Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Temple Israel

I'd appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator, in fixing up several articles covered in a Requested Move just closed by administrator User:Orlady. Orlady and i have a history of conflict in a number of areas.

The situation here is that there was a list-article at "Temple Israel", which was originally created as an article about a Temple Israel in Minneapolis. Since this version from 2007 or so it has been a list-article about multiple places of that name. Some time ago i added to it, merged in a separate disambiguation page that i had created, and edited to be what i believe was a proper set-index-article. It covered a number of places having separate articles, and some places just covered in sections within the list-article (with sources).

A few days ago an editor, Jayjg, moved the list-article to "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" and edited it down to cover just that one place, plus reopened a disambiguation page covering just the ones having articles. It appears to me that the Tulsa one merits an article, but that should have been created separately. I opened Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)#Requested move to reverse the move. Orlady closed it, inappropriately without understanding the situation i believe. I believe if she had understood the article was long a list-article, she would not have. (Aside: Honestly my hypothesis is she found this topic in my contribution history and saw it as way to find fault / disagree with something i have done, so she didn't look into it properly.) Orlady has also now tried to address the Talk pages being messed up by copying the longstanding article's Talk page to an archive at the disambiguation page. The Requested Move would have met all needs I believe.

Anyhow, setting aside history between O and me, could someone please fix the articles? This would be to move the older history of edits of the longstanding article to be in a set-index-article named Temple Israel, to move the full Talk page of the longstanding article to be with it, to move the new recently created dab to Temple Israel (disambiguation), and to split out the recent edits of the Tulsa article to be at Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)? That would restore edit history to where it should be, leaving list-article, Tulsa article, and new dab in place, leaving to the future any discussion of whether the new dab page and/or the long-standing list-article are both needed or should be merged. I would participate in a new discussion if someone feels it necessary, but it seems obvious to me that the edit histories should be put with the correct articles. --doncram (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant history can be found at Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), User talk:Doncram#Temple Israel, and User talk:Orlady#hey what's going on, again.

For what it's worth, I think that Doncram's request would be more appropriately placed at WP:AIN, since he is not asking for technical assistance with a move so much as for someone to say that his view of the situation is the right one. --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Those Talk pages are indeed relevant in showing previous discussion, in showing misunderstanding by Jayjg about my intent, and the discussion having been closed without that being resolved. And in showing my having given notice to Orlady and Jayjg that i opened this here. I don't ask for review of past history between O and me; i do ask for a second opinion about this list-article and for it to be fixed. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: This has been resolved by User:Jayjg's re-creating a list-article with the edit history, now at List of synagogues named Temple Israel, and Jayjg providing further edits to the list-article. Jayjg actually implemented a split of the edit history, so the same edit history is in the list-article and in the Tulsa, Oklahoma-specific article. And there is constructive-seeming discussion about related issues at Talk:Temple Israel#Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article. I consider this resolved. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users

Isn't it more accurate to say "autoconfirmed users" at the top of the page, rather than saying "accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least ten edits"? Because, according to the page detailing autoconfirmed users, some may take 90 days and 100 edits before being autoconfirmed (and thus be able to use this page). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

While it may be more accurate, it is less helpful. The direction of days and edits is more understandable to the vast bulk of people, especially those more likely to not understand why they cannot move a page, and at that point being helpful is more important in terms of information provided. billinghurst sDrewth 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else disagree with the change I've made here? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves from namespace

Is WP:RM or WP:AFD or some other venue the correct place for a request to move an article from the namespace to another space, e.g. project space?
Context: I just removed a requested move at Talk:Wikipedia in culture#Requested move that wanted Wikipedia in culture moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in culture as I thought this fell out of the scope of requested moves (as it is a requested removal), but then I read the closing admin's comments at the last AfD in 2008, which said that "A proposal to move this in to the Wikipedia namespace should be carried through the normal move decision making process, as I don't see a clear consensus for such a move at the moment." So... what's the process? Fences&Windows 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, these two (here and here) are asking to be moved from userspace to mainspace, that is across "-space", so to speak. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They should be adding {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article instead. A move of a draft article into being a live article isn't really the same thing as I've raised. Fences&Windows 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I modified the page at the top to say "autoconfirmed users" per above, if you don't mind. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that removing pages from article space should generally go through the deletion process, with reasonable latitude for IAR expedited userfication. My take on that AfD outcome is "no consensus for a move to WP:, but try discussing via RM instead of nominating again immediately." Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So I post this at AfD first, and then nominate it for RM? I don't follow. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I suggest that you nominate the article at AfD following the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Be sure to mention that moving to WP: space is removing from article space and link to the declined RM request and this discussion. You may also want to point out that the last AfD was two years ago. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see consensus moving towards AfDing the article first before all else; that is necessary (e.g. RM). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bug in listing code

See the entry for IBM AIX in proposed moves. I think this is caused by the {{Moved conversation}} tag earlier on the affected talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to move?

There are two contentious and long-running move disputes which have arisen recently which raise some issues about what is or is not a consensus or other grounds to make the move. They are the proposed moves of "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Elizabeth II", and the proposed move of "Cote d'Ivoire" to "Ivory Coast". I realise that in both cases the issue may have generated more heat than it deserves, particularly since everybody accepted that whichever title was chosen the other should be a redirect. However in both cases opinion was running at around 2 to 1 in favour of the move, in the first case the admin made the move, but in the second the admin decided there was "no consensus". This raises some big questions about what is or is not a consensus to move. In both cases the admin also made some comments which suggested that they had not properly read the discussion. Also, the move of Elizabeth was made only a short time after a similar move request had failed, can we re-open the move request for the African country fairly soon, or should there be a cooling-off period before this happens? PatGallacher (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What comments specifically did the admin at Côte d'Ivoire make that suggested to you that he did not read the discussion? Because two other independent admins came in and agreed with his assessment. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an request for a review, and it was referred here for fellow administrators, by me without hesitation. As I considered more than one article would be affected, I suggested that a more holistic approach as per the discussion at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire and how to address such through an RFC. I also very much read the argument and considered it. As a favour, if you are going to present an argument, please present a fair argument, not a biased argument. billinghurst sDrewth 17:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Well..

"I read through all the supporting argument, and there was no clear argument made, no benefits explained, nor evidence of any confusion with existing name, nor a need to disambiguate. Lots of personal preference, no discussion on the broader impact. Lots of looking around Google, not much looking around Wikipedia"

Was the comment that concerned me, however the closing admin did seek input from other admins afterwards and they supported the conclusion he made so i accept the verdict the admin made although i will never accept the article is at its rightful place.

Sadly it is a flaw in the present rules that dictate if there if no huge consensus then the previous consensus wins the day. That is annoying and unfair as it overrules the majority which is wrong even if its a small majority. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Silly editors. When will you learn that the WP:RM process is often productive but, in the end, WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE supercedes it. I have tried numerous times (see archives of this talk page) to establish that the ultimate decision is anything but an unappealable arbitrary admin decision with no avail. — AjaxSmack 07:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Malformated request: "War in Afghanistan" → War in Afghanistan"

Can someone correct to what it should be, War in Afghanistan (disambiguation) → War in Afghanistan ? Thanks, ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Slow progress

Just to make a comment, the progress of the page moves seems to be quite slow; there is a long list of backlogs waiting response. Is it possible for more admins to help with this? Thanks. NoNews! 13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What to do with 'no consensus'?

