In any case, you are right that in this case, the supports drew upon policies and guidelines more often, according more weight, consensus-wise. We should certainly wait for Anthony's input before anything is done, though. -kotra (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As an uninvolved administrator, I agree that the closing rationale was arbitrary, missing the point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also troubling to me is that the closing admin invoked a "casting vote". A closing statement is not any sort of vote, casting or otherwise. Closing admins/editors merely judge consensus based on the RM discussion and broader policy-based consensus. If we want to vote or introduce a new argument, we should participate in the discussion like everyone else, and let someone else close it. If the administrator had simply said "no consensus", it would have probably been accepted without complaint. -kotra (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the lesson here is that the appropriate decision was an uninformative "no consensus" close. I've heard at least some closing admins state that they consider it their job to not merely count the votes, but to consider the strength of the arguments being made. It would be helpful to see admins close discussions as not only "no consensus", but also something like "and both sides had compelling arguments, but neither won". But in a case in which only one side even has an argument (unless you count "has other uses" to be an argument), that side should be given preference, I would hope. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well good thing that the oppose voters (including me) weren't simply saying "has other uses," then, and made an argument.

Anyway, not here to rehash arguments on the move. Interested users should check the page for that. From a strictly bureaucratic perspective I'll say that the decision was probably borderline: could have been move, could have been no consensus, could have been don't move depending on how the strength of arguments are perceived and how seriously "weak" votes are taken. However, I will also remind that by default pages stay where they are. In fact, there used to be specific rules requiring a supermajority to move a page - this was precisely because on issues in which opinions are split 50/50, the only thing a Requested Move would generate would be a coinflip based on the admin, and even worse, said coinflips would continue with each RM. If the issue is not clear, then the page should not be moved simply so this yo-yo effect is avoided. While the supermajority isn't required anymore, the spirit of this still is pertinent to RM; pages should not be moved without clear consensus that isn't likely to change. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for implying that the oppose side had no argument. But applying your argument ("the article title should be unambiguous that this is the city, not the person") to, say, Paris (to use an unquestioned-except-by-Una primary topic) implies it should be at Paris, France to be unambiguous that it is about the city, and not the prince of Greek legends. In other words, it implicitly rests on the premise that the city is not the primary topic, without arguing that it is not primary. I'm sorry, but that's very weak.

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

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

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

Yeah, I think we're on the same page. Sorry if I was unclear earlier. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recommend giving the closing admin a bit more time to explain before anyone uncloses it. There's still a chance we're missing something, and there's no urgency here. -kotra (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply a need to take action before giving him some reasonable time, even a few days. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• OK, OK, sorry. To an American, St.Louis means firstly the big city St. Louis, Missouri. But that may not be a main primary meaning to many Europeans; I am British. OK, OK, leave it as redirecting to St. Louis, Missouri. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the point was where the redirect points, but rather what the article should be called. If the city is considered primary topic, it should be at its most common name as specified in policy: "If there are several articles with the same name, it may be that one concerns the primary topic for that name; if so, that one keeps the common name, and the others must be disambiguated." If there's no primary topic, the redirect should point to the disambiguation page per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current situation is just not right unless you consider this a Danzig-type situation where 1) the city is a primary topic for the name "St. Louis" and 2) the most common name for the city is "St. Louis, Missouri", not "St. Louis". I don't see a consensus for such a setting in the discussion, although I guess a "no consensus" close would warrant keeping the status quo. Jafeluv (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even a search for "St. Louis" at google.co.uk shows that the U.S. city is the primary topic. For example, one of the top hits is the BBC weather page about "St. Louis, USA". Same with the results at books.google.com. I would hope that move requests are generally given more consideration than is being exhibited here. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal really. I think I'm just going to have a nice warm cup of WP:DGAF and maybe try again in six months to see what the consensus is then. In the meantime, I think the readers can handle seeing the "redirected from St. Louis" hatnote when their search ends up in the St. Louis, Missouri article. Jafeluv (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony's explanation here really does leave much to be desired. I've been waffling on whether to re-open the discussion, but I've decided it's not worth any potential drama. If there is any lesson to take from this, it's that we should remember to be well-reasoned in our closing rationales and refrain from introducing new arguments there. Now pour me a cup of that DGAF, Jafeluv. -kotra (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

So can we get the bot to at least recognize:

