Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

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)

Have you gotten away from the malformed heading? I would have thought this to be considered malformed:

July 07, 2009

• Ronde van Vlaanderen → Tour of Flanders — (Discuss) —

Here is what it looked like on the talk page before:

{{movereq|Tour of Flanders}}
The Dutch title "[[Ronde van Vlaanderen]]" is wrong

And what I did to fix it (change movereq to subst:move, and put reason on same line):

{{subst:move|Tour of Flanders}} The Dutch title "[[Ronde van Vlaanderen]]" is wrong

199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is technically considered malformed, and for a good reason: there needs to be a permanent record of the proposed name change on the talk page. The reason why it is not classified as malformed is because the timestamp is readily ascertained. I suppose I could change "Malformed requests" to "Timestamp not detected". —harej (talk) (cool!) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So if the bot finds a timestamp it puts in the right section, even if it does not use the timestamp? 199.125.109.88 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The matching for the description is an all-or-nothing deal; either there's a match or there's nothing, even if the timestamp can be found just fine. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Multimove 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)

That sounds workable — that way, the template syntax only gets relatively complicated for multimoves. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has continued at #Multi-move support is on its way. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I could automate this, if you'd like. It wouldn't be very complicated; if there are backlog entries, then a transcluded subpage up top would be set to include the tag. Otherwise, the subpage gets blanked. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Others may have other ideas but my own preference is to leave it by hand. For example, I put it up more on the basis of how long and how many not simply the presence of a backlog - there is no point in asking for help if it is already on the way. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm...my experience has been that it usually takes a while for the admin assistance to arrive; not many admins actually patrol CAT:ADMINBACKLOG, so I still think putting it up would be a good idea. Even if an admin does happen to see it quickly respond to close one or two, then that's more free time for the rest of us to work on other tasks.--Aervanath (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you basically saying we should perpetually keep it up? —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm simply saying the bot should add the adminbacklog tag when there's a backlog, and remove it when the backlog is emptied, in contrast to only putting it up if the backlog is over a certain length.--Aervanath (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed what I would do. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. —harej (talk) (cool!) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks for simplified system

I've just used it for the first time - thanks. Next time I'll avoid referring to earlier discussion "above", which makes sense on the talk page but not on the RM page (would it be helpful to say somewhere "your comments will be copied automatically onto the list on this page", as it wasn't obvious to me?). But that's just a detail - in general it's a great improvement. Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I am glad the automation was of utility. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request move on 2009 Honduran coup d'état

The talk page consensus is that it should be at 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. The page is semi-protected so it needs an administrator to move from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis. --Conor Fallon (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually move discussions are left open for 7 days, so an administrator will be along to evaluate the discussion sometime after it hits the seven-day mark. Since the discussion was initiated on July 2, that will probably happen on or after July 10. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the page is semi edit protected, it is fully move protected. I protected it yesterday in response to a move war. GIven the contentiousness and history of this move discussion, it should certainly be allowed to run its full course. Mfield (Oi!) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, there seem to be a few editors that are screaming coup, but the overwhelming majority are against the POV name. --Conor Fallon (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"close" of Peer-to-peer move request

Things are getting messy on Talk:Peer-to-peer. Would a "regular" here care to weigh in? --Una Smith (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Kbrose (an involved editor) closed the debate in his/her favor, claiming that "it only takes a simple count to determine consensus." M and I (involved editors from opposite sides of the debate) both attempted to revert the closure, and Kbrose has re-closed both times (and also removed other editors' posts).

For the record, I'm on Kbrose's side in the debate, but I unreservedly oppose its closure by an involved editor from either side. —David Levy 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

{{done}}. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "weigh in" implies "close when there is active discussion among multiple parties". I don't see how this is anything more than another editor casting their !vote in the form of a discussion close. At the very least, the closer needs to specify which arguments either a) show that it is the primary topic for readers, or b) show that an exception will be made. I'll be reverting the close if these are not provided.    M   00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the request, but if you were canvassing for opinions, I am not interested. If you are looking for someone to read the discussion and close the move request, I can do that, but only if I think that the result is no move - if I thought the result was to move the page, I would not have said anything or done anything, and let someone else decide that for themselves - see if I had said anything I would no longer be uninvolved - get it? My reading of the subject was the p2p is the mechanism for file sharing, while file sharing has its own article and does not need to be disambiguated from p2p. Yes zebras could be called four-legged animals (striped) but what for? There is a perfectly good name for them - Zebras. You have to realize that anyone who closes a move may or may not have their own opinion, but is closing based more on what they read, not what they think. I would challenge any other regular to disagree with the close and if they do, please re-open it. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to contribute, I'm asking you to point to the which arguments your close is based on. Which arguments are your mechanism point and the zebra analogy based on? The peer-to-peer architecture is not a mechanism for file sharing, though some specific file sharing programs are indeed built on that model. This fact hasn't been challenged by the participants, nor is a sub-categorization of this sort a valid reason to suppose that there is a primary topic. So, again, please mention which arguments form the basis of your close.    M   01:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the factors that was a direct influence was seeing SupportOppose: P2P is a networking technology.- Wolfkeeper - normally if someone changes their position it is because they had a chance to have the situation explained to them and it made sense to them (though I have also often seen people change their position just out of spite). I can take them one at a time, there were not very many, even though the discussion went on for a lot. I will leave out the oppose votes, because they were in agreement with the close.

1. Binksternet - give reader a choice - why is that any different than using two different article names?
2. Una Smith - no primary topic - did not seem correct based on arguments
3. M - not a vote, but brought up stats (though you are the nom)

199.125.109.88 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper changed his mind based on google results. I also searched, the results (which you can check) were in favor of the meme. A changed vote does not count more than any other. Binksternet believes that more readers want to see file sharing, and that the stats will agree (they did). There are four people (including David!) who think that there is no WP:DAB primary topic. Was it on the basis of there being a primary topic, or on the basis of this being a correct exception to wp:dab that you closed the argument?    M   02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The peer-to-peer architecture is the mechanism used for peer-to-peer file sharing (the only type of file sharing to which the term "peer-to-peer" refers). The fact that this is only one type of file sharing is part of the point, as that's why much of the background information is documented in the Peer-to-peer article. —David Levy 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Something makes a lot more sense now. You think that "peer-to-peer" refers to [peer-to-peer file sharing], yes? It doesn't - p2p is very often synonymous with just file sharing (cf ""p2p case" p2p case", and many other adjectival uses).    M   02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing instances of "peer-to-peer" or "p2p" referring to other types of file sharing? —David Levy 02:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am also a regular at WP:RM (see my move log if you doubt me), and I think 199.125.109.88's close was correct. The arguments for and against the move are essentially of equal strength, one editor was convinced to change his mind from support to oppose, and (last and least) there were twice as many editors opposing the move as were supporting it. So there was clearly a consensus to keep the current title, or at most no consensus to support a move. I will say that Kbrose was wrong to close the discussion; editors should never close discussions they are involved in, unless the outcome is unanimous. I always avoid closing discussions I've participated in, even if I've only offered a comment and not a formal !vote. Also, Kbrose was clearly incorrect in stating that a simple vote count was enough; this is clearly not what WP:Consensus says.--Aervanath (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(I have copied the above to Talk:Peer-to-peer, so there is a record on that page as well.--Aervanath (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Yoghurt#No Consensus

Can someone have a look, please? I'm pretty sure that we discourage following a failed move request with the same request again immediately. Someone please either disabuse me of this idea, or else help explain it to the editors at Talk:Yoghurt. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is usually the case. But in this special case the closing admin has made statements indicating that the arguments made in favor of the move were largely ignored, and has encouraged further discussion. Also, someone apparently not involved in the previous discussion started the new discussion, and a key (ignored) argument, among many in favor of the move, is that this will continue happening until the move is granted. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that discussion should continue. Listing it again at RM on a seven-day timeline is not required for discussion. You want this move to stick? So do I. This won't do it. Practical advice: Discuss without the formal request in place, build a strong consensus. After that, list it and get an easy move. I'm on your side of this. Please, though, don't do it in a way that'll mess it up. Running an RM right after another RM works against you. Please don't work against yourself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Bacchus is on the ball. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not the one relisting it. I just don't think it's right to delist after someone decides - right or wrong (a matter of opinion) - to relist it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No other similar process on Wikipedia supports rapid re-listings. Do it at AfD, it'll be speedy closed. Do it at DRV, you'll get your head bitten off. Why should RM be somehow different? Should this procedure somehow diverge from the rest, in allowing constant re-discussion of just-discussed issues? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting RM be different. I am suggesting the use of common sense, however, and to reflect on why a quick delisting is quickly reverted, to see if there is reason to make an exception in that particular case. If the closing admin and others involved since then indicated that they understood the underlying issues, and still disagreed, that would be one thing. But I've seen none of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem quite as clear-cut as you make it. I can see how, from your perspective, the closing admin failed to understand the underlying issues. I can also see how, from another perspective, you fail to understand the underlying issues. How do we decide who's right?