I've been involved in a proposed move that was recently closed as 'no consensus to move'. The responses were three to one in favor of moving the page, and 100% of all reliable sources support this, but there was no consensus about what title the page should have.

This is actually part of an odd 'split': The subject of the page and the title don't currently match. The title is about a musical style that became popular in the 1990s, and the actual contents of the page (after the first couple of sentences) are entirely about a musical style that became popular in the 1930s. We need to move the 1930s stuff to some other title so that Wikipedia can actually have an article about the 1990s musical genre.

So we have 'no consensus to move', but we also have 'no consensus to stay'. I don't want us to end up with a cut-and-paste move or just deleting the (verifiable) information about the older musical style. It's silly to keep this mismatched title/contents situation around, because none of our readers will find what they're looking for. What do you suggest? Should I re-list it? Ask the admin why s/he ignored a dozen sources and focused on a single, unsupported, consensus-can't-change statement? Move it anyway? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! I assume I'm the one who closed this, aren't I. :) One thing though, I recounted the !votes of the discussion and I noticed that two users opposed (by three to one do you mean one person opposed?). However, I don't see why this content split can't be boldly done - I'd be happy to help if you want. What do you think? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: we're talking about Urban contemporary gospel, right? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at that discussion. There's clearly not even a weak consensus either way. I'd suggest that whatever is done should abide by that decision. I try to take the line that if we have not even a weak consensus, then so far as the goal of building Wikipedia goes it does not matter which way we go. This principle isn't always easy to accept but when I do this helps me to keep perspective, and the more difficult the issue is, the more important this perspective is. Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arbitrarily, yes, that's the article. And you were right: There's no consensus about what the page name should be, and as a practical matter, you can hardly move a page when you can't figure out what the new name ought to be. I don't actually feel strongly about what the article title should be, beyond my conviction that the article title ought to match the article contents.

I didn't consider the fifth editor's comment to be responsive or relevant to the discussion ("To an outsider, the way you Americans get hung up on segmenting music, particularly on racial lines, seems utterly unbelievable! As does the way you change the terms every ten years!"). Consequently, my count is 3:1 (or 3:1:1, if you prefer).

So I fully agree that there's no consensus for that page to move to any specific title, but the current situation is also not tenable, not supported by consensus, not supportable by sources, and not helpful to readers: urban/contemporary gospel music does not involve artists who were living (and in some cases, dying) during the 1930s. Urban/contemporary music is Edwin Hawkins and Kirk Franklin and Christian hip hop, not the people and music that are actually described on the page.

Personally, my guess is that someone wrote an article about the history of black gospel music, and someone later panicked over the "racial" name and moved it to the musical style that they personally associate with African-American Christian musicians -- without noticing that the music described in the article is actually a completely different type of music, or checking to see what the sources say, etc.

But what do we do from here? Is there a re-listing procedure? (I'm not going to be prepared to write the article that should be at urban contemporary gospel for at least another week, so there's no rush.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so basically, if I understand it right, there are two notable subjects co-existing in one article titled urban contemporary gospel. Correct? If this is true as you say, I don't think there is a need for a discussion on splitting the article, do you? Maybe the best place to start is writing a draft for urban contemporary gospel, so that we can flip-flop the page locations. Do I make any sense right now? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really: If you look past the first couple of sentences, there is actually only one topic, and it's not the topic that is indicated by the title. Only 1237 out of 33K bytes are about urban/contemporary gospel. The rest (about 97% of the text) is about traditional black gospel music. There are two notable subjects, but there's not really any need to split the article, because there isn't really anything about urban/contemporary gospel in the existing article (except the generic boilerplate that someone spammed to the leads of every gospel-related articles some time ago, and an uncited direct quotation attributed to Shirley Caesar). The existing content needs to be moved wholesale to some relevant name, so that an article about urban/contemporary gospel can be written from scratch.

Flipping the page locations is basically what I've been trying to do.

Like I said, there's no rush on this, because the endless discussions over whether it's appallingly racist to call black gospel "black gospel" (just like all the scholarly sources do) mean that I no longer have the time to write an article about urban/contemporary gospel. I just need to know what to do when I am finally able to get it written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When you get it written, move urban contemporary gospel to black gospel and then move your draft to urban contemporary gospel. I can do this for you when the time comes if you like. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Starting discussions on "Uncontroversial requests"

It has become standard for people to start discussions on "uncontroversial requests" that they think are actually controversial. This is normally done by copying the requested move from here to the article's talk page and adding the appropriate template. However this makes it look like the person who made the original request started the discussion which isn't strictly true. Most of the time this is fine but I've just come across a case where this has caused an issue (Talk:David Amoo). I admit this was due to a badly formatted original requested but I was wondering whether, in the name of transparency, the person starting the request should make it clear that they started the request based on the "uncontroversial request". Maybe something along the lines of

This was an uncontroversial request that was contested. The original request is above. This move discussion was started, as a procedural step, by User signature.

This would also make the start time and date clear if this is some time after the original request. I'd be happy to make a template (which should include the RM template) if people think this is appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check what I've done

Hi. Could someone familiar with requested moves please check what I've done? I think I stuffed it up and I don't want to make it worse. See Template:AFL Brownlow Medallists, Template:Three time Brownlow Medal winners, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done - Thanks. Move along now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Need a move review of User:Schwyz

I've become concerned about some of the rapid-fire island moves done by Schwyz - see discussion. I've counted 20+ island moves that have been done without consensus, and, IMO, are a bit controversial. (Isla Colon -> Colon Island? Really?) How is the best way to organize a discussion? The islands are from all over the world, so I can't bring it up at a single project. Suggestions? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 09:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Already an ANI thread on this here. I'm going to leave a comment there. Dpmuk (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

