Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 8

message: How can an admin just delete a nomination from this list?  If the requested move is a bad idea, it can be refused -- why should it be deleted? RandomCritic 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a) those moves had already been proposed and rejected, and b) consolidated discussion is ongoing here: Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. Your input would be appreciated. -- nae'blis 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My input has been and continues to be ongoing there.  But your characterization of the situation is both incorrect (neither RM had been turned down; one was a RM to a move that had just gone through the RM process, which I can understand might have been irritating, but the other one wasn't and there was no cause for deleting it) and anyway doesn't answer the general question: why remove a RM from the list when it can just be turned down?  Why shouldn't there be an accurate list of what moves have been requested? When changes are made (or not made) on Wikipedia, it should be easy to find out what steps were taken toward them, who proposed, who approved and who didn't approve. RandomCritic 23:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most page moves are non-controversial and are never documented anywhere except in the page history. Some are extremely controversial and reverted without a "report" being filed anywhere. This seems to be somewhere in between, but not everything has to be filed in triplicate. I'm not sure what your overall aim is, if discussion is ongoing then a RM seems premature. (By the way, I was going by Eris (dwarf planet) being marked done, and Talk:Eris (dwarf planet)/Archive 3 which shows a complete lack of decision thus far (and 1 Ceres is wrapped up in the ongoing discussion). Another RM at this time seems to be process-lawyering, so I applaud your continued efforts to reach a discussed result. Don't get wrapped up in process just for the sake of process, especially one as optional/informal as Requested Moves. -- nae'blis 04:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of nomination 

message: Perhaps the Capital Move feature could be expanded to include plural moves? ENeville 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree.  I'm going to create a section on the page for non-controversial moves and see how well it works.  If it doesn't work well then I can always remove it. —Mets501 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's live!  Let's see how this works.  If no problems arise we can depreciate  and delete the category, as it is better that everything is listed here on this page in one place. —Mets501 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other noncontroversial moves? 

message: I would like to request an admin to move White Mustard to White mustard, because there is no reason to capitalize the 'm' in mustard. (Just look at White tea/Green tea, Bell pepper, etc where the common words are all lowercase.) Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 00:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —Mets501 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And fast, muchos gracias!--Andrew c 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see there is a section for this type of request on the Requested moves page, I need to read past the first section. :) --Lethargy 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just added that 30 minutes ago, that wasn't there when you requested for your page to be moved :-) —Mets501 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help for non-controversial move 

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

message: Aerocar Aerocar seems to have slipped through the cracks a bit, the RM is over a month old and nothing's happened with it. Recury 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the talk page, the discussion seems stalled with no consensus... Perhaps start a new RM...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good idea. Relisting it couldn't hurt. Recury 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone take a look at this? 

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

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

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

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

message: There seems to be a consensus to call Indigenous Australians "Indigenous Australians", as opposed to "Aboriginal Australians". The corresponding adjective would be "Indigenous Australian". I've tried moving some of the articles using the adjective "Aboriginal" but there seem to be too many of them. A list of articles that need to be moved can be found here. Is there a quick way to setup a poll to move these pages? Is a poll even necessary? (It appears a good majority would support the move.) Any help would be appreciated. Zarbat 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instructions on how to make a move request for multiple (related) articles are located at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Multiple page moves. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that seems to be for a chain kind of move (A->B->C->D...) whereas I'm doing independent moves (A->B,C->D,...). In any case someone helped me do it: . Zarbat 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple-page move 

message: I see this has been covered above under #Incomplete requests, but I'd like to bring it up again. When we receive incomplete requests, either because they used the  template instead of the  template, or because they failed to set up the discussion on a page, do you all think it would be reasonable to reject the request? It's extremely hard to sift through opinions, and it certainly seems people are less willing to give our opinion (I know I am one). I am even ready to take the extraordinary step of stating at the top (if your request is not finished, it may be removed as incomplete) or something like that. I know it's not a vote, but the request headers are set up the way they are for a reason. Thoughts? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; my opinion is that the admins managing the RM have more than enough job to be able to monitor whether the RMs were properly filled in. The procedure for setting up the RM debate is simple enough that it takes only a bit of basic RTFM and minimal effort for the interested editor. If the user doesn't care about the subject enough to spend 5 minutes to do the job properly, why should we care then? For my part, I routinely remove the malformed requests from the backlog. Duja► 10:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete requests (2) 

message: An anon user put up a merge tag on Violence against women back on Nov 21st but didn't complete the process with a request here. On the talk page, we have established users opposing the move with a few anons (potentially SPA or even duplicate users) voicing POV-based support. Considering the length of time, it seems like the request should be "closed" but since it was incomplete, did it really even start and thus need to be listed? Agne 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merges are handled less formally than moves and not here in any event. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is a place to optionally advertise a proposed merge. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger outlines the steps involved with suggesting a merge, but basically all you have to do is come to a consensus on the talk page. It seems the discussion has gone on long enough with enough participation. As an uninvolved party, I've closed the debate with the result of no consensus. –  Anþony  talk  13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can one of the "Move Admins/Closers" look at this? 