Did you notice where I said that I support you regarding the name change, and want to see it happen in a way that will stick, rather than a way that will invite a score of procedural complaints? Or would you prefer it the hard way, that won't stick? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fine. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Request move for Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream

Optimus Prime → Optimus Prime (G1) —

Megatron → Megatron (G1) —

Starscream → Starscream (G1) —

The G1 incarnations of these primary Transformers characters are the original versions of the characters and were the inspirations behind all their other incarnations. In addition, they are thought of by many fans to be the "real" versions of the characters. However, they are by no means the "definitive" versions as the non-suffixed article names imply; if someone says "G1 Prime is THE Optimus Prime", that is an opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, in order to remove G1 bias, the names (without any suffix) should link to disambiguation pages linking to the G1 versions, any other versions (such as Beast Wars Megatron), and an "other incarnations" page listing all the minor incarnations of the characters. 172.131.206.237 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean to put these on the main Move Requests page? This is the talk page. Powers ^T 12:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just making a guess, but as an unregisterred user, I don't think User:172.131.206.237 can actually do that. Either this user can register, and make the request or we can ignore the request in its current format. This request is something that should really be discussed at the talk page of the Transformers Wikiproject and getting one of the regular registerred edittors there to then start the process here, should such a move find approval within the Wikiproject.

Personally, I am fine with the current article names for a couple of reasons.

1) All other versions of these characters are essentially derivatives of these originals

2) G1 is a jargonistic term, one that is not sufficiently clear for those not familiar with the topic. While a move may techincally be correct, I would object a move to the titles you propose.

Titles should not contain an in house term like G1 for disambiguation purposes. They should be completely understandable to someone who know next to nothing on the subject. --Falcadore (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the request looks like it's already been properly filed on the talk pages of the articles in question. There is nothing stopping an IP from filing a requested move; they just can't make the move themselves. Also, there is no requirement that there be discussion at the WikiProject first; a notice can be posted to the WikiProject talk page, but the discussion normally takes place on the article's talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest it was a requirement. It was a suggestion as a starting point to talk to edittors more active on the subject, some of whom might be registerred and better able to assist. --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-move support is on its way

The code is now able to support multi-moves. The syntax is different; instead of {{movereq|newtitle}} it is along the lines of {{movereq|current1=current title|new1=new title|current2=current title|new2=new title}} etc. My difficulty is finding a way to smoothly integrate this in {{move}}. What are your thoughts? —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess, if you do not mind, that multi-moves are limited to using movereq and it is up to them to list all the requested moves. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the template update. Can you please explain what situation is referred to above (and perhaps cite an example)? —David Levy 07:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Following your subsequent template edit, the purpose now seems clear.

I've replaced the "multimove" parameter with the more straightforward "multiple." If this requires an update to the bot's code, please do so. —David Levy 07:51/07:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that we should just make the move template mirror the movereq template: have the same parameters for move as for movereq, and the move template will just pass them along to movereq, as well as putting them into a bulleted list below the movereq template.--Aervanath (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how to get that done to account for all the different combinations? —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm too tired to keep working on this. I'm sorry for leaving the pages in such a mess. I will resume work when I have refreshed. —harej (talk) (cool!) 08:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

After sleeping and caffeinating, I have discovered that my coding while tired is even worse than I thought. I'm almost there; just one more quirk in the system. —harej (talk) (cool!) 18:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, multi-moves will use movereq directly. —harej (talk) (cool!) 18:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, although somewhat complicated for the user. Is there anyway to have {{move}} automatically subst in the bulleted page names, so it would be essentially the same procedure for single and multiple page moves? Also, (and here's the part where I feel guilty about making even more requests of you and RFC bot) would it be possible for RFC bot to detect when {{movereq}} is being used for a multimove and automatically add {{multimove}} to the top of the other pages? Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Having the bot post {{multimove}} on the top of affected top pages seems very doable. As for incorporating multimove into {{move}}, that may be more difficult. The template would have to account for all the different possibilities that people would enter, and I would prefer that people not substitute a template on a page that yields a bunch of parserfunctions. That is what makes it that much more difficult. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Established editors moving articles?