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

Relisted Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you'd like, I could make an extended= parameter that extends the discussion by the amount of time given. Most people, I would imagine, would spring for extended=7 days. (The amount of time stated for the extension would be relative to the date of the nomination). @harej 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a big change to make the bot react to the {{relist}} template? I think that's what they do over at AfD. If the template could be added in the middle of the discussion, the nominator's rationale would stay intact and it would be clear at first glance what (if anything) has happened after the relisting. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either would work for me. So for the parameter, may I assume this would be a change to {{movereq}}? That is, we would add to an existing resquest {{movereq|Article Title|extended=7}}?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the relist template being added in the discussion at the point in time when the relisting is done. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I see no reason for not doing it the way we have been doing it - just edit the line under "movereq" to add "Relisted ~~~~" so that it shows up in the front of the line. It does not matter at all that the "short reason" is lost. But by the way, make sure you add a newline so that it does not run all together with the short reason. If you were looking for your edit to show up immediately, it doesn't happen. The bot only comes along once every half hour. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of looking like this on the talk page:

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

It should look like this:

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

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

That still leaves a possibility of confusion for users who see the nomination as to who the nominator is. "Relisted" may be almost meaningless for some user not familiar with process or may be glossed over even if it would be understood. On a quick glance, what a person takes in is the graphic illustration of the move (Article Name → New Article name) followed immediately by a user's name. It's no stretch to imagine someone taking from that that the nominator is the name listed right there. Having {{relist}} be recognized by the bot is probably best but I don't know how difficult that might be. If it's too much and the extended= parameter is easy harej, can you go ahead and do it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly nobody should care who the nominator is. Decisions should be made on their merit, not on who made the suggestion. In any case you have to go to the talk page to discuss it, where it all becomes clear. The purpose of WP:RM is only to make a list of the proposals, not to discuss them. Showing the ones that are relisted is helpful because it indicates the ones that no one has looked at or need a second look. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Working once more. @harej 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In this particular case, the bot broke without me knowing. Alas, it was for the same reason as another time. I will have to fix that. @harej 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See I would rather you be working on fixing things like that than in adding completely unneeded functions. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Though really, I could do both. But fixing what's broken is definitely more important than feature creep (which explains why I decided on a low-tech means of relisting discussions, a means which has since caught on). @harej 19:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

They're mentioned in the Closing instructions. Admittedly a bit buried though. -kotra (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. They need far more prominence and need to be on this page! Jubilee♫clipman 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussions is a somewhat complex procedure that requires people understand a few more things than just the closure templates. I think that putting just the templates on this page would not be a good idea, and adding the full closing instructions would be way too much. I think the instructions page could be better organized though, and the link to it more prominent (or a second, in-prose link to it would be good). -kotra (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. The Closing Instructions page needs more work and the link to it much clearer, I agree. Jubilee♫clipman 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of the templates has been nominated for deletion, {{moved}}.

76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Wikipedia:Requested moves be renamed and moved to Wikipedia:Request move. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

• Strong support: For the reason given above. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. The process page has hundreds of requests (plural) on it and they have all been requested (past tense). Yes, the move has not been made yet but the request to move has, which is what is past tense. The move target is not grammatical. You can't even use it in a sentence except if you want to sound like you speak broken English, e.g., "I went to request move". I could possibly see Wikipedia:Move requests as a plausible substitute but it's not better or needed and doesn't help clarify anything.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Requested moves" is a noun phrase; "request move" is a verb phrase. The former is clearly more appropriate. Powers ^T 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For crying out loud. If there is an assignment at work that I want, I request it. It then becomes an assignment I requested, or a "requested assignment", even though it's not yet assigned to me nor to anyone else yet. Same here. If I want to move A to B, I submit a request here for that move to take place; it then becomes a requested move. Later it might be a rejected move, or supported move, and finally an actualized (if you will) move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fuhghettaboutit sums it up very well. Besides: Solution in search of a problem. — Ched :  ?  23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment *Technically* you have a point, as "requested moves" makes it sound like an archived list of all the pages that have been moved per request, but most English speakers don't think that way (e.g. if someone says "Florida is preparing for a predicted late-season hurricane" that doesn't mean it has already happened) and "requested moves" fits the pattern of other Wikipedia pages with similar names. If this were to be renamed to anything I would have to suggest "requests for page moves", but I would not recommend that because the current name is much shorter and as I said above most users even on a knowledge-oriented site like Wikipedia don't really think about minor logical inconsistences in everyday grammatical constructions. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Born2cycle. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there is a list of requested moves here, and what's the point of this excercise anyways? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose the moves (more than 1) are requested first. Although "request" works OK from potential requestee's view. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Absolutely The word "moves" is a plural noun in this case—not an action verb!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 06:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. See passive participle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to WP:HAGGER?????. Not. But I thought that was the plan. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this[5] because of switching from move to multimove or does this always happen? (telling people on this page to discuss it not here, but here, where "here" and "here" are both the same page) 199.125.109.96 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]