at JaGa, it's best addressed at Talk:Colon Island. And I told you already my POV on that one [1]. : Sorry if that is a problem, simply move it back if you like. My idea was WP:UE and the way most other Latin America countries write the island names, specifically the "Isla X" named ones. If Panama needs an exception, so be it. Schwyz (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be best to centralize the discussion here. WP:AN/I is only if someone refuses to discuss an issue or otherwise acts disruptively; this dispute is about what to name articles. -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, based on editing patterns I believe TrueColour (talk · contribs) and TheCalbuco (talk · contribs) may be related accounts and possibly the same editor. If these accounts are related, previous attempts have been made to address move and naming issues via TrueColour's talk page and AN discussions (User:TrueColour, User:JHunterJ violating WP policies.), apparently with mixed results as the issues are ongoing. --Muchness (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I added to the ANI thread to try to get more eyes on this - personally I think the most appropriate place for this discussion is the user's talk page. I'd also disagree that this issue is about what to name articles, in my opinion it's more about how this user is making moves and the process they're following (or not as the case maybe). Dpmuk (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think there's enough there to start a WP:SPI but I'm taking a step back from all this so as not to aggravate the user further so I'll leave it for someone else to start if they agree with me. Dpmuk (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the move list. Several hundred moves over the last week. Where does one begin? I focused on the cap-I Island moves, because I was bothered by these rapid fire proper name changes, but there's a lot going on here. Like adding cap-M Municipality to a whole ton of Mexican towns, based on a single comment by another user in 2008. How can we verify this as the correct thing to do? --JaGa^talk 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Governorate of Estonia and Governorate of Livonia. Now I see that none of the rationales make any sense. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else, who has discussed this with the user, thinking it may be time for a WP:RFC/U? Dpmuk (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Dpmuk - you are only here to hunt me. You are not engaging in any single discussion about specific moves and why you object to them. I fixed lots of bad incoming links, where people intended to link to topic A but the link ends up at topic B because they both share the same base name. Inconsistent naming schemes are one reason for that to happen. You may have a look at Category:Municipality name disambiguation pages - lots of municipalities from Spanish-language countries like Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela share the same base name. It is confusing to readers and editors to see different styles used and to have "San Something Municipality" for an entity from Bolivia and "San Something (municipality)" for an entity from Mexico. I cleaned several of these things. There were links meant for a municipality in one country that ended up on one in another. Until now nobody objected to the moves on the specific talk page. Only very recent User:Petri Krohn jumped in, I don't know what his/her relation to the Mexican municipalities is. At User:Petri Krohn he/she lists language knowledge, but no Russian nor Spanish is mentioned. Finnish is first, so likely he/she found it only via the moves of the governorates.
• @Petri Krohn. Simple try and revert cycle. Interesting that you first revert and afterwards, realize, that none of the rationales make any sense. Well, maybe not to you, but to hundreds of others who use the form "X Governorate" for all the other except these two it indeed does make sense. It's up at Talk:Governorate_of_Estonia#Requested_move, Talk:Governorate_of_Livonia#Requested_move. For Mexico I reply in the specific talk page. Schwyz (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is not with the case you describe above. When there are two places with the same name the work you're doing is good and useful. My concern is with moves like, for example, "Santa Cruz (municipality) to Santa Cruz Municipality". Although I think uniformity of naming is a very good goal, I am not happy with the way you're arbitrarily choosing what the naming format should be. This sort of decision, should in my opinion, be made by consensus before any moves are made so as to limit the number of page moves. However that is not my biggest concern. My biggest concern now is you not being willing to listen to other users and accusing them, incorrectly, of harassment and personal attacks. This, in my opinion, shows a misunderstanding of both WP:Harassment and WP:NPA as well as a more serious understanding of how wikipedia works, i.e. the idea of forming consensus. As you have asked me to stop commenting on your talk page I've had to investigate using the next step in dispute resolution, namely a RfC/U. If you feel strongly that I am harassing you I am more than happy for you to ask for a review of my actions at the appropriate place. Dpmuk (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If your concern is not with the case above, why then is the case above triggering you to call for RFC/U within 19 minutes after the issue was posted and triggering you to run shortly after that to User_talk:JaGa and try to get him involved with RFC/U? [2], [3].

If you feel that I am arbitrarily choosing what the naming format should be, why don't you discuss this naming with me? Which one do you refer to? Mexican municipalities is at: Talk:Municipalities_of_Mexico#Naming, still see nothing from your side there!

If your biggest concern now is that I am not willing to listen to other users and accusing them, incorrectly, of harassment and personal attacks, then could you provide sources for that concern? I am talking with several users about the moves I made. Only you are not talking about specific moves, but at the end you are only looking for RFC/U, SPI, ANI etc. Of course I do not want WP:HAR on my talk page. Wrong accusation are part of WP:HAR, WP:ATTACK. I clean lots of wrong incoming links, lay foundation for bots to detect wrong links and foundation to more secure linking in the future. I fix some links, but I cannot fix all, and if then a user comes to say "I have never seen you fix a single link" and "you are putting burden" ... This is like an ATTACK and it is a wrong accusation. Schwyz (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From a look through the move list I believe that all of these moves should be undone and a proper discussion had over whether they are required. I am concerned that proper names are being attributed to places that might not apply, inappropriate disambiguation and so on. Given the amount of work that has to be done fixing everything these moves should stop now until Schwyz can get consensus for them. Quantpole (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the best course would be for Schwyz to stop these moves until a proper process to handle this is determined. (Not to say that Schwyz isn't doing work that needs to be done; we have a lot of inconsistencies in our geographic nomenclature, & fixing this would be an excellent project for a WikiGnome.) But I believe resorting to RFC/U would not only be overkill, but inappropriate. Schwyz, are you aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)? Take some time to read this page, it's talk page, & the talk page archives. As for the rest of us, we may want to discuss selected specific cases on its talk page with the intent of pointing Schwyz in the correct direction. -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I've suggested an RfC/U is shown by these two diffs - [4] and [5]. I to would hope an RfC/U is unnecessary but they seem to be showing a reluctance to listen to other editor's views - apparently concerns about their moves in general are invalid and we should discuss each individual move separately. I would hope that other editors can see why the concerns I've expressed apply to most of this user's moves and how raising these concerns on each talk page is a) impractical and b) missing the point. If other editor's can successfully engage Schwyz, get them to stop their moves and discuss them (and I mean properly discuss - a discussion where they are the only participant is no way to form consensus) then I would be more than happy to stop moving towards an RfC/U. Dpmuk (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Having opened a very similar thread [tools required to revert mass move|here], I have become aware of this thread and the others at WP:AN/I.

Our article naming policy puts as primary consideration picking the title which is most commonly used in English, and moving titles to far less common names for the sake of "consistency" is not supported. For this reason, any further moves of this type should be preceded by community discussion, advertised beforehand at WP:RM and relevant wikiprojects. Knepflerle (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft RfC/U is here. Happy to make changes to it for anyone willing to certify along with me. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote the edit summaries next to each diff in the cause for concern and I will certify. Knepflerle (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries now quoted. RfC taken life here. Dpmuk (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Hi

Is it possible someone with a bit more knwoledge.experience of resolving matters on page moves can cooment on either or both of these pages please.

RfC for page title and/or Neutrality board post

I am getting a bit confused between Neutrality policy and Page move policy.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Close need

Can someone close Talk:Magners_League#Move Gnevin (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving multiple articles

I'm trying to find where I can propose moving a group of articles simultaneously. The articles in the list below mostly follow a format of:

List of <University> <Nickname> head <sport> coaches

I'm proposing to rename these articles to:

List of <University> <Nickname> <sport> head coaches

Dividing the title "head coach" in the he article's name doesn't follow how other articles are titled (i.e.: List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons, List of Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball conference championships, amd List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees) all collegiate lists follow an identical format as what I'm proposing these articles be moved to. Here's the list of articles in question:

• List of Baylor Bears head football coaches
• List of Colorado Buffaloes head football coaches
• List of East Carolina Pirates head football coaches
• List of Florida State Seminoles head football coaches
• List of Iowa State Cyclones head basketball coaches
• List of Iowa State Cyclones head football coaches
• List of Kansas Jayhawks head football coaches
• List of Kansas State Wildcats head football coaches
• List of Louisiana Tech Bulldogs head football coaches
• List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches
• List of Missouri Tigers head football coaches
• List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches
• List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches
• List of North Dakota State Bison head football coaches
• List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches
• List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches
• List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches
• List of Texas A&M Aggies head football coaches
• List of Texas Longhorns head football coaches
• List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches
• List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches
• List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents head football coaches

So any help of where I can propose a group move? Thanks. NThomas (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Follow the instructions at WP:RM for requesting multiple page moves. Propaniac (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of these unopposed moves and close the discussions?

