Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 9

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kyle Barbour 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:db-histmerge}} 

message: I was wondering if an admin could revert 's move of Yeshua to Yeshua (name). It was a move that took place without talk page discussion or a requested move.  I ask that an admin revert the change the user go through the appropriate channels. I for one believe the disambig header at the top of the page is good enough. If someone types in "Yeshua" and they wanted the "Jesus" article, that link is right at the top of the page. The disambig page (that Kendrick created) only contained two links and served the same purpose as the disambig header. Thanks for your consideration. (I moved the talk page already, but couldn't move the main page because the diambig page was created over the redirect).-Andrew c 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeshua 

message: What should happen if a move request results in no consensus, but an admin who supported the move makes the move anyway? There was a move request, but after about 6 days an admin closed it because no consensus was reached. A few hours later though, another admin (who supported the move) moved it anyways and edited the old page so that only admins could move it back. Wouldn't this be against some kind of policy? TJ Spyke 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this.  Now explain to the class why this doesn't meet the criteria paid down in that decision.  Chris cheese whine 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, maybe you can call it even then.  If a move is closed, and you disagree with the closure, the best thing is to get more people to look at it and see what they think.  Editing redirects to prevent move-backs isn't very cool, and neither is... doing the same thing, from the other side.  On the other hand, it at least has the effect of slowing down a move war, and forcing participants back to the talk pages to sort things out.  Now the articles don't even all match, which is a great situation to get people discussing, because nobody's happy with the status quo.  That's kind of ideal. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uneeded moves 

message: I created a new section "Incomplete and disputed proposals" in an attempt to solve the persistent problem of 1) orphaned requests and 2) contested "uncontroversial" proposals. I'm aware that it goes against WP:CREEP, but:
#If the proposer of the move doesn't bother to follow the proper procedure, why should we care?
#If an uncontroversial move is contested, the request goes to the state of limbo; the proper procedure would be to relist it as a "controversial" move, but again, many such requests are either "nice tries" to "sneak" a move through, or even a good-faith but not really fitting the definition of "uncontroversial".
In any case, I'll try this procedure. If anyone has an objection, feel free to revert (i.e. remove the section); I'm exercizing WP:BOLD but I do mind WP:1RR. Duja► 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to try it out, but I'm a bit sceptical.  It might be simpler to just say that once an objection is noted to a move in the "uncontroversial" section, then it can be removed after N days if the requestor doesn't complete a full request, where N is a number like 3 or 5.  As for incomplete requests, I don't have a problem setting up a talk page discussion late, or when relisting the move, or just completing the move if it seems uncontroversial enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it now.  I think it's working, having a way for requests posted in "Uncontroversial" that aren't really uncontroversial to filter down into ordinary requests. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete proposals 

message: How should I fix a cut-and-past move? Someone did a cut-and-paste move of Barbadian cricket team to Barbados cricket team in January. I believe the article should be at "Barbadian cricket team" to conform with other articles in :Category:National cricket teams. Since the bad move there has been one good-faith edit at "Barbados cricket team". Should I do another cut-and-paste move back to "Barbadian cricket team" and lose the history of that one edit, or is there a special administrator way of fixing it? Jwillbur 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it all up. —METS501 (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess at [[Barbados cricket team]] and [[Barbadian cricket team]] 

message: I do not know if this is the place to go, but the article of the uk band The Noisettes should be moved to just Noisettes since the band from the UK has no The in there name--Migospia 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be a move request corresponding to this on the project page.  Once it's been 5 days since the move was listed, and people have had a chance to comment, the page will probably be moved without any more trouble. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Noisettes fix name 

message: I was trying to shift the article East Caribbean dollar to the correct East Caribbean States dollar, only to get a red link. Why is this? How come there isn't a 'move' tab at the top of each article to make it easier? - (British Commonwealth Numismatics 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that there is a move tab on the East Caribbean dollar article.  However, I find that if I browse to the page while not logged in, the tab does not appear.  Either you weren't logged in at the time you visited the page, or else you need to refresh your browser, or you've encountered some technical glitch.zadignose 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The account had just been created that day, and there's a 4-day waiting period after registration before the move tag pops up. Dekimasuよ! 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to shift articles 

message: I requested a move on Talk:Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) and "advertised" it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Requested move. Stemonitis recently closed it as "no consensus" because no one cared enough to say anything. Isn't one out of one consensus? --NE2 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite why - perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In other cases where there is no reason not to make a move, a single opinion is enough. This is often the case for obscure articles. For articles on subway stations which dozens of editors use daily (I expect), and where the naming conventions are anything but settled, I didn't think that lone voice was enough. Determining consensus is highly subjective. --Stemonitis 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are actually pretty obscure articles. Anyone who wanted to comment would have seen the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Requested move and done so. I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#If no one cares enough to comment, is there consensus?, though the intent was to get more people to this discussion rather than starting another one there. --NE2 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How much discussion is needed?

message: The imput of users &  administrators familiar with move request procedures will be much appreciated at the administrators' noticeboard. See:
* Requested move to Shatt al-Arab
* At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?
Thanks already. - Best regards, Ev 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab