Misplaced Pages

talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:35, 17 March 2015 view sourceAmakuru (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators111,805 edits →Request to revert a whole bunch of undiscussed moves← Previous edit Revision as of 10:41, 17 March 2015 view source Amakuru (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators111,805 edits →Request to revert a whole bunch of undiscussed moves: reNext edit →
Line 414: Line 414:


I appreciate your mention of ] and am more than happy for editors to follow the that you provided. However, in relation to actual usage, the wrongs of the current disambiguation extend way beyond the great ones that you mention. ]] 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I appreciate your mention of ] and am more than happy for editors to follow the that you provided. However, in relation to actual usage, the wrongs of the current disambiguation extend way beyond the great ones that you mention. ]] 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
* '''Revert all''' - such a sweeping set of moves, particularly undoing years of convention for mythology disambigs, should certainly have come through ].  — ] (]) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) * '''Revert all''' - such a sweeping set of moves, particularly undoing years of convention for mythology disambigs, should certainly have come through ]. And, respectfully {{ping|GregKaye}} the "most straightforward route to resolution" is not to "present an RM to see if there is editor support to move the articles back", it is for you to move the articles back and then present the RMs in favour of the moves. The convention per ] is that consensus has to be shown in order to enact the move, not to move back it back.  — ] (]) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:41, 17 March 2015

Shortcut
NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.
Misplaced Pages:Move review is now official. Use this process for contested move request closes.
This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
On 3 June 2007, it was proposed that this page be moved from Misplaced Pages:Requested moves to Misplaced Pages:Proposed moves. The result of the discussion was no consensus, not moved.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requested moves page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Archiving icon
Archives
  1. Oct 2004–Jan 2005
  2. Jan 2005–Feb 2005
  3. Feb 2005–Mar 2005
  4. Mar 2005–Aug 2005
  5. Aug 2005–Dec 2005
  6. Dec 2005–Jun 2006
  7. Jun 2006–Sept 2006
  8. Sept 2006–Feb 2007
  9. Feb 2007–May 2007
  10. May 2007–Nov 2007
  11. Nov 2007–May 2008
  12. Jun 2008–Oct 2008
  13. Nov 2008–Jan 2009
  14. Jan 2009
  15. Jan 2009–Jun 2009
  16. Jun 2009–Oct 2009
  17. Oct 2009–Jun 2010
  18. Jun 2010–Oct 2010
  19. Oct 2010–Jan 2011
  20. Jan 2011–Sept 2011
  21. Sept 2011–Jan 2012
  22. Jan 2012–Apr 2012
  23. Apr 2012–Aug 2012
  24. Aug 2012–Dec 2012
  25. Dec 2012–Dec 2013
  26. Dec 2013–Nov 2014
  27. Nov 2014–

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


New page

Please move Toronto Transit Commission fleet to Toronto Transit Commission fleet roster. --Garris6699 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Toronto Transit Commission fleet. I responded there. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Automated mishandling of a request

About Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves. The manual there says in a bullet: "If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move it to the Contested technical requests section.". All fine so far.

But with each individual post (i.e., a page listed in here with the {{RMassist}}), there appears a "discuss" link. Clicking that link, the request is moved to the page's Talkpage as a full-blown discussion proposal. This is wrong:

1. The RM page itself says: "... move it to the Contested technical requests section ".
2. The proposers text is a Request in a specific section. The move puts in in a different environment!, under a different header!, a different page!, thereby changing the original post. WP:TPO says: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning".

I know that it is an automated link (pre-composed url). However, that does not make it correct (quite the opposite). The option should be disabled right now. Later, a correct hyperlink could be in place. -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

ping @EdJohnston: and @Anthony Appleyard:, as we talked about this early November 2015. I have no intention to redo that case btw. -DePiep (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
User:DePiep, what do you mean by a 'correct hyperlink'? EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
re EdJohnston, IMO, the hyperlink move the proposal into section Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#Contested_technical_requests on this same WP:RM page (or subpage). As the quoted bullet says. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(my 2 cents for design: it might be useful to create a new subpage that can gently receive create-new-section and preload options. Make that 1+1⁄2 cents. -DePiep (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC))
The current instructions say:
  • If your technical request is contested by another editor, please remove it from the contested technical requests section and follow the instructions at Requesting potentially controversial moves.
I created the semi-automated "discuss" link for editor convenience. Do you have any objection to the original proposer themselves clicking on "discuss" in order to expedite their following the instructions at Requesting potentially controversial moves? But this will introduce a new issue. Now the original proposer will either need to copy the objection to the article's talk page, thus running afoul of your objection, or just leave it to rot at the RM project page. The objector may then have a valid concern that their objection was wrongfully discarded. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What instruction is that?: "remove it from the contested technical requests section" -- I did not even wrote it there. And as a wiki process it is bound to fail most of the times. I found no explanation why this process should be this complicated, and deviant of other PW discussions: Proposal - Discussion - Closing. No moving around. -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course I admire the effort of creating the linkbutton, but it is doing the wrong thing. -DePiep (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: Re: "deviant of other PW discussions", surely you don't mean WP:PW (WikiProject Professional wrestling) discussions? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
lol thank you, at last something to laugh about my typos (50% of my edits have one, the other 50% are the corrections). Wbm1058, one of these days I'll describe my background experience in this, somehow somewhere. This discussion went rough soon because I have exchanged points earlier with EdJohnston, so it went into repetition. But for 'new' contributors like you I should add patience. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
re Appleyard: could be an alternative too, no strong opinion by me. First step 1: kill the current bad habit (either done automated or manually). -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058, are you serious? Don't you understand what point #3 really means? -DePiep (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess not. Please clarify for me what point #3 really means, and what "it" refers to in your question "how can one know where it has gone?" Also, per "Any editor can post a comment below the RM (technical) request, and voila, it is disputed so a (good) admin can handle that", please explain how you think a good admin should handle that. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
re Wbm1058 about "issue#3": #1 and #2 is breaking the rules I mentioned in my OP. Issue #3 is that one can not expect from an editor having to search history & other pages & other editors to find where their own post has gone, as a continuing talk. Same for the commenting editor. All this especially when the rules & good editorship prevent creating this burdensome necessity. (I wrote 'are you serious' because I thought this was quite obvious). -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
re Anthony Appleyard If so, what is the "discuss" link in each entry on page Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests for? - that is what this section is about: it breaks two rules and disrupts contributions of an other editor. We must get rid of that link. What else did you think this is about? -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Currently, the "discuss" clickable copies the queried move to where the other discussed move requests are. If the rule became to have to discuss queried uncontroversial move requests where they are, people would have to look in two places for discussed move requests. If the "discuss" request's script put into the (edit comment of the resulting edit to the page to be moved's talk page) a permalink to the edit of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests where the original move request was, as is done now with the result of clicking on "move", it would link back to where the move request was copied from. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"Currently, ..." - read the rules again. "If the rule became ... " -- that is not what is proposed. Leave the rules alone, and follow them. (I don't see what is unclear or problematic what that). A permalink is no answer for breaking the rules. And don't forget, you are moving around other editors post, putting their post under another header in another frame etc. -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Other