I've been an established editor since 2005, as have many who frequent the Requested moves page. Since the backlog is growing and there seem to be scant administrators looking after requested moves, is there any way that certain established editors can request solely the ability to move articles that cannot be moved due to technicalities?. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly close move requests; if there's a redirect in the way of the move, just tag it with {{db-move}}, and the admins that monitor the category it populates will delete the redirect for you. That's how JPG-GR got by for so long. Parsecboy (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I second what Parsecboy said. Moving an article which is blocked on a technicality requires either the ability to delete pages or to edit protected pages, and both of those tools are restricted to administrators. There have been many discussions about unbundling admin tools so that they can be granted separately. However, so far only WP:Rollback has been separated out as an ability that non-admins can use. In your case, just use {{db-move}} to request the deletion of a page which might be blocking the move. Or, if the page is move-protected, you can use {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article to request that an admin make the move.

Also, I'd just like to emphasize that anyone can close move discussions; it is not restricted to admins, or editors with a certain tenure or edit count. Even IP editors can close RMs, although they can only close discussions with a result of "no consensus" or "not moved"; IP editors can't move pages, so they shouldn't close discussions which have a consensus for a move. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can always just get the tools and start working that backlog :) Jafeluv (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's sort of Parsecboy and my point, though. CrazyInSane doesn't need the tools to work the backlog; there are ways around it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot trouble

I'm not sure what it's doing, but [1] isn't right. I'm going to fix the parts that are particularly broken, but someone should look into this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The template parser did not comprehend the idea of templates being on multiple lines. I have fixed this. —harej (talk) (cool!) 16:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And then I had to "unfix" it because my fix was breaking everything. I will have to look into it in further detail. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the mess but figured it was easier for you to fix the bot than for me to keep undoing it every half hour. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More bot trouble

The nominator appears to have withdrawn the proposed move from martial arts to fighting style upon realizing that "martial arts" is far more common. He's probably right.

Is there some way to comment on, or strike, the notification without the bot removing it again? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You can let the discussion run its full course so that everyone can pile on with oppose votes, or you could nix that {{movereq}} tag and the bot will withdraw it from the list. Or, you could strike through the description as so: <s>Perhaps the article can be renamed to fighting style, which is -I believe- a more accurate term. The term martial arts is overcomplicated and unlogical. It can be mentioned as a secondary term however.</s> —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not recommend redacting another editor's text by striking it out, though. Let them do that. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with 199.125.109.124. As a general practice, editors should not be striking out another user's talk page entries. The only time this would be acceptable is if it's clearly vandalism, in which case the correct route is wholesale removal of the text, not striking it out. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Feedback requested

I closed a move request at Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Requested_move.2C_part_2, which is being challenged (see User_talk:Aervanath#South_Ossetia_War_name). I would request that other uninvolved RM regulars please evaluate the talk page discussion, and the arguments made on my talk page, and then contribute at the discussion on my talk page. If consensus there is that I have erred, I will reverse it. Thanks in advance for your input.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Déja-vu all over again. Also, I thought you said "evacuate the talk page". That sounds like the only sane course of action. —harej (talk) (cool!) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In some cases, yes, evacuation is the only sane route. :) However, I'm certainly not perfect, and if someone is going to continue to challenge me on something, it's entirely possible that they have a point. So I thought I'd ask. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Formating uncontroversial moves moved to current discussions section

Please note that the RMassist template adds a {{#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|no|| that needs to be removed, along with the trailing }} after the timestamp. Also it is helpful to remove the asterisk (*) and put the short suggestion on one line to make the formating of the section work more betterly. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This should take care of the superfluous code. Not sure about your second statement; why remove the asterisk? It makes the formatting automatic.--Aervanath (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The asterisk is not used in the bot supplied formatting on WP:RM. It just shows up as a random unexplained asterisk. I'll test the ifeq|no. It may be ok now. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Works fine.[2] You can put it back. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Berne/Bern

I closed Talk:Bern#Requested_move as "moved to Bern", however, a user disagrees with my closure. Outside input is desired at User talk:Aervanath#Berne. Thank you.--Aervanath (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you go by a counting of heads, or did you do what I did once, and that was deciding that consensus between people could never happen so you had to make like a lawyer and read case precedent etc? —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. In this case, there's a reasonable consensus that a move was appropriate, and the opposition is essentially making up new rules regarding burden of evidence in page move discussions. This was a good close. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@Harej: see User:Aervanath#On_evaluating_dicussions, which is the procedure I use all the time when evaluating consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view, closing in affirmation of the move was a correct interpretation of consensus. Towards the end of the discussion, only a small minority were opposing (by the numbers: 8 supports [includes nom, as they appeared to be in support judging by their comments], 3 opposes, 2 neutral), and the only remaining arguments for Berne were pretty far-fetched, considering the evidence presented. -kotra (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned requests