The backlog of unclosed discussions has grown huge, but I believe all the discussions below are unopposed and should be quick to deal with, if someone could spend a few minutes on it. Propaniac (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Non-blocking synchronization#Requested move
• Talk:History of Cycling in Western Australia#Userfy
• Talk:Janet Montgomery (actress)#Requested move *Put up CSD 6 tag, will be shortly deleted.
• Talk:Volumetric Production Payment#Requested move Put up CSD 6.
• Talk:ESRI#Requested move
• Talk:LART (computer)#Move?
• Talk:No Sleeves#Move article to No3b
• Talk:Anna of Celje#Move to Anna of Cilli
• Talk:Left Behind (series)#Requested move
• Talk:Redistribution (economics)#Requested move
• Talk:Hannah Montana Forever (soundtrack)#Proposed move
• Talk:Wikileaks#Requested move Put up CSD 6
• Talk:Toyota Liteace#Requested move
• Talk:Sociaal-Liberale Partij#Requested move
• Talk:Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats#Requested move

In case anyone finds this interesting, I believe there are currently 122 discussions in the backlog, and 94 non-backlogged ones. Propaniac (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved most of these articles, there are still issues to be addressed on the remaining two. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you! Propaniac (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Typography for iPods models

Hi, I saw articles iPod Classic, iPod Touch and iPod Nano, but when I tried to rename them in iPod classic, iPod touch and iPod nano, it wasn't possible. Can you help me, please? → Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with a link in the language box

Good afternoon,

I think there is a problem with the link to the French : there appears two links to French pages, and if you click on one of these links, you get a page on a French singer, so please suppress this false link that I can't find in the source page of the main page on Requested moves.

Thank you in advance.

--Aerophile5390 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please close this overdue move

[6] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Split discussion

There are currently two seperate but related move discussions at Talk:Megalodon and Talk:Megalodon (bivalve). Would it be possible for someone to merge these two discussions? PC78 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Page view statistics

Several requested moves now involve one or more assumed "primary topics" and a disambiguation page. Page views of the pages in question are interesting. Take for example the ratio of disambiguation page views to "primary topic" page views in August 2010:

• Megalodon 1307/136085 = 1.0%
• Frankfurt 451/26302 = 1.7% (but Frankfurt is a redirect to Frankfurt am Main, and Frankfurt am Main has two hatnotes so page views of the disambiguation page under-report the number of readers inconvenienced)
• Android 2455/53222 = 4.6% (in June 2010, while the disambiguation page was not at Android)
• White Rabbit (347+1065)/12505 = 11% (there are two disambiguation pages: White rabbit and White Rabbits)
• Hammer of the Gods 314/891 = 35%

To me, it seems clear that the article now at Megalodon should stay there, and Hammer of the Gods (disambiguation) should be moved to Hammer of the Gods. Also, the article at White Rabbit should be moved elsewhere, and White Rabbit and White Rabbits should redirect to the disambiguation page. Android probably should also remain a disambiguation page; the situation there is muddy due to page moves and perhaps also selective editing of incoming links. I don't know about Frankfurt; not enough information. It is possible that a disproportionate fraction of readers looking for Frankfurt am Oder are being made to click through Frankfurt am Main. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Need to move Libertarianism request to Contested Moves

But I don't see the text so not sure how to do this. (It's been discussed many times on talk page and very controversial.) Could someone help? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see it has to be done on article talk page so will try to figure it out. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The move request for Libertarianism, is, and always has been, listed under Contested Moves, which is where it was placed by the RM bot. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I finally figured out the problem is the formatting which does not make current a subsection of contested but equal to it, which obviously can be quite confusing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Change formatting to end contested move confusion?

Maybe if the highest levelsections were done with just one " = " then by the time one read down to "Ccurent Discussions" it would be clear it was a subsection of "Contested moves." My last thought on the matter. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Current Discussions is not a subsection of Contested Moves. Contested Moves is for moves that are initially listed as uncontroversial, but thought by someone else to be controversial. Since an uncontroversial move does not have a discussion setup, someone (presumably someone who favors the move) then needs to set it up as a regular (controversial) move with discussion and relevant notices created. It remains in Contested Moves until that happens, or it's deleted due to a lack of interest. Few moves fall into the uncontroversial category in the first place, and even fewer of those are ever contested, so Contested Moves is often blank. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When majority conflicts with policy

Dear WP:RM closing admins,

What do you folks usually do in a case where there is no consensus, but what the majority favors for a given move request conflicts with policy?

For example, if the basis for a move request is that the subject of the article is not the primary topic, and no one presents any evidence or even argument to the contrary, but a clear majority favors leaving the article where it is never-the-less, how do you decide? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention this proposal was made in the middle of a mediation from a member of the Mediation Cabal and that two previous RfC's - and the majority in this case - all disagreed with the defacto "deletionist" view that all forms of libertarianism except one be struck from the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My question, though prompted by a particular situation, was purposefully stated in general terms, Carol. The particulars you mentioned here are not relevant to my question. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is RM working?

We seem to have a permanently huge backlog, where many of the discussions aren't getting any participation despite having been around for weeks. So this page seems to be failing in both of its purposes: it's not attracting the community's attention to discuss proposed renamings, and it's not attracting administrator attention to close the discussions in timely fashion (or else admins are having to leave discussions open for much longer because they're inconclusive). Has it always been this way? Should be be thinking of ways to make it work better?--Kotniski (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It has not always been that way. I think the (relatively) new bot-facilitated automated mechanisms are great, but I think they have had the unintended effect of dehumanizing the whole process, and perhaps because of that there is less interest now. I've thought about helping with the backlog, but I'm not an admin and so can only help where no admin "powers" are required. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done non-admin closes on quite a lot of discussions lately - I suspect the backlog would still be much larger if I hadn't. Can't do all of them like that though. Perhaps the problem is also related to the shortage of administrators, which I have seen being complained of in some quarters?--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to help, but have to skip those requiring admin power. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2Cycle is right; there hasn't always been such a perma-backlog. I wonder whether part of the problem is relisting requests that haven't generated any discussion. Lack of discussion can be taken as a green-light to move; a show of consensus is not required.

That doesn't, of course, address the question of getting admins for closures where tools are required. I'm always willing to move pages around if I can help in those cases, but my presence on the wiki is a bit irregular these days. Nevertheless, anyone doing non-admin closures is welcome to tug on my sleeve to push buttons on moves that you can't otherwise complete. I tend to log on at least once a week, usually more. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please close RM request

[7] It's already over 7 days and the results are clear by now. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncontroversial move

Hi. I put these moves (September 11, 2010) in the wrong place:

• (Discuss) — SBB-CFF-FFS Class Am841 → SBB-CFF-FFS Am 841
  • SBB-CFF-FFS Class Am843 → SBB-CFF-FFS Am 843
  • SBB Re481 → SBB-CFF-FFS Re 481

Reason: Page moves to match naming convention for these locomotive articles ie see Category:Swiss Federal Railways locomotives , it's not clear to me why the page move title is blacklisted? (other similar already exist)

Now I can't change it because it says any edits I make will be undone by a bot.. Can someone do the move and close this, or move the request to "uncontroversial moves" . Thank you.Sf5xeplus (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You can remove the move request tag from the first article talk page - I think that should cause the bot to remove the request from the list. Then you can add the request to the uncontroversial list manually.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ok I've tried that,..Sf5xeplus (talk)

Correcting cut&paste move

I'm not sure where to ask about getting help fixing a cut&paste move. This is the sequence of events: The American Left was moved to Socialism and Communism in the United States and then copied back to The American Left, leaving the history behind. Compounding the confusion, the title should more properly be "American Left" or "American left", dropping 'The' and deciding on proper capitalization. Can someone sort this out? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've posted at the relevant talk page regarding the eventual name of the article, but at least the history is repaired for now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing own discussion as "not moved" when withdrawing proposal is desired

The closing instructions currently state the following:

No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days).

I understand that rule and the reasoning behind it, but I think nominators should be allowed to close discussions they started, as long as it's a not moved closure.

For example, say someone wants to move X to Y, creates the proposal, but is then convinced by others that the move shouldn't happen. Shouldn't the nom be able to withdraw his proposal? Or what if it's obviously going down in flames? The point of these discussion is, or should be, to find consensus. If that's not happening, why not allow the nominator to shut it down? I suggest changing the wording to this:

No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days), or the nominator wishes to withdraw his proposal by closing it earlier as not moved.

Any problems with that? Thoughts/comments? Thanks!

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems OK, provided there haven't been any other voices in support of the move.--Kotniski (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So if, say, 8 are against, but one other person supports the move, you don't think the nom should be able to close the discussion? What I am suggesting is that the nominator should be able to close the discussion at any time. After all, were it not for his or her nomination, that discussion wouldn't even have existed in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, in that case it seems reasonable for the nominator to close it. But if there's a reasonable prospect of consensus for the move forming even without the nominator's support, then I'd say the nominator shouldn't be able to close the discussion down.--Kotniski (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think it should be closed as withdrawn other than not moved. The latter indicates a consensus decision which may or may not be the case. –xeno^talk 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point Xeno, I agree.

Kotniski, are you okay with a nominator closing a discussion as withdrawn even if the proposal looks like it might have consensus support? I don't think it should matter much in practice if a nominator can do that or not, except that if we allow early closures by nominators only under certain arguably subjective conditions then we have another potential area for disagreement. That's why I favor giving nominators the unconditional right to withdraw a proposal. In other words:

No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days), or the nominator wishes to withdraw a proposal (by closing it earlier as withdrawn).

If you still think it's important to limit early closures by noms to only when consensus approval is apparently not possible or highly unlikely, how exactly would you reword the above? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In AFDs, generally if a nominator wants to withdraw the nomination, it's only permitted if the nomination is unanimously opposed. –xeno^talk 19:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that what you think should be the rule here?

No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days), or the nominator wishes to withdraw a proposal (by closing it earlier as withdrawn) about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed.

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. –xeno^talk 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done See closing instructions (diff). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Precedent?

On Talk:Pig has come up a question about precedent. The article at Pig is about the pig genus Sus, yet it gets about 70,000 page views per month. There is an open request to move the article to Sus (genus) and move Pig (disambiguation) to Pig. The question is this: has any other disambiguation page ever been moved to occupy a page name that gets so many page views? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The current requested move of Avatar would involve a page with over 140,000 page views per month. Have there been other requested moves like this? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Avatar has been moved. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I found one. In November 2009 Polarization (disambiguation) had 1672 page views and Polarization had 58017. The ratio was 1672/58017 or 2.9%. In December 2009 the article at Polarization was moved to Polarization (waves) and replaced by the disambiguation page. In December 2009, as all the incoming links to Polarization were fixed, page views on Polarization (waves) climbed from 0 to many hundreds per day. In 2010 so far Polarization and Polarization (waves) respectively have averaged 29900 and 20455 page views per month. So, it appears that roughly 60% of the page views on Polarization before the move were by readers looking for something other than the article now named Polarization (waves). Polarization (disambiguation) is getting 112 page views per month. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a visual representation of that kind of information. Those numbers are cool, and a program that could scrape them and generate cool images would be awesome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally you could see it (eg here and here), but at the moment it appears the page views tool is out of service because its SQL database is down. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

By looking at talk pages that link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links I found some more candidates for move requests. Below are September 2010 page views. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Relic (disambiguation) vs Relic: 1475/16780 = 8.8%
• Aberdeen (disambiguation) vs Aberdeen: 1316/47124 = 2.8%
• Magazine (disambiguation) vs Magazine: 2069/76762 = 2.7%
• Oxford (disambiguation) vs Oxford: 2008/69534 = 2.9%

Here are some others. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Fender (disambiguation) vs Fender 407/6794 = 6.0%
• Shepherd (disambiguation) vs Shepherd 927/17339 = 5.3%
• CART (disambiguation) vs CART 528/13940 = 3.8%; move request in progress
• Rachel (disambiguation) vs Rachel 808/23012 =3.5%, despite Rachel sometimes having another hatnote to Rachel (given name); move request in progress
• Latex (disambiguation) / Latex: 2224/78726 = 2.8%, despite Latex until today bearing an additional hatnote to LaTeX
• Durham (disambiguation) vs Durham 498/22495 = 2.2% despite Durham also bearing a hatnote direct to Durham, North Carolina

Let's put this in perspective. The purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is to make a best guess what the user was looking for when they typed in the search term. We want to minimize the number of clicks a user has to make to reach what they want. And of course if we can avoid forcing the reader to review a disambig page, that is a plus for navigation as well.

OK. Let's take the "worst" one above, Relic (disambiguation) vs Relic: 8.8%. We'll round up to 10%. So, 10% of the users who landed on Relic didn't want that and had to go to the disambig.

Scenario one - keep Relic where it is

Results:

- 9 out of 10 users get what they wanted: 90% of users = zero clicks after search, no disambig

- 1 out of 10 users has to go to the disambig, and then select what they want: 10% of users = two clicks after search, must read disambig

Scenario two - move Relic (disambiguation) into the Relic slot

Results:

- All users have to choose what they want from the disambig page: 100% of users = one click after search, everyone has to read the disambig

Conclusion: all of the items in the above lists should stay where they are for the best user experience. --JaGa^talk 20:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

JaGa wrote So, 10% of the users who landed on Relic didn't want that and had to go to the disambig. Does everyone see the flaw in this argument? That 10% is not how many users didn't want to be on Relic; that 10% is only how many users got out via the disambig. Other ways to get out include slogging through the article looking for a link out, using the search box, and leaving Wikipedia. How many users got out by those other exits? Another 10%? Another 20%? More? This is why it is interesting to go back and look at previous moves, because by comparing page views before and after the move we can estimate how many users didn't want to be on the article. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Polarization[8] and Polarization (waves)[9], it appears that only 50% of the readers landing on the article about wave polarization wanted to be there. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Android is another example. Two articles, Android (robot) and Android (operating system) were proposed as the primary topic. One has etymology on its side; the other has traffic. The result of two separate, opposing move discussions was, in effect, no primary topic. On August 15, 2010 the robot article was moved to Android (robot) and the disambiguation page was moved to Android. For months before then, the page views ratio of Android (disambiguation) to Android was about 4.3%. So, what percent of the page views on Android before the move were "unwanted"? Page views on Android before the move and on Android (robot) after the move give us a rough answer. The answer: now that it does not occupy the ambiguous page name Android, the article is getting one third as many page views. So even though the page views ratio was "only" 4.3%, evidently over 60% of people formerly viewing that article were not viewing the article they wanted. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the page view ratio of a clear primary topic? In 2009, the ratio for Michael Jackson (disambiguation) vs Michael Jackson was 185338/33016667 = 0.6%. Also, disambiguation page views[10] closely tracked article page views.[11] 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think 50% is the right ratio (though we shouldn't rely solely on page-view statistics, for various reasons, including that people's interests change according to what's in the news at the moment). But if the ratio seems not to deviate too much from 50% one way or the other, then we should generally leave the long-term status quo as it is, whatever that may be.--Kotniski (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

50% is nearly 2 orders of magnitude greater than 0.6%. Is 50% a typo? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Though I should say that I don't mean the ratio of page views per se, I mean the proportion of people seeking the topic when typing the term in question into the search box (which is not possible to establish directly, unless a dedicated redirect has been set up for precisely that purpose).--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, does this 50% refer to page views of articles that are candidates for primary topic? Could you expand on that? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has it about right - it implies that if, of the people typing term "X" into the search box, more than 50% of them are looking for article X1, then X1 should be regarded as the primary topic for "X". (That data isn't immediately deducible from page views, of course.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Inferring that data is exactly what I'm getting at here. Looking at previous moves that involved replacing a putative primary topic with a disambiguation page, we can look for correlations between dab/base page view ratios before the move and page views after the move. So far, the pattern seems rather consistent: a ratio as small as 2% (if not smaller) before the move indicates that the article at the base name is not the primary topic. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Formerly, here, I estimated that only 41% of people viewing Avatar wanted the article about avatars in Hinduism. Since then, the article formerly at Avatar was moved to Avatar (Hinduism) and all incoming links were fixed. Page view data since then suggest that about one fifth or 20% of people viewing Avatar before the move wanted the article about avatars in Hinduism. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving this page

I just moved a malformed archive from June at WP:Requested moves Commons/Archives/2010/June to /Archive 17. However, this page still needs to be archived. I think 15 days is a good wait period, but what do you think? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Desmond Wolfe

Old name: Nigel McGuinness. Request move to "Desmond Wolfe". This wrestler is articled under his independent ringname (i.e. Ring of Honor, Pro Wrestling Guerrilla), he has been signed to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling for a while now, is better now as Desmond Wolfe, and WP:COMMONNAME surely suggests that because this wrestler is now seen on TV every week as Desmond Wolfe rather than some beer hall as Nigel McGuinness, this deserves a move. Thank you. The Madras (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

move proposal close

when is this move proposal going to be closed?--intraining ^{Jack In} 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed by User:Orlady. -kotra (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Request input on controversial close

I recently closed the RM discussion at Talk:W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme~ and performed the move, but another editor (User:Ryulong) disagreed with my close and has moved it back. Since consensus for the move wasn't clear-cut and I have no desire to unilaterally get into a move revert war (as judging by the page history, this user may), I ask any other closing administrators reading this if they could offer their input there? Would be much appreciated. -kotra (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Camel case - trademarks e.g. IMDb

Per MoS it's a judgement call - even in text. IMDB is probably simpler. Rich Farmbrough, 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Stockman

It looks like the move request on Talk:Stockman can be closed now, moving Stockman to Australian stockman and Stockman (disambiguation) to Stockman. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done ...Though I moved to Stockman (Australia) as per original request and because this is a disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And done against the consensus of other editors on the page. Stockman in Australia IS a primary topic. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Center‎ to Centre

Can we move Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Center‎ to Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre, to adhere to Australian-English spelling? I dont seem to be able to move it! Has been raised on talk page by another user and I without further comment.Nickm57 (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry put this in the wrong place.Nickm57 (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Requested move/dated

Hi all! Just for the record, in case there are problems, I've made a few changes to Template:Requested move/dated (see). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since nothing is appearing on the page, don't know if it was you or the bot. Most likely the bot in my mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Question for closers

Has anyone encountered an A → A (b); A (disambiguation) → A move request in which the article currently at A is clearly not the primary topic, no one has argued it is the primary topic, but there is no consensus to move? Do you move anyway, or leave it the way it is?

In the case of Stockman → Stockman (Australia) I went ahead with the move (if you google for Stockman the first hit is "David Stockman"), and this has been challenged (my speedy delete request for the redirect now at Stockman was reverted, but I reverted that). Is the closer's job thankless, or what?

Advice? Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are a non-admin relying on uninvolved admins to take the time to investigate and understand what you are doing and why. Be mellow, keep plugging along. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you didn't thoroughly read the entire discussion before closing. You responded to the request of an anon IP (the one who started it) and misinterpreted the discussion. EVERYONE except the nominator ultimately opposed this move, but we were trying to play with some ways this could work. The very purpose of the use of pages ending in (disambiguation) is to avoid having a primary topic be unnecessarily made into a disambig when, say London IS a primary use. Here, there is a significant historical use of the term and also a good argument that it could be considered a vital topic (at least to Australians). You also may have fallen prey to anon 69's WP:ASK behavior, if the other admins on this page check anon 69's contribution history (as I just did) one will note that this appears to be a VERY experienced editor with an obsession with disambiguation who is trying to change dozens of articles. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to close that move request without moving I would have to essentially ignore (and thus violate) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidance at disambiguation policy. I'm willing to do that if consensus clearly supports doing specifically that for good reason, but the whole issue of primary topic was barely mentioned in the discussion. Certainly no reason to go against policy was clearly presented. It just wasn't there.

This usage of stockman, to refer to this Australian "cattleman" subject, does not even make the first page of results in a basic google test search for "stockman". That's why it was moved.

This decision has nothing to do with the anon nom, or the argument presented for the move, though the argument did subtly allude to the concept of primary topic. It's about Wikipedia disambiguation policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is not normal. Born2cycle, you are doing good work in service of WP:RM and these insinuations about your competence and diligence are way out of line. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved admin, and have read through the move discussion. B2C is correct; those who opposed the move did not present any sort of argument for why we should ignore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy. While Wikipedia generally works by consensus, we must adhere to established policy and not fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. I have therefore completed the move request and moved the dab page to Stockman. Parsecboy (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need to clarify somewhere that consensus of the overall WP community as reflected in policy and guidelines trumps the WP:ILIKEIT "consensus" of a handful of editors in some little discussion somewhere. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, user anon 69.3 is again trying to twist my words. (And by the way, maybe these uninvolved admins should look into why you don't log on with the user name that we all know you must have and quit hiding behind an anon IP? Have you been blocked in the past, by any chance? Maybe for trying to move articles against consensus? Hmmm. Just asking...) I am not insinuating the Born2Cycle is incompetent nor not diligent, it just seemed that the move was made without understanding the actual discussion. But if the issue is that we who discussed the issue didn't raise the proper points, then I think that the community needs to have a clearer understanding about the WP:Primary argument means when these things arise. I suspect that all of us who opposed this move WERE doing so with the understanding that the primary use of the term should be in reference to the Australian Stockman. Seriously. And I hope that the popularity contest of a goggle search is, I hope, NOT the reason to pick a primary topic. I believe there is a similar discussion surrounding the title "Avatar" which, I am sure a Google hit count would say is the hit movie and not the actual concept. But all that said, this particular case is not one I feel like fighting about any longer. However, I do ask that the uninvolved admins note that this anonymous user is certainly a remarkably busy person with an odd obsession about disambiguation issues and may be hiding their past history. Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"(And by the way, maybe these uninvolved admins should look into why you don't log on with the user name that we all know you must have and quit hiding behind an anon IP? Have you been blocked in the past, by any chance? Maybe for trying to move articles against consensus? Hmmm. Just asking...)"