This is not about the proposal. So split into a separate section. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not just get rid of the section at RMTR for 'contested technical requests'. Now that anyone can open a full discussion with just one click, the need for a separate discussion here on the RMTR page seems to have gone away. Any proposed move that is contested should simply be referred to a full move discussion on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Objection. Don't change the rules to fit the automate. The two rules I quoted are clear. Of course you can start a proposal (not in this thread) like an RfC. Change the WP:TPO? Good luck. -DePiep (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that moving the request to another page constitutes "substantially changing its meaning". It is OK per Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. The fact the request has been moved is documented by the semi-automated process, which also provides a permanent link back to the original request. If the original requester objects to the conversion to a discussed request, they may simply revert that edit and say they wish to withdraw the request. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"... if there is any objection" - That objection I expressed in my original post. By the way, the quote you raise is about a detailed, limited situation in a talkpage; it cannot be generalized into this situation (a WP-subject discussion), and does not state a right to the edit discussed here. -DePiep (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
A declined technical move should normally lead to a full move discussion. You seem to think that the opening of a full discussion is abnormal, and contrary to the proponent's wishes. Yet I don't see proponents (except you) ever objecting to a full move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: "A declined technical move should normally lead to a full move discussion."... not necessarily. A lot depends on why the initial technical move request was declined. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
"declined"? Where does that word come from? EdJohnston, you are diverting from your own diversion. -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Blueboar, can you give an example? Where a technical move is declined because it seems controversial, but a full move discussion is not appropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Simple: that is for the proposing editor to decide. It is not for any editor to force that Request into a new form. Why, Ed, do you keep denying & circumventing the obvious process? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ed... you are assuming that the only reason a technical move requests will be declined is that it is controversial. That's not the case. A technical move request does not have to be controversial to be declined. For example, an editor might make a technical move request due to what he thinks is a spelling error... not realizing that the spelling is in fact correct and intentional (perhaps based on WP:ENGVAR). Such a request can be declined, without going through further processes. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar: that option seems fine, and in fact I do decline some technical requests outright if they are based on a misunderstanding, but I'm asking if anyone can think of an example of an editor wanting a move done, but only if it can be done technically and with no discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That happened to me the first time I tried to make a TR - see here. I was unaware that an RM would be created - not that I would have withdrawn the request, but I would have wanted to write out a full rationale, when I had thought it was unnecessary since the move would be uncontroversial. In my opinion it led to the RM being much more confusing than it otherwise would have been (and possibly changed the result as well - I do still think the case for a move is clear, though I've never gotten back to writing it up.) Sunrise (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Sunrise, the January 2014 example you cite above shows how contested requests were often handled before I implemented the semi-automated "discuss" link in May 2014, and shows that what DePiep calls a "bad habit" was in wide practice before I implemented the "discuss" link. My solution is designed to address the issues this example shows. The technical request was cut-pasted to create the controversial-format request, without using {{subst:Requested move}} to ensure proper formatting for RMCD bot. No indication was given that it was a converted technical request. Lack of the formatting for archiving reasons (so a permanent record of the proposed page name can be kept on the talk page) meant that once closed, the actual request was lost. I just restored the context by putting a Template:Requested move/old at the top of the closed discussion. So again, disabling the "discuss" link will not by itself ensure that any so-called "bad habits" will stop. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I was pinged, but this "Other" section was created because it is about something "Other". I'm not here to study deviations. Just read my original post. -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Notify the requester when their request is converted from Technical to Controversial