message: Yesterday I put up a RM for seventeen pages.  I put up the talk notice first, followed by the post here at RM three minutes later, then the first proposed move notice on an individual page three minutes later (a total of six minutes after the inital RM post).  Although I had edit windows of all pages open before starting the move, it still took a few minutes (less than 20 minutes total) to complete all of them, particluarly since I was double checking and verifying wikilinks.  One user is now continuing to complain that I failed to post notification, particularly on one article where he got there before I did (three minutes after my first RM post) and insists that he had to post notification himself since in his opinion, I had failed to do so.  Is there a reasonable timeframe in which the multiple posts of an RM (particularly one of multiple articles) should be completed?  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (as the editor refered to as "one user") - Notify prior to "opening the polls", especially in such a controversially and hotly disputed situation (see the talk page of WP:TV-NC) - You have all the time in the word to add the needed notification, as a sign of good faith to show that the poll (since when was it a poll anyway?) is indeed legitimate, especially as the opening to this page reads "Do not discuss moves on this page. Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, thanks for sharing your side of the story.  I'd appreciate input from RM regulars on this, thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeliness of RM notifications 

message: I have come across a situation where a user is using copy/paste to switch an article and redirect instead of actually moving either page.  I've warned him/her and reverted, but they did it again.  Any recommendations on how to handle this?  I assume you're not supposed to do moves that way, although Help:Moving a page doesn't explicitly say you shouldn't.  Moves are here:  .  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they continue to do it after they have been clearly told how to properly move a page, they should be blocked for disruption. Cut and paste moves are substantial burden because they need to be fixed by page history merge, and can also be a copyright problem with the GFDL. —Centrx→talk • 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moves via copy/paste instead of using the move feature 

message: I went ahead with these moves for the stated reasons and because consensus has been reached on both discussion pages. I did exactly as stated, see my original post:
*Supreme Court of Georgia → Supreme Court of Georgia (country) —(Discuss)— and then Georgia Supreme Court → Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state) —(Discuss)— After looking at the titles of the Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. State) and the Supreme Court of Georgia (Country) I think "Supreme Court of Georgia" should link to a disambiguation page. The Georgia Supreme Court is not the commonly used name for the Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. State). The U.S. State of Georgia has double the population of the country of Georgia, and this is the English Wikipedia, making the Supreme Court of Georgia more commonly known for the court in the U.S. State of Georgia. I propose moving Supreme Court of Georgia to a disambiguation page with links directing people to either the Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. State) or the Supreme Court of Georgia (Country). This would satisfy both sides, and be a hell-of-a-lot less confusing for the casual reader.
The move went fine, but for some reason I did not realize the amount of pages that need to be redirected to their new correct corresponding pages. I was wondering if a friendly, helpful admin could swoop in and help me move all these pages? A redirect page has already been created, just a bunch of redirecting to their new homes that needs to be done. Thanks! KnightLago 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help from an admin

message: I think the   template should be used with caution, per Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. Very often a page is at the wrong name because someone (and all it takes is one person) didn't read the style guidelines, and a short discussion on the article Talk page is all that's needed.
I'd like to change the text on Wikipedia:Requested moves to, "If one does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want moved for discussion. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow. If a formal poll would help clarify whether consensus exists for the move, you can use the template  ." Kla'quot 06:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The survey template and "Discuss, don't vote"  

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

message: Isn't it the standard to give moves, or especially contentious ones, 10 days or so? I ask because I'd listed an article a second time (justifiably, by my figuring) and I got a fair amount of heat for it. One user specifically cited the backlog here in opposing my request (see: Move request 2 at Talk:Tirez sur le pianiste). If this is the standard maybe the banner should be removed or the header modified. Perhaps "Overtime" would make people less testy? Or a commemorative title, "Louis Armstrong's Backlog" (Everybody loves Louie!) Anyway, thanks, Doctor Sunshine 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, looking at that one: no: it's normal to give it 5 days, but when there's no consensus, often it's just relisted at the top. In the first case of yours, the closing user did not do so; but, anyway, the last oppose probably had nothing to do with the backlog. -Patstuarttalk|edits 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog banner 