"I do ask that the uninvolved admins note that this anonymous user is certainly a remarkably busy person with an odd obsession about disambiguation issues and may be hiding their past history."

Speaking as an uninvolved admin, I appreciate and respect the IP's words, and I find the quoted comments of yours, Montanabw, entirely revolting. If you can't refrain from ad hominem remarks, you should leave the Internet until you can. Comment on the content, not the contributor. This is non-negotiable. I'm not inclined to listen to you in any way until you can respect this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry GT. I let a bit of frustration at the misinterpretation of my remarks boil over into sarcasm, and the commentary also was off topic for this page. So for that part I apologize. I do, however, have a serious and legitimate concern about this anon being an experienced user, for which I have some evidence that is far from ad hominem, so your own attack on me (a wikipedian for over four years, by the way) to "leave the internet" is really a little over the top also. But we all can have grumpy days, so how about we call it even? I will pull together an appropriate request in the proper place if I feel any actual action is warranted. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my remark that you objected to, and I'll restate it in a way that I think we can all agree is not a personal attack: If you can't refrain from ad hominem remarks on this project, then it's a good idea to log off and do something else until you're prepared to engage in a more constructive manner. I hope this is uncontroversial, and it applies to all of us, myself included. Is that better? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you were to decide to also strike the very offensive term "revolting." ;-) and the term "ad hominem,"  ;-) then you will have all the inflammatory, attacking phrases out of there. I'm owning that my comments were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and there is a more appropriate forum for the actual (and legitimate) concerns I have that gave rise to my remarks. What I can agree to is that I did bring in something that has been bugging me for a couple of weeks but had nothing to do with the content of this page and that I had a degree of emotionality and anger in what I said that seemed, because it was out of context, sounded disproportionate to the discussion at hand. But a couple other people had already jumped on me about it, too, so the dogpiling seemed a bit unnecessary. I got the message, I apologized, and I am willing to own my part in this, but I tossed the hair shirt with your conciliatory words yesterday and I'm not putting it on again. OK? Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied at yr. talk page, because we're off-topic here. Short version: comments about the content, not about the contributor, are not personal attacks, although they can certainly be stated in an unhelpful manner. I sometimes do the latter, although I try not to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate move request

There is an inappropriate move request here in which the move isn't to a title on the same topic but a 'move' to a title on a another topic. Per "Processes beyond the scope of this page", the process should be handled at WP:PM. I wonder if someone would like to close the debate? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The move request concerns Black people and crime in the United Kingdom and I think the request is within the scope of WP:RM. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 69. If people had thought it is was a problem, perhaps others of the several people who have commented on it would have noticed Purplebackpack89 01:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm not sure how proposing a merger is appropriate at all, let alone more so. There is no additional content to merge. Saying the requested title is not the same topic is rather dishonest. Coming here trying to undermine those who commented on the discussion in good faith is quite inappropriate. Frankly, Christopher's attitude during this whole affair has been rather unfortunate. Grsz¹¹ 01:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Black people and crime in the United Kingdom is a daughter article of the proposed location Race and crime in the United Kingdom, and there's good evidence it's a notable topic in its own right (see the sources in the article). Therefore a move that would elimate the article is not appropriate. The process is a merge and, per "Processes beyond the scope of this page" which lists "Merging two articles", shouldn't be handled here. There is no attempt to undermine anything; if the correct procedure was followed--creating the new article, then proposing a merge--there'll be no discussion on this, no way to 'get around' it. Likewise there's no issue with my attitude, only that I want arguments to be strictly based on policies and guidelines, and have no time for those that aren't. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note saying that of course I should have started this discussion immediately after the proposed move, not several days later when most people are voting against me. However, I did not know of the exact processes until I read the words in "Processes beyond the scope of this page". Christopher Connor (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The requested move is appropriate as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Non-judgmental descriptive titles. The current title is judgemental and verges on racism, in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gomess to have his own bio?

I would like to request a seperate article for the fictional monster Gomess. Currently, the article that exists of him is merely a redirection link to this article:

List of Ultra Q monsters

I would like to have this become a seperate article seeing as this fictional monster started the franchise of the Ultra Series as deserved a piece of recognition. I accidently created a false article on the monster: Gomesss without understand that I did not have the ability to create a move to happen... If any administrator is reading this. Could you please delete the current article "Gomesss" and create a seperate article created for Gomess that is not a redirection link? It was a foolish mistake for me to make... BigJohnnyCool (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)User:BigJohnnyCool

 Done See: Gomess Thanks.     Eclipsed   (t)     18:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanction closing movereq and listing at "Uncontroversial requests"?

Would there be support for allowing people to "speedy close" movereq debates and either list at "Uncontroversial requests" or go ahead and do the move? For example, if I notice a user has placed a completely uncontroversial {{movereq}} on a page in order to ask that an admin delete a redirect can I remove the {{movereq}} and add an appropriate {{db-move}} instead? Can we change the relevant pages (this page, Template:Requested move/dated, Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions, etc) to sanction this? If not, can we make it more clear at Template:Movereq, etc, that it is ok to just use {{db-move}} in those cases? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are no comments in the discussion, then the nominator can withdraw the request (close the discussion per closing instructions as withdrawn), and you can certainly inform the nominator of his or her ability to do that, along with suggestions on how to accomplish the speedy delete. Otherwise, ongoing discussions should not be closed prior to the 7 day period. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Indeed - closing an ongoing discussion with oppose !votes would be bad form, for sure. I was talking about ones that had no controversy. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Science of hadith

Science of hadith → Hadith studies has been up for 2 weeks, with no discussion for the past week. Opinion is unanimous to move apart from the main author of the article; similar changes of name have been suggested several times over the years. Can't do it myself, since I'm involved. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Arbitrarily0 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The process of determining the consensus decision

The last paragraph of the intro in the header to WP:RM gives a nice overview of what happens:

Most move requests are processed by a handful of regular contributors who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures. Two pages often cited during move discussions, which you might want to familiarize yourself with before making your request, are our naming convention regarding primary topics and our guideline on using common English names. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". The processes involved in closing requests, performing moves and necessary tidying tasks when a move is performed can be viewed at closing instructions.

I'd like to add a reminder here about consensus not meaning simply adding up the votes on both sides, as that appears to be a common misconception. Something like this:

Please remember that the process of determining a consensus decision about the move does not mean simply counting the votes of those participating. The strength of the arguments presented must be evaluated and weighted accordingly, and the consensus of the Wikipedia community, as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions (where applicable), must be given due weight too. So, even a unanimous vote in one direction may be overridden by a closer if the decision goes against policy without good reason.