@DePiep: Oh, I see. Talk:Gaza beach explosion (2006) § Requested move 03 November 2014. Now I have something concrete to give me some context for this discussion. Perhaps this may be considered as an example of an editor wanting a move done, but only if it can be done technically and with no discussion. My first reaction is that any article whose talk page has banner at the top which says WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES should automatically be considered to be controversial with regard to move requests. DePiep says that they were not notified, and this is a valid point. An easy fix for that would be to modify the "This is a contested technical request" notice so that it mentions the original requester, and thus pings them. Would that be an improvement? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Seen this, won't reply. -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, don't notify. Just leave my RM request alone. Don't reframe it. As everywhere else in WP discussions: let anyone add a comment. Think for yourself what then happens. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this some more, and feel that you do have a valid point. While I believe that for the most part, editors don't mind these conversions from technical to contested requests, and that the process is working well, we have been negligent in not advising them or warning them that their request could be moved to another venue. How about, we update the documentation to disclose this operating procedure, and give editors the option to opt out by setting a parameter in {{RMassist}}: |discuss=no would suppress the creation of the "discuss" link, and instead, add a supplementary message like "If you contest this request, please do not move it to the contested technical requests section, but rather, simply remove it from this page." – Wbm1058 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
editors don't mind -- don't decide that for others. and that the process is working well -- No it is not. That is what I am saying: the process is failing two rules. Read my original post. update the documentation -- no way, we don't adjust the "documentation" (i.e. the rules) to fit this bad practice. give editor the option -- not needed. Just remove that link. Wbm1058, I am shortscripting because explaining things does not seem to work. I am loosing patience with involved people here that do not can self-criticise (admins?). Simple: remove that link. Think and see what happens. DePiep (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
So, now I feel like the "broken record" technique is being used here. What will likely happen if I remove the link is that we will revert back to the way the process was working before I implemented that solution in May 2014 (see Template talk:RMassist § Why WP:Requested moves/Technical requests is on a sub-page). I was asked to implement a solution in August 2013, but nine months passed before I found and implemented the technical solution. Now, another eight months have passed before I became aware that anyone objected to this. And you would have us believe that your position represents consensus on this. See this issue reported on RMCD bot's talk page for the final annoying time I had to repair a malformed controversial request that had been cut-pasted from a technical request. We have written rules, and then we have de facto rules based on how things are actually done in practice. Take, for example, the RM currently open at Talk:World Domination Tour (Slipknot). Note from the permalink that an objecting editor ignored the instruction to simply move the request to the Contested technical requests section, and had the audacity (per WP:IAR) to actually engage in discussion in the Uncontroversial technical requests section. How should an administrator respond to this? By simply removing the entire request and discussion, with the edit summary "inappropriate venue for discussion" and then just leave them to start over from scratch? I don't see Steel1943 having fits because their request was converted – actually they said "But either way, I'm in no hurry for this move to happen, so if it had to wait seven days, that's okay." Wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
A bit cheap. I did protest in November, when I was actually gravely mislead and duped by this. I did discuss elsewhere. Anyway, "nine months" is not an argument, nor that you individually only hear this now. Then, you say "And you would have us believe that your position represents consensus on this." (why this tone?). I am not claiming consensus. I state that the rules are being broken. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've re-read this thread a few times now and I'm really having a hard time grasping precisely what DePiep is objecting to. I disagree that there is any substantive change in the meaning of an editors comments. Simply moving another editor's comments is not a problem IMO. Refactoring discussions has been accepted practice since the beginning of Wikitime. Moving a contested request to a more appropriate venue is no different. Perhaps the instructions on the page might be clearer. And adding automated notification to the requester and anyone contesting the request about the change of venue would be a nice feature. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I assume this belongs to the man thread, not this subthread.
grasping precisely what DePiep is objecting to - Read my original post. It quotes two rules that are broken (by admins and by supported by an automated link). (OTOH, if you did not grasp it, what do you disagree with? Why conclude instead of asking clarification first?). -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the threading and subsections of this discussion are as unclear as the original post. Regarding #1, I agree the plain label "discuss" on the link that creates a new discussion subsection is a little misleading. This could be remedied by altering the label and/or explaining the action in the instructions. I disagree that #2 is a substantive violation of WP:TPO as you claim. older ≠ wiser 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, currently, the "discuss" clickable copies the queried move to where ordinary discussed move requests are. If the rule became to have to discuss queried uncontroversial move requests where they are, people would have to look in two places for discussable move requests. If the "discuss" request's script puts into the (edit comment of the resulting edit to the page to be moved's talk page) a permalink to the edit of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests where the original move request was (as the "move" clickable's script does here), it would link back to where the move request was copied from. And also it could send an automatic "request is converted from Technical to Controversial" message to the originater of the move request, as this subsection's title seems to suggest. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding #1

@DePiep: To summarize the current status of this discussion, from my perspective. (1) I agree with older ≠ wiser on #2. This is not a substantive violation of WP:TPO. (2) If you have a point #3, you should clarify it for me because I don't understand it.

Regarding #1 – The RM page itself says: "... move it to the Contested technical requests section ". – I researched the history of that.

On 10 January 2012, Aervanath updated the instructions to state "what to do if your technical request is contested", and announced their change on this talk page, in a section titled Contested technical requests, which was archived without any comments from other editors: "I added a line to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical to clarify what editors should do if their "technical" request is contested by another editor. If anyone thinks different wording, or a different method, would be better, feel free to change it." The line added said:

If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the "Contested technical requests" section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, below.

That line remains today, essentially unchanged:

If your technical request is contested by another editor, please remove it from the contested technical requests section and follow the instructions at Requesting potentially controversial moves.

Prior to 10 January 2012, the last line in the instructions was:

If you object to a proposal listed in Technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below.

and it was left unsaid what would happen to the request after that (of course what usually happened then, and still usually happens now, is a conversion to a contested request). This line also remains today, essentially unchanged:

If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move it to the Contested technical requests section.

Above, you said "as a wiki process it is bound to fail most of the times. I found no explanation why this process should be this complicated, and deviant of other PW discussions: Proposal - Discussion - Closing. No moving around." I realize this may not fully satisfy you, but would you object to simplifying this by removing the Contested technical requests section and advising objecting editors to simply state their objections in the Uncontroversial technical requests section? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

- - - -

Going further back in the procedural history, I found this interesting 12 April 2010 edit by an editor whose history consists of eleven edits between April 12 and May 1, 2010. Their first edit to the page shows that they were apparently editing in good faith. Their malformed request to move a page from their user space was corrected and responded to here, and the next edit was their misplaced response which had the unintended side effect (WP:AGF) of removing the instructions for that section. The next edit moved their comment to the proper section, but failed to restore the unintended removal of instructions from the Contested requests section. So between April 2010 – January 2012, there was a void in guidance. Thus:

  • Before April 2010: Contested requests

This is the place for a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. Proposals that remain here after seven days will be removed.
<!--Please place new contested proposals at the TOP of the list, with a blank line between separate proposals. Please consider notifying editors whose requests are moved to this section.-->

  • April 2010 – January 2012 Contested requests

No guidance

  • After January 2012

If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the "Contested technical requests" section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, below.

I suppose the January 2012 guidance is compatible with the April 2010 guidance, so some clarity as to the intended procedure can be restored by restoring the guidance. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever for now. You expect me to read and digest all deviations? Just read my original post, and apply the rules already known. -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. I am done with this section and will move on without you. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • re in points.
"not a violation of TPO": only if you are not on the receiving end. I was last November, kept in the dark even, and today still run the risk of receiving a reframing when I post an RM here. Every editor does. (A clarification for an uncontested technical move someone writes here gets turned into an initiative argument for a Move discussion. That was not the original post, that is what I call re-framing the post of another editor). Note that this delation (!) makes it difficult or impossible to follow a request.
The page history you researched is interesting, but not re-defining is it? I quoted it as it is today, and as far as I can see, the history does not show contradiction or other intention (FWIW). The rule does say "move to another section", and does not suggest otherwise, right?
I note that the "discuss" button/action can be clicked by any editor, IP included. It is not even an admins judgement. (this is new here; a lot of contributors here assume that it is used by admins judgement only).
re your suggestion "removing the Contested technical requests": that could be part of a solution too (but since you added a "won't satisfy you" prejudgement, I am left to wonder about your thoughts with this). I think this is a page-organisational issue only, and should still cover the core: do not reframe the proposal (into another page, another template, another request, ...). As I describe in the Category/Speedy example below, having a separate section for the "disputed" ones may keep the page clean. Because it groups the "disputed" requests separately.
  • The process. Let me describe the process as it can work following the rules nicely.
1. An editor adds an RM to section "Uncontroversial technical requests".
2. Another editor has reason to object. That editor then clicks edit and writes an objection below the RM. Per this, the RM is contested.
3. An admin may come along and move the complete RM post to the section "Contested technical requests" (nothing else required at this point, it just confirms the status).
4. The discussion may develop, though not into a full talkpage argument. Because, this is about the "uncontested" status only. The OP editor may come along and respond, etc. Or anyone else can write an opinion.
5. After a brief period, the RM may be closed by an admin as: "not uncontroversial, so not done. Please restart request at the talkpage as full RM". (or, if the opposition's argument is not valid, the move could be done as requested). This could be written in a line of text by the admin.
6. The closed request can be archived/deleted, maybe by a bot.
7. End of that RM request.
  • Examples. As an inspiration and good examples, I'll mention some WP request pages that treat similar requests. Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy (Move category-name). When an objection is added, the request is moved in a sidetrack section of that page, and may end in: "Not done. Note: no discussion is opened from here, you should take the initiative yourself.". Another example, a bit different, but functioning as well: a Speedy tag like {{db-g8}} has a button: "Contest this speedy deletion" (that will lead the editor to the talkpage). Another place where requests are handled in on-page flow: Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection.
  • Closing this, I'll point to the undesired effects we currently have. (yes this is a repetition but only partly, while no some points are new, and points have not been addressed). The "discuss" button is reframes the OP outside of the OP-editor. I met an admin who said: "but it was not me alone, it was the button that did it" (as we all know, one self is responsible for every "Save" click). The "discuss" button can be removed, because the edit button serves perfectly well. And of course, the original editor, and any contributing/following editor, must be able to follow that request without having to search. As it is now, it is deleted instead of answered. I maintain that the reframing of an OP in so many aspects breaks WP:TPO. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming I've identified your November request that you have issues with how it was processed. Correct me if I'm wrong.



Given this lengthy move history, why did you file your 07:17, 3 November 2014 request under Uncontroversial technical requests rather than Requests to revert undiscussed moves? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. And I said so quite early here. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. I was thinking that the system could allow uncontroversial technical requests to be convertible, while requests to revert undiscussed moves would not be. Thus, had your request been filed as the latter then it would have stopped there. BTW I would have declined it, as the 3 September move of a title that had been stable for nearly six years was not discussed. Two months is insufficient time to establish a new stable title. You complain of being blindsided, but, putting the shoe on the other foot, I can see that the admin might feel blindsided when a request such as that attempts to pass itself off as uncontroversial. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
What are you digging for? Why do you keep trying to reopen an irrelevant discussion? You already made some patronising and judgemental remarks re me. I thought they were slip of the keyboard, and I did skip them. But now it starts reading like you are willfully digging for problems that are not related and that do not solve anything. I have described the process and its errors (to which you replied "broken record", but which you actually treated as "I did not hear that"). Described from multiple angles, I intended. Above here, I spend over a dozen or two of points as a reply, conveniently grouped in blocks. You have not asked one point of clarification, nor did you use anything for an improvement. If you have no questions or constructive steps forward, I can not help you. -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If whatever you were on the receiving end of last November is not relevant, then I am struggling to understand what is relevant. I was only digging into this because I thought it was the main focus of your argument.
I'm concerned that nobody will agree on or have a clear idea about where a "discussion" ends and a "full talk page argument" begins. There is too much risk, in my opinion, of extended sidebar discussions developing in RM-space that should take place on the article talk pages. RM-space discussions will be too easily lost and forgotten, while talk page discussions are properly retained and archived for easy reference. RM-space should not be cluttered up with procedural arguments over whether something is uncontroversial or not. If people are arguing, by definition, it's controversial. I've offered several compromise solutions to what I thought were your concerns, and you seem to have rejected them all. One more idea. As I found from my research, originally technical requests were limited to capitalization changes (to or from a proper noun). Perhaps a set of specific criteria for what qualifies as a technical request should be defined. For example, articles whose title had changed more than twice in the past three months would be disqualified from consideration as "technical". Experienced editors who submitted unqualified requests would be trout-slapped, but I'm concerned about collateral damage to inexperienced editors who didn't know any better. The page Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy limits eligibility to specific criteria. While other areas of Misplaced Pages burden editors with complex submission procedures when their "speedies" are declined, here we offer the convenience of automatic conversion, which I believe most editors appreciate. I've offered to add the option to decline automatic conversion up-front when the technical request is submitted, by setting a "don't convert" parameter in the {{RMassist}} template. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. My November experience is just an example, so if one could kill the example some way that still leaves the general cause. That general cause is my original post. You describe your concerns about the border between RM-discussion and talkpage move-discussion. Yes there is some grey area, but that does not matter. The point is that the two rules I quoted do not allow someone else moving my request. (given your "To summarize ..." opening line in this subthread you don't mind breaking the TPO rule, but every editor who's on the receiving end may differ -- and may accuse the rule breaker. If you want to learn anything from my November experience: look at how I was mislead for a week, that is during the formal Move discussion I did not ask for). So there is a grey are. Contrary to you, I do not propose or contemplate a change of policy. I require that the existing policy rules be applied. If you see an issue in the existing rules, propose a change - in a different place. An other thread. After this, you write "you seem to have rejected them all". I'm sorry, I can not reply to your assumption about me. (at least one proposal by you, you also pre-judged for me btw, I explicitly named indifferent. Also, between your historical listings here I did not find an actual proposal -- what did I oppose?).
The problem is: a RM request posted here should not be moved & reframed as it is done these days. The discuss-url-button does exactly that, so it should go. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests

The previous section served a reminder to me that the {{RMassist}} changes which I boldly but quietly implemented in May 2014 have yet to be formally announced here, or integrated into the process instructions (I have considered this to be in "beta". As a relative latecomer to the project, I feel at this point the need to further research the history of this process, to ensure that there is a consensus for any changes and that no "unconstitutional" changes are made.

First stepping back to the origins of the current process as we know it.

In February 2005 a STRAW POLL was conducted which led to discussions taking place the talk page of the article to be moved, and summarized with links to the discussions from WP:RM. The discussions and implementation focused on (potentially) controversial requests, and made no provision for handling technical requests. Just prior to that poll an editor made an astute observation that I feel is still applicable today: "many moves are suggested here without first making any attempt at discussing them on an article's talk page. This seems (again, contrary to instructions) more prevalent for moves which the suggester thinks might be somewhat controversial, or at least unpopular with those editing the page." My sense is that there are some editors who, realizing that there is no risk in making a technical request, take a chance on getting their request quietly honored by an admin, knowing that the worst that could happen is their request being converted for discussion. Hence, we see more "technical requests" and conversions than we would if editors were more conservative in their assessments of potential controversy regarding their moves. Here is a snapshot of the instructions on 24 September 2005, when someone asked How are noncontroversial moves made?, the answer was "using the tab at the top of every page" and it was suggested to add a link (risking "instruction creep") to HELP:MOVE. This was four years before the bot came on the scene, so manual updating of WP:RM went on for some time before automation was implemented. Now I'll look for the debut of the concept of "technical requests". I'll be back in a while. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Noncontroversial proposals section made its entrance on 6 October 2006, with the splitting of Current proposals into Noncontroversial proposals' and Other proposals. Half an hour later, the first noncontroversial proposal was made. There was a relatively brief discussion prior to implementation, in contrast to the earlier straw poll, with PBS, who played a key role in the straw poll, and in the 2009 automation of requested moves, objecting. This new process deprecated and more broadly replaced an earlier process which used {{Capitalmove}} for technical moves restricted to capitalization changes only. Template:WP:RM2, the predecessor of {{RMassist}} was created 6 October 2006 to facilitate the noncontroversial proposals process. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

On 23 February 2007, a new section Incomplete and disputed proposals was added (related discussion) "in an attempt to solve the persistent problem of 1) orphaned requests and 2) contested "uncontroversial" proposals."

If a requested move is incomplete (not all steps of the procedure are followed), or if anyone objects to an "uncontroversial" proposal, it should be listed here until the proposer or anyone else completes it. After the completion, plese move the entry to the top of "other proposals" section. Please place newly moved requests to the top of this list, and either sign (~~~~) or just put the timestamp (~~~~~) at the end. Proposals that remain here longer than 5 days are subject to removal.

Note that this boldly inserted instruction said anyone else could complete the request. By the end of the month, this new section had already attracted a crowd. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

These instructions survived in copy-edited form until this 27 May 2007 edit removed them (whether the removal was intentional is anyone's guess). Wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

{{RMcontested}} was created by Stemonitis on 24 June 2007‎ (rationale here: "The shifting of discussion about contested moves to the relevant talk pages seems to be working well. However, it can be confusing, and people are sometimes tempted to vote even though the request is unlikely to go through. In a attempt to clarify, I have tried to come up with a standardised text which can be put on talk pages which explains the procedure a bit more. When moving comments contesting a supposedly uncontroversial request to the article's talk page, consider using {{subst:WP:RMC}}, followed by the text copied from WP:RM. It's just a few sentences I knocked off quickly, so if anyone thinks the wording should be altered, I'm open to suggestions.")

This template never seems to have been widely advertised, and its limited usage was mostly by the template creator and a few others.

Instructions returned to the Incomplete and contested proposals section with this 30 December 2007 edit:

Please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below.

The horse was already out of the barn. A substantial discussion forum had formed as an alternative to discussions on article talk pages. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This 8 January 2008 edit allowed for exceptions:

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move request, please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below.

A February 2008 discussion: Incomplete and contested section - how can we be most efficient?

This 5 March 2008 edit set a time limit for items remaining in the "contested requests" section: "Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed." Later this was increased from five to seven days.

This 3 June 2009 edit changed the section title from Incomplete and contested proposals to Contested uncontroversial proposals because "malformed requests (incomplete) no longer appear in this section".
And this 4 June 2009 edit changed it to Contested requests because "if it's contested, it's not uncontroversial".

This 29 November 2009 edit changed the text from:

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. If you support a contested move proposal, please consider following the instructions above to add the proposed page move to the "Other proposals" section below by substituting the {{move}} template on the article's talk page. Proposals that remain here after seven days will be removed.

to:

This is the place for a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. Proposals that remain here after seven days will be removed.

The edit summary explanation was "Template needs only to be placed once". Anyone's guess which template they meant needed only to be placed once – {{RMassist}} or {{move}}?
This instruction remained until it was removed in April 2010, as I previously noted in #Regarding #1 above. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

re Wbm1058. I don't know where this leads to, but it is interesting reading. Some notes: in the top post, you write take a chance on getting their request quietly honored by an admin. That reads like blaming the editor for "trying" to get a move "silently" done. If this opinion has consequences, I'd like to visit it once more (I don't like the non-AGF aspect of it). Anyway, those days are gone. Next. I understand there were "incomplete" move requests. Those do not longer exist AFAIK. Must have been a horror to work with indeed. Next. Indeed it leads to "controversial", "non-controversial", "techical" move statuses, which I recognise as the current descriptions. I do not see a conclusion or consequence from all this, but I'll follow this thread. In general, I am a bit worried that the long history research may convince you to re-interpret the current status of this WP:RM page. So far, I don't think that is needed. Since this thread does not conclude or propose anything, I guess you may skip responding. I see no need to spend much timne on fleshing out views now. Just noting. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will assume good faith. If an editor proposes a technical move Israel to Palestine, or Palestine to Israel, I will assume that they honestly believe this to be an uncontroversial request. Maybe there is a place where a line can be drawn between good-faith requests and non-good-faith requests, but different editors will have different opinions on where to draw that line. It's probably not constructive to even discuss this.
I appreciate that you found this interesting reading. Where this leads to:
1) I have proposed Template:RMcontested for deletion. I assume that you'll not have a problem with this, since the usage of this template, as I documented above, was accompanied by copying of user requests and comments from the central discussion page to the talk page of the page proposed for moving. I understand you are opposed to such copying of user comments.
2) I have added a new "discuss" parameter to {{RMassist}}. This is a response to your concerns. Check it out. Setting discuss=no will suppress the link for converting technical requests to controversial requests. I'm confident that administrators will honor the wishes of users who set this parameter to "no".
So there is some history of instructions to simply remove contested requests after five or seven days, rather than convert them to discussions on the associated talk page. This is a valid, albeit I believe, a minority POV at this time. I don't think we need to remove the nifty semi-automated conversion mechanism I implemented. The question is whether conversions should be opt-out or opt-in by default, and I'm preparing to have a request for comments to settle that issue. In other words, I take the solution that you would prefer to be one which sets discuss=no by default, and require editors to explicitly opt-in to conversion if their requests are contested, by setting discuss=yes as part of their requests. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages failing to move with articles

As a frequent closer of RMs, there is the odd occasion on which I fail to spot that the talk page hasn't also moved (as the destination needs deleting) and this is brought to my attention at a later date. Am I missing something, or is there no alert that appears when a page moves but it's talk page doesn't? If not, can one be introduced, or another alert and tick box on the admin move page that allows you to also delete the talk page target? Cheers, Number 57 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • There is such a warning, when trying to move a page with its talkpage, but the talkpage cannot be moved because the target already exists. See here. Any admin making a move should have a responsibility to perform the cleanup tasks mentioned on the post-move page (images, sort key, redirects, talk page). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Move from Userspace

This has been resolved and settled. See Talk:Lhasa § Proposed move

I started User:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city) in userspace, since it is controversial, then tried to launch an RM and found I could not. Apparently I should follow WP:Articles for creation, but there is no discussion in that process, and the title/scope is controversial. Instead, I launched a discussion at User talk:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city) and canvassed all the people involved in prior discussions, but am not really comfortable with that approach because it is not visible to uninvolved editors. Does anyone know a better way to handle this? Is there a way to put the request into the RM discussion list manually? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