Apparently, if you sign someone's move request with {{unsigned}}, the bot doesn't add the final </span> tag, making everything after that line appear in smaller font (example). Is there a better way to handle unsigned requests? Jafeluv (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We're no strangers to Jafeluv... Er I mean the onus should be on me to make sure the bot can tolerate unsigned requests, instead of others having to cater around it. I will get to that in good time. —harej (talk) (cool!) 10:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know the rules, and so do I. Jafeluv (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it appears that {{unsigned}} is not an issue. What is an issue is putting anything after the (UTC), such as a closing </small>, or </span>, or }} etc. Since unsigned uses small, I often add small around the timestamp as well, but the bot can not handle that, and makes the rest of the section small, as it strips off the closing </small>. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any blanket tag that the bot could tag onto the end, like a "reset formatting" tag, or something, that would autostop any formatting from overflowing tot he next entry?--Aervanath (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I added two characters in a very specific location which appears to have solved the entire problem. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rock. Talk about keeping it simple!--Aervanath (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And it works, too.[3] 199.125.109.58 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When not to relist

I've seen a couple moves relisted for lack of participation when there have been no objections. This is unnecessary. If a move hasn't been objected to, then it should be treated as uncontroversial. There's no need to relist it. Relisting is for when there isn't a consensus, but the closer believes a consensus could form in time, or if it appears that consensus is changing, and discussion is still ongoing. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest it sometimes indicates that the relister tends to disagree with the move, but doesn't feel strongly enough about it to derail the move request by explicitly expressing that opinion in the absence of other comments. I think we may have had a conversation along those lines before. Dekimasuよ! 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I don't remember that conversation. In either case, I'm not sure that's an ethical practice. In my mind, relisting is on a par with closing: it should only be done by neutral editors. If you oppose, then oppose; don't relist, just as you wouldn't close a discussion you had a strong opinion about.--Aervanath (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When I have relisted, it has nothing to do with my opinion (often times, I have no opinion). I use it for when there is no consensus or I feel there has not been enough participation. A requested move with no opposition should at least have one person acknowledging that the move is a good idea. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's where we disagree, I think. Think about it this way: we have a section for uncontroversial moves, and a section for potentially controversial moves. Sometimes we look at an uncontroversial move and deny it as potentially controversial, and therefore requiring a move request. But sometimes file move requests as potentially controversial when in fact it's uncontroversial. If the move request has been up for a week, and nobody else has even commented, then there's no reason to relist. In many cases, I've seen people file move requests that didn't even need administrative help. They could have boldly moved the article themselves, but instead took the trouble to follow protocol, and nobody else even took the time to participate. In such cases, I see no need to delay action another week. If someone later objects, then a discussion can be had. Until then, no need to relist.--Aervanath (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. When do you suggest that I relist, if ever? —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisting is for cases where consensus isn't clear, and more discussion is needed, or for when discussion is still ongoing. But use your judgment: if discussion is still ongoing, but there's already an overwhelming consensus, then close it. Or, in cases where there's no consensus, and you don't think more discussion will lead to consensus, then there's not much point in relisting, either.--Aervanath (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Administrator instructions it states that there is no minimum for participation, and "Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is patently out of keeping with naming conventions or otherwise is in clear conflict with policy." 199.125.109.19 (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just relisted this and this before reading the above. Someone who has the tools should probably just go ahead and move them since it's been 12 days without opposition now. I'll try to remember next time to only relist when it's really needed. Sorry about the trouble. Jafeluv (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign state

We have an absolute mess there. There was an RM to move Sovereign state → State (politics), which was closed on 15 July 2009 as no consensus, but before it was closed, on 14 July it was pre-emptively moved to State (polity), and a new article named Sovereign state was created. See also Talk:Sovereign state, particularly the part "Im getting lost here". It seems that most people are completely fine with one article named sovereign state, and one editor wants to split it into half a dozen articles, one for Georgia, one for Georgia, one for Georgia, etc. I guess my point is that if the closing admin chose "no consensus", they should have 1) renamed the new Sovereign state to "something", 2) moved State (polity) back to Sovereign state, 3) renamed "something" to "anything else", and 4) changed that to a redirect to Sovereign state. In fact maybe that is what should still be done, just to clean up the mess. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of closure, we could hold a pro forma move request from Sovereign state to State (polity), noting exactly what had happened to the article. If it gets widely voted down, the article can be moved back. —harej (talk) (cool!) 12:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest just moving things back to where they were. There is nothing wrong with the "alternate proposal" that occurred. What was wrong was the pre-emptive move, and since the result of the discussion was no consensus, the article should be moved back. There is an ongoing discussion about adding more articles, but that should not affect the RM. My point is that if anyone is going to close an RM as no consensus, they need to return any pre-emptive moves to where they were. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Air superiority / Air supremacy