So that paragraph would look like this:

Most move requests are processed by a handful of regular contributors who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures. Two pages often cited during move discussions, which you might want to familiarize yourself with before making your request, are our naming convention regarding primary topics and our guideline on using common English names. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. Please remember that the process of determining a consensus decision about the move does not mean simply counting the votes of those participating. The strength of the arguments presented must be evaluated and weighted accordingly, and the consensus of the Wikipedia community, as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions (where applicable), must be given due weight too. So, even a unanimous vote in one direction may be overridden by a closer if the decision goes against policy without good reason. If a consensus decision cannot be determined, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". The processes involved in closing requests, performing moves and necessary tidying tasks when a move is performed can be viewed at closing instructions.

Any comments or objections? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot that there is a section on Determining consensus at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions, but I suggest it needs clarification on the above point too, though it already broaches the issue: "Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy.".

What's not clear here is what to do in the case of the requested move being in line with policy, keeping the article where it is is in conflict with policy, and the consensus of those participating is to keep it where it is, without good reason to contradict policy/guideline per WP:IAR. I presume the closer would in such a case determine consensus does support the move (consensus of WP as reflected via policy/guidelines, not consensus of the few who happen to be participating), but would like the instructions to be more clear about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the /Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus section per the above, more or less. This is what it currently says::

Determining consensus

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

Unlike articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting, no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Similarly, if the title in question is currently out of keeping with naming conventions, policy or guidelines and moving it will bring it in line, then go ahead and move it accordingly, again regardless of how much objection there is among participants. Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments.

If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name. If the most recent stable name is itself a matter of dispute, closers are expected to use their own judgment in determining the proper destination.

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You've violated your own (proposed) rules, by making changes, without establishing a consensus. I've removed "Similarly, if the title in question is currently out of keeping with naming conventions, policy or guidelines and moving it will bring it in line, then go ahead and move it accordingly, again regardless of how much objection there is among participants. " as this will result in edit-warring in case of a dispute as to the meaning of the naming conventions, as frequently occurs in those move disputes in which you are involved. (It's not my place, here, to say whether you are right or wrong, just that you are frequently in a dispute of that type.) Furthermore, 72 hours is not long enough for comments in regard what is, in effect, a change in the interpretation of a guideline.

I probably should revert to the status quo ante, but I'm not sure that reflects consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I probably should also revert the Stockman move, against consensus, and argued (at least) to be against policy.

Thank you for responding, Arthur. Like many editors we have a history which might not be ideal, but I'm sure you can be objective in evaluating my actions and proposals nonetheless.

I'd like to understand why you think this is a change in interpretation of anything. All I'm trying to do is clarify in the closing instructions how things are actually done. Do closing admins close requests with decisions that are in violation of policy, guidelines or conventions? I've been involved in many closings, including controversial ones, and I can't think of any off hand that fall into that category. The controversial ones are often the ones where conventions give no clear indication, and in those cases it does end up being pretty much a vote by personal preference. These changes only apply where guidelines give clear indication, and one of the two choices (keep or move) is clearly a violation.

But this isn't hypothetical either. Here is one example from over a year ago in which the closer did exactly what the statement you just removed refers to: "if the title in question is currently out of keeping with naming conventions, policy or guidelines and moving it will bring it in line, then go ahead and move it accordingly, again regardless of how much objection there is among participants." In that case he said, in part, "The nays outweigh the yays in number but the arguments in support are based in guideline and those relied on in opposition are in large part outside of guideline", and he went ahead and moved the article (despite the nays outnumbering the yays because the arguments in support were consistent with guidelines). No edit wars resulted from that as far as I know, by the way. I tried to word this carefully, including leaving an out for exceptions, "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules", because there are exceptions like that. Thus if the consensus of the participants is to violate guidelines, either to keep or move, for a good reason, that's fine.

I'd like to know why you think any of this does not reflect consensus. Do you know of any instances where closing admins acted inconsistently with this wording? Thanks.

As for Stockman, I brought that up, and it was discussed, at #Question for closers, and also at User_talk:Born2cycle#Stockman and of course at Talk:Stockman. I did my best to determine consensus and explain my reasoning. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement you suggest in the closing instructions is generally acceptable, but it doesn't deal with the question of whether there is consensus that the policy is violated in one version and not violated in the other. Perhaps it should be stated as you suggested, but modified to "... if the title in question is currently unequivocally out of keeping with stable naming conventions, policy, or guidelines ..." (or with the statement modified to avoid mixing singular with plural), that would be acceptable to me, although possibly still a modification of what is actually done.

Also, I believe that non-admins should generally not close with an result which they could not implement, such as agreeing to a move over a different redirect, and that admins should not implement such a move without separately verifying the result is proper.

The problem with stockman is that there is not a consensus that stockman (Australia) is not the primary topic, the Google test notwithstanding. I'm not sure that the implementing admin followed a modification to the closing instructions, rather than the stable closing instructions, but some editors have been known to edit the guidelines before taking actions consistent with the edited guidelines or requesting admins to take actions supported by the edited guidelines. (Again, I'm not stating that you do presently even contemplate that, although you have done it in the past.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I like adding "stable". "Unequivocally" might be a little strong (is anything unequivocal in WP?), but I can live with it.

Does not the burden of determining primary topic fall on the side of those supporting it? I've always treated it that way when I felt there was a primary topic. That is, if no one is claiming a given use meets the primary topic criteria, and it's not blatantly obvious that the use does meet that criteria, I think the assumption has to be that that use is not the primary topic. In other words, "no consensus" on the question of primary topic essentially means, "no primary topic". No?

In the case of stockman there did seem to be confusion about what the meaning of primary topic is, at least by some who asserted the Australian use was primary. That is, there assertion was not based on anything like the criteria specified at the guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not "unequivocally", but some adverb is required to deal with the case that the closer believes that some policy, guideline, or convention is violated by the "current" title of the article, but there is not agreement to that effect.

And, I don't think it's fair to say that "no consensus on the question of primary topic" means there is no primary topic, as there seems to be confusion as to what may be a primary topic.

As for use, I think it's likely that "Stockman (Australia)" is the primary topic among those not using the word as a surname. However, the surname could not be a primary topic, as it's a disambiguation in itself. I'd have to say that, with all the evidence presented so far, "Stockman (Australia)" may very well be the primary topic, with the dispute being over the definition of "primary topic". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First, a person can be the primary topic for a surname (e.g. Nixon, Hitler, Einstein). As long as people are likely to enter the term in question (e.g., "stockman") in the Search box when looking for something other than the topic in question (e.g., the Australian use of "stockman"), like David Stockman, then that must count against that topic being primary for that term, because primary is defined entirely in terms of how likely it is that someone is looking for that subject when entering that term in the Search box. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that "no consensus over primary topic means no primary topic" - that would give too much of an advantage to those who seem to cammpaign against the existence of primary topics anywhere, often in the face of common sense, sometimes (it seems to me) for the purpose of displaying their own erudition ("ha, you all think Paris is just a city in France, but I happen to know that it's also..."). If there's no consensus and no clear preponderence of arguments on one side, we leave things as they are until a clear reason to do otherwise emerges.--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)