On first look, it appears to me that your article is a WP:content fork of Lhasa, which has a hatnote that says: "This article is about the prefecture-level city". Can't you just edit the existing Lhasa article and merge whatever new content you have into that?
Now I've noticed and skimmed over the discussion on your talk page. The terminology here will be confusing to Americans. What you are calling a "prefecture-level city" seems to be the equivalent of a US county. Chengguan District, Lhasa seems to be describing the equivalent of a US town/township. Does the district contain the city, or the city contain the district. It's not at all clear. But again, can't you clear it up by fixing the existing articles rather than asking to move a fork from your user space? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a content fork in the slightest. Why would it be feasible to add that mass of info on rural farming practices and mountains in an article in which most readers will be expecting to learn about the "Forbidden city of Lhasa"? Why would it be acceptable to have a main article on Lhasa focusing not on the city itself but the rural region? As far as I'm concerned Aymatth needn't have come here, only one editor or two object, and if you took it to AFD I'm sure you'd get a fair consensus on whether it's appropriate or a problematic fork or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This, in general, is an unfamiliar topic to me, and I am not yet up to speed on the background. So, I'm asking some clarifying questions. Forbidden city of Lhasa is a redlink, as is Forbidden City of Lhasa. Should these redirect to Potala Palace? Forbidden City (disambiguation) does not have any items for Lhasa or Tibet. I see that the underlying issue seems to be what should be the primary topic for Lhasa. I'll continue that thread below. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, Lhasa never was a forbidden city. Probably just some writer being dramatic. They would presumably mean the city of Lhasa in the valley floor in Chengguan district. I would just point it to Lhasa, which at present covers both that city and Lhasa prefecture-level city, which was Lhasa Prefecture until 1959. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Lhasa "prefecture-level city" covers 11,303 square miles of mountains and valleys, glaciers and grasslands, a bit bigger than Massachusetts and a bit smaller than Belgium. It is divided into seven rural counties plus the Lhasa urban district, aka Chengguan District, Lhasa. Most people would think of the term "Lhasa" as meaning the urban district, pop. 250,000. The Lhasa article purports to cover the prefecture-level city, but is almost all about the urban district, which is what readers probably expect. The proposal is to make a new article to cover the large prefecture-level "city", and to focus the Lhasa article on the urban district, merging Chengguan District, Lhasa into Lhasa. The alternative is to pump up the Lhasa article to give reasonable coverage of the whole area, and transfer most of the information on the urban area to Chengguan District, Lhasa. It is controversial and deserves a full discussion. I am looking for a way to make sure it gets reasonable exposure. RM seems the right process, but does not seem to handle a move from userspace. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Stepping back, and taking a broad-view look from a top-down approach. The highest level article is Tibet, about the plateau region on the north side of the Himalayas. File:Tibet-claims.jpg is the main map on that page, and it shows a dot where "Lhasa" is located. No other locations are identified within the colored regions which are the focus of this map, inside China. The next-level article is Tibet Autonomous Region, which is a highest-level administrative division of China, i.e. one of the Provinces of China. File:China provinces.png and Template:PRC provinces big imagemap are two more maps which show "Lhasa" as the only idenftified location within Tibet, both using a dot for the location. At the next level we have list of administrative divisions of the Tibet Autonomous Region. The infobox of that article says that the capital (city) of the Tibet Autonomous Region is Lhasa. Lhasa is one of three prefecture-level cities in Tibet. The other two are Shigatse (Xigazê) and Chamdo (Qamdo). The boundaries of these are clearly shown by the maps File:Shigatse map.svg and File:Qamdo map.svg, which are prominently included in the infoboxes at the top of each article. The equivalent map File:Lhasa map.svg is shown in the Lhasa article, but it is misleadingly shown below two infobox "dot-maps", in the Government and politics section. Disregarding alternative spellings or misspellings and Chinese script, the redirects to Lhasa are Capital of Tibet, Lhasa City, Lhasa Prefecture, Lhasa, Tibet, Lhasa, Xizang, Lhasa prefecture-level city and Administrative divisions of Lhasa. Is this topic on the best title, or should it be moved over the top of one of these redirects? Has this issue been discussed and settled, if so please link to that discussion. I would specifically like to know whether the "capital of Tibet" is the dot or the large area covered by File:Lhasa map.svg. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have just reread the earlier reply and am beginning to catch up to speed. "The Lhasa Urban District (Lhasa Chengguan District), (is) the administrative capital of Tibet." Wbm1058 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused with this as to what the supposed controversy is. It seems like you're not proposing that the prefecture should gain primary topic status for the term Lhasa itself (which is correct, that would have to refer to the city proper), and there isn't really any other article that is covering the prefecture, including rural areas, in such detail as this. My suggestion is like Dr Blofeld, you just move the draft directly into the Lhasa (prefecture-level city) slot, or copy/paste from user space into that new article if you prefer. Or I can do that if you like. If anyone has a problem with it, they can take it to AfD, where it will be determined if it's a notable topic in its own right, separate to the city. I can't imagine it's not though. See the difference between Leeds and City of Leeds for a very similar example, where a city's administrative boundaries cover a much larger area than just the urban core, and we have one article for the city proper and one for the administrative area. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You're confused, well so am I. I'm just now finding the discussion on this user page, in which curiously, the user themself has not participated. So I don't know why the discussion is there. It seems like there is some controversy, but I'm unclear on the details. Why would you prefer moving to a parenthetical dab title which is a red-link, when seemingly there are better natural disambiguation alternatives? Why not move it to Lhasa City – that is what is boldfaced in the lead of the user-space draft. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So, Lhasa City is subdivided into seven counties and Chengguan District, Lhasa. Chengguan District itself is further subdivided into six urban sub-districts and four rural townships, all red-linked. Curiously, none of the urban sub-districts is named "Lhasa". Is the entire Chengguan District the "capital of Tibet", or just some sub-district of it? It would be nice if File:Chengguan District sketch map png.png showed the boundaries of the urban sub-districts and rural townships. Are there any other maps for this? I assume that the pink area is shown in this picture, which includes the Potala Palace, and is what most expect to see at the primary topic. But the actual boundaries of this area seem to be poorly defined. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In American parlance it would be more natural (though less precise) to say "Lhasa Prefecture is subdivided into seven rural counties and the main urban area of Lhasa City". "Chengguan" merely means "urban administrative area", and regions of the same name exist in most prefectures. The part we would think of as the "city" is typically the Chengguan area. However, in Chinese nomenclature the "city" is both the core urban area (the Chengguan) as well as the outlying rural areas and potentially other subordinate urban areas. The fact that the Chinese use "city" to describe large, mostly rural regions is a source of no end of confusion when writing about these topics for Western audience. Dragons flight (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful: wikt:chengguan: (chéngguǎn), composed of 城 (chéng) ("city") and 管 (guǎn) ("management"). So the "city management district" (Chengguan District) of "Lhasa City" (the prefecture-level city) includes seven rural counties (by "rural" I trust the Chinese truly do mean sparsely populated!) and Lhasa (primary topic), the capital of Tibet, which is subdivided into six urban sub-districts (kind of like New York City boroughs on a smaller scale). Do I have this correct yet? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"Lhasa City" (the prefecture-level city) includes seven "rural" counties and one "urban" district, the "city management district" (Chengguan District). Chengguan District in turn contains four rural townships and six urban neighborhoods. The urban area of the city proper is just the six urban neighborhoods, but Chengguan District is a close enough approximation without getting into original research about the precise city boundaries. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Small city of Lhasa (pop. 250,000) from the air
  • Use of the term "Lhasa city" for the prefecture-level area is confusing bureaucratic jargon. This has to be the only city in the world with more yaks than people and a 23,250 foot mountain range complete with glaciers. The city proper, an unambiguous term until Lhasa prefecture was renamed to Lhasa prefecture-level city in 1959, is basically just the Lhasa River floodplain part of Chengguan District, Lhasa, hemmed in by mountains. It has sprawled a bit downriver into Doilungdêqên County, but not much. Chengguan District includes rural areas up in the mountains, but it seems simplest just to identify the city of Lhasa with Chengguan District.
If the proposal is accepted to focus Lhasa on what is officially Chengguan District, Lhasa, merging the two, and start a new article on Lhasa (prefecture-level city), part of the implementation would involve reviewing all the inbound links and sorting out which article they should point to. I will do that. My guess is that 95% will not need changing – the text will show that the meaning is the small city. Also some small tweaks would be needed to the Lhasa article to focus it on the city. If the decision is to add the new content on the prefecture-level city to Lhasa and to move most of the detail on the urban area to Chengguan District, Lhasa, I will do that also, although somewhat reluctantly. But I would need volunteers to help with fixing the huge number of inbound links that will have to be revectored. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable to me. Checking Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese) § Disambiguation of settlements and administrative units, In general, when deciding to disambiguate a place name, those settlements ranked higher administratively (i.e. higher up the following table) are primary topic over those ranked lower, unless sourcing exists to establish significant notability of a lower-ranked division., it seems the rationale is that this is one of those cases where sourcing exists establishing significant notability of the lower-ranked division. Correct? Are we consistent with the naming conventions, or asking for a reasonable exception to them? I recall participating in lengthy discussions over the naming of Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Lhasa, Lhasa doesn't feel right for the capital of Tibet, so I'm happy to see it's a red link.
  • @Wbm1058: I would say this is consistent based on significant notability, but even if not is a reasonable exception. My guess is that reader expectations for the search term "Lhasa" would be City:75%; Dog:20%; Prefecture:2%; Other:3%. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Now I see that disagreement over a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, i.e. a very hard-line interpretation of that, has landed you here. Talk:Lhasa should be the focus of discussion of this matter, yet there is nothing there; indeed no comments about anything since June 2013. Talk:Chengguan District, Lhasa has no discussion history at all. I think it would be helpful if the entire User talk:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city) were copied and moved to Talk:Lhasa. That would be a good response to the WP:CONLIMITED objection. Discussing the future of an article on its own talk page is standard Misplaced Pages operating procedure. Readers of Lhasa should be able to easily find discussions of its content in its talk archives, even if they were about forking or splitting a relatively minor portion of its content. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help with non listing request for multiple page moves

