| Revision as of 15:58, 13 November 2019 editAnthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)209,150 edits →Uncontroversial technical requests: done 2← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:21, 13 November 2019 edit undoAnthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)209,150 edits →Requests to revert undiscussed moves: discuss 1Next edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| {{subst:RMassist| current page title | page title to revert to | reason = reason for move}} | {{subst:RMassist| current page title | page title to revert to | reason = reason for move}} | ||
| ---- and enter on a new line, directly below --> | ---- and enter on a new line, directly below --> | ||
| * {{RMassist/core | 1 = Nazi gas van | 2 = Gas van | discuss = yes | reason = ] split this article (which he himself acknowledged was ]) with no discussion or warning , and immediately resulting from the move into a DAB, making a revert impossible. Since then, , , and myself all expressed the view that this was a mistake; expressed support, but it was still clearly not discussed and still seems to lack consensus. I request that it be reverted, at least until some consensus for the move / split can be demonstrated. When I said I would request that this be reverted, Nug essentially by demanding that we hold a straw poll before reverting them, but given that there was no discussion beforehand I don't think this is necessary; they must demonstrate consensus before a contested move or split, not after. | sig = --] (]) 10:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC) | requester = Aquillion}} | |||
| ::Aquillion clearly hasn't been following the discussion on the article talk page. There has been a long running dispute which has resulted an editor topic banned and numerous reports to ]. The split was done during an open case at ], and I annouced the split to the admins there. I sought to short circuit this spiral of conflict and the split resulted in the resolution of yet another AE case. Aquillion appears more concerned with the application of ], which is a mere editing guideline, while the circumstance of this content dispute merited ], which is policy. So far only Aquillion and Paul Siebert oppose this split, while MVBW says the ''"split looks like a reasonable compromise"'' and ZScarpia supports it too. --] (]) 11:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:21, 13 November 2019
Shortcuts Project page to request technical page moves ShortcutsIf you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."
 | If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
|
- To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page. - If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
- If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.
Technical requests
Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.