Can someone delist Air superiority / Air supremacy ? It's a merge request, and not a move request. It should be listed at WP:PM instead of here. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jafeluv (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

{{RMlink}} and {{RMlink?}}

When did this automated process begin? That seems to make these two templates out of action. There are still going to be articles with multiple names suggested, which is why in the original thing RMlink? was created. Simply south (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The automated process began two months ago, and yes, these templates are now obsolete. —harej (talk) (cool!) 13:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Robinson F/family

As per discussions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Robinson_family#Requested_move - can someone help move the pages as the discussion seems rather unanimous in terms of support now? Thanks 89.240.11.245 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Haifa (1948)

Would an administrator please move this back to Operation Bi'ur Hametz, which was its title until recently? We have a dispute on the page about the title, and it was moved over an objection. I would like it to be moved back, then I will file a requested move. I'd have to delete to move it, and don't want to use the tools in a content dispute, so I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could do it. See discussion here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the intention of the sentence stating that moves that might be objected to should be considered controversial. That request is related to a preference for pursuing discussion on the talk page in such cases, rather than listing the move here as an "uncontroversial move" to be performed without discussion. Since there was already a great deal of discussion at Talk:Battle of Haifa (1948), the distinction doesn't seem to apply. As far as simply asking for an uninvolved administrator's opinion based on the month of discussion (please note that we don't require closers to be admins), it appears to me that the move was valid in light of both the preponderance of editors in favor of the new title and the added data on title prevalence performed before the move. Thus while it might be more collegial for someone in favor of the move to undo it and open a normal move request, I don't think it's strictly necessary, and I don't feel compelled to reverse the move myself... though perhaps Aevarnath or GTBacchus or Anthony Appleyard, etc., will disagree with me. Dekimasuよ! 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the added data on title prevalence: the data I supplied (and I was the only one who did) showed that the current title is not the most common one. Anyway, I've listed the request from the current title. I don't suppose what it's currently called really matters regarding whether it ought to be moved or not. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit. Dekimasuよ! 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamen_Rider_Decade

request somebody to check to view evidence provided and hopefully determine proper consensus. other editors do not seem to discuss or provide evidence or look at alternatives this seems to be polarised. Kamen_Rider_Decade Drag-5 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

as above, request somebody to check on evidence provided and adherence to wikipedia guidelines. discussion does not seem to be even present the editors are not even using wikipedia guidelines to defend their position this seems like their view is not objective. the article seems to be polarised towardss an elite fanbase. Ninpuu_Sentai_Hurricaneger Drag-5 (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

These two requests are Drag-5 trying to game the system and get his way in these two requested moves where he is being summarily opposed by the regular editors of the articles. This is just another example of his site-wide disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an overwhelming consensus of editors against the requested page moves. Surely if Drag-5's argument had merit, there would be at least some iota of endorsement. —harej (talk) (cool!) 08:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Phasing out multimove templates

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Template:Moveoptions

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)

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)

{{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)

WikiProject Article names

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)

Disappeared move request

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)

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

Film series numbering

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)

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

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)

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)

Changes to {{move}}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rock Church

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)

KGB

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)

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

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

Moveheader now on all move discussion pages

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)

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)

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)

Non-admin closures

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Non-admin closures 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

Non-admin closures 2

(@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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

Non-admin closures 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Templates needed somewhere

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)

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)

Movereq template

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)

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)

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)

Archiving

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

(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)

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)

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)

Review of the first section of the Naming Convenions

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)

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)

• 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)

I don't often call myself out for making broken software

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Three overlapping RM and merge discussions, one malfunctioning bot

(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 [4]. 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)

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

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)

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)

A hand?

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)

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

Backlog piling up

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

RM turns 5

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

File moves

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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

Rose Iverley move

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)

Help requested

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. [5] [6] 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. [7]

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

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