message: totally messed up Talk:Death of Jesus. The move needs to be reverted for sure so that the Talk page is restored. While I do not think the newly created Ahmadiyya's concept of the Death of Jesus exactly meets any speedy criteria, I personally believe it should be deleted. After admin review, I will probably PROD that page, assuming some other action isn't taken. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the talk page, and deleted Ahmadiyya's concept of the Death of Jesus as "housekeeping".  If  wants to recreate that page, he can feel free to do so in the correct location. —Mets501 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help request [[Talk:Death of Jesus]] 

message: Current articles are divided into uncontroversial and controversial, but how about if the opposition to the move cannot verify their claims (WP:V)? Since core policy cannot be overridden no matter how much controversy, then isn't it in a separate case of its own (i.e. articles that should be moved WITHOUT consensus)? falsedef 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested moves that completely follow Wikipedia policy can be controversial, however.  It all depends on how different people interpret the policy, even if there may be an obvious interpretation to others. —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "other" interpretation of WP:V if claims cannot be verified by one party, yet claims can be verified for the other. The case is pretty straightforward. No matter how much controversy, the move should be made without consensus. falsedef 06:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got an example in mind?  I'm not sure I know what type of situation you're describing. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently Ethnic Japanese is using a wrong name. The people in support of "ethnic Japanese" are unable to provide a single reliable source outside of wikipedia (their single cite attributes Wikipedia for their definition). The page I'm requesting a move to , Nikkei people, is sourced, accepted by Asian (American) departments in the United States and South America, used in English documents (academic such as the Japanese American National Museum, UCLA, etc.;international organizations such as the United Nations; encyclopedias like Encarta) and numerous books. It's difficult to have dispute resolution when the other side has no evidence of their claims and could go on for quite awhile before "consensus" is reached. The article needs to be moved away from its current location to maintain accuracy, and Nikkei wins in common usage in documents. falsedef 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial yet following Wikipedia core policy

message: Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) tried to move Nicene Christianity to Late Antique Christianity, but the move was done with copy and paste, so the page history was not moved. I reverted it but could not move the page myself due to a conflict, so I am asking an admin for help. Presumably this move is non-controversial because it covers the 6 councils after Nicene, therefore covering much more than just Nicene Christianity. -Andrew c 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a move request on the talk page of Nicene Christianity just to make sure this is right, and invited lostcaesar to the page. I'll keep an eye on it and finish the move if this looks like the right thing to do. The only reason it might be even slightly controversial is that Special:Whatlinkshere/Nicene_Christianity has many more incoming links than Special:Whatlinkshere/Late_Antique_Christianity. -- nae'blis 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help to fix 

message: Copied from WP:AN/I. Can any admin more experienced than I please take care of this? Thanks, Asteriontalk 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of moving the page The Councillor of State to The State Counsellor, user Vidor created a new page and copied the contents. The page move is correct, but could someone please restore the history? In addition, the changes he made on the new page are also correct, to complicate matters further. Thanks in advance. Errabee 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for history merge 

message: TenaciousT (talk • contribs) has made some controversial, copy and paste moves, without prior discussion of Joachim. To complicate matters, there is a AfD in progress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim. Just wanted to notify anyone with admin privileges if they felt moved to undue any of these page moves, or at least examine the recent page histories. Thanks.-Andrew c 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some discussion, the editor reverted their own edits and created a new article Joachim (Star Trek), however there is a little bit of page history at Joachim that should probably moved to the new article to cover the brief time the Star Trek article was at Joachim.-Andrew c 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything was fine, until earlier today, an admin, completely ignoring the discussion at the AfD that supported a revert back to a pre-TenaciousT version of the article, decided to make the disambig page the top level article, and to move the longstanding Joachim article to Joachim (Saint). I brought this issue up with the user, and in response the Joachim redirect was changed to point at the 'saint' article. However, I find this problematic, because there was no consensus, or even a discussion, to move Joachim to Joachim (Saint). This move is problematic because it ignores that this Joachim is the most notable individual by that name, it ignores that this article had occupied the Joachim page for a number of years, it ignores that saint should at the very least be lowercase, and it ignores that saint is a POV term because not all sects of Christianity accept sainthood. I implore an admin to please move Joachim (Saint) back to its original place, Joachim and allow anyone who wants to move the article to go through appropriate channels.-Andrew c 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything was fine, except that your edit histories were an absolute mess, and it took me a good long time to untangle it. You can breathe more easily now, in that it should be as you wanted, but I must say, you will get better responses in wikipedia with politeness. Ignore the AfD? For goodness sakes, untangling the edit histories and keeping both articles was exactly the main point. Well, I hope you are satisfied now.AND, you're welcome. -- Avi 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joachim and TenaciousT 

message: We should create a similar template to go on the actaul article page instead of the talk page, so we can alert people that the page is being discussed for a potential move.--Sefringle 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. U-Mos 13:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too Johnbod 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for template to go on article page

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