Hi, I made a request to move a large number of pages at Template talk:Largest cities of Acre#Requested move 1 March 2015. However the listing has not appeared on the RM project page although a note has been added to talk pages of other pages requested to be moved. Is there a way for the request to be listed on the project page as normal? Thanks. I'll also add the template:

{{help me}}

GregKaye 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's appearing on the RM page in the section "Time could not be ascertained". I'll see if I can fix it. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my. A request to move 184 pages. I bumped the bot's limit on multiple move requests from 150 to 200. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An all time largest page move?

Wbm1058 Thanks for the help here. Your comment got me wondering whether there was a way to check past changes in the bot settings and whether you could guide me as to how to take a look. I'd be interested to see if moves of larger size than 150 pages have previously been made. thanks again. GregKaye 10:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, this has set the new record for the all time largest page move. Actually you may have broken your own record. A previous new record was set at Talk:Omar Ahmad (American politician) last October, that was for 111 pages. You may recall the discussion on that. I maintain a record of the bot's source code here, so you can check the edit history of that. Not all bot operators make their code public, but as this bot has become somewhat mission-critical I feel that's the right thing to do. What's online is just a copy of what's running live on my computer, so only I can make live updates. The technical limit was stuck at 30 pages per request before the conversion to use module:requested move. I don't know what the appropriate limit on moves per request should be; that's up to editors to decide by consensus. I should fix the bot's code to clearly report the issue though, as reporting it as a "Time could not be ascertained" error obscures the real issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058 excellent, a personal and English Misplaced Pages best , and hopefully this request may even go through and have been remotely worthwhile. The next big target may be ".. (mythology)" to ".. (deity)" but I don't think this will be to the same magnitude. GregKaye 01:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Bill Laurie

Hello. I would like to move User:Zigzig20s/Bill Laurie, a referenced article about an accomplished basketball player and business executive, to Bill Laurie, which had a redirect to his wife's page. I tried to remove the redirect and then move my userpage to his name, but it won't let me. Can you please fix this and help me move/create the page? Or should I just copy and paste it and delete my userpage? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hootsuite

For the worse, I renamed the page HootSuite to Hootsuite Media. The goal was to change to "Hootsuite" (proper title case). The current name is completely inappropriate but I cannot revert the change nor proceed to update to the desired title. Help from an admin requested. Toby Sullivan (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been partially fixed. If anyone can fix the casing of the page title, that would still be appreciated. Toby Sullivan (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to revert a whole bunch of undiscussed moves

The reason I'm not using the regular space to request this is because there are hundreds of undiscussed moves conducted over the last two days and entering a separate entry for each in that field would be quite tedious indeed. The list of moves to be reverted can be seen here: . Between March 15 and 16, the same editor made hundreds of controversial mythology-related moves in absence of any RMs. Would someone mind reverting them all? Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion § Disambiguations of divinities, which was used as justification for the moves in the edit summaries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
But the issue is not a religious issue, so Wikiproject Religion can't provide consensus. Certainly not more than the animal-related Wikiprojects could over all those interminable animal breed moves that kept popping up last year. Whenever the editor has brought the subject up in a venue that isn't devoted to religion issues, the response had been considerably more negative (Talk:Gaia (mythology)#Requested move 16 March 2015, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: ancient religions and the myth of NPOV), and by considerably, I mean that every single response so far has been against such proposals. The moves are clearly not uncontroversial, and a "consensus" at Wikiproject Religion is no more valid than a theoretical "consensus" at Wikiproject Astronomy that various astronomical objects should be primary topic over the mythological figures they're named after would be. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, your response to this would be appreciated. I'm unclear on why you use that RfC for justification, given that it hasn't been closed yet. Note that I haven't read it all. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If you mean my reference to the RfC, it was to show that the "consensus" used as justification isn't going over anywhere that isn't Wikiproject Religion, which, for an issue that isn't a religious issue, is rather a problem. The Gaia RM is still open as well. That the respondents at both places so far are opposing show that the issue is controversial. That the conversations being open mean that some editors that agree with GregKaye might show up doesn't change that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Prior to making the moves I also edited Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves with inclusion of a link to: Misplaced Pages:Request multiple page moves, extended blank which I had intended to use. Instead, after raising an RfC, I decided to go ahead with the moves manually also leaving a trail of the moves in case any needed to be undone.
However, in most if not all cases I think that the moves are constructive and I have received several thanks for them. GregKaye 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The RfC was only opened on two days ago - moving that many pages so quickly was rather hasty, IMO. A week, minimum, would have been a more appropriate period to wait. Given that these moves have been challenged here and elsewhere, it would be best to reverse them for the time being. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The RFC was opened a month ago. Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I only saw the edited time stamp on the initial post. You are correct. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"when the direction of the RfC seemed clear" does not convince me. Afterwards claiming correctness because "I think that the moves are constructive and I have received several thanks for them" is lame. Why not wait for the discussion, an RFC no less, to finish? I find this preemptive one-sided decision & action a disrespect for the wiki consensus paradigma. No experienced editor should engage in that. DePiep (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye:, in regards to the idea of making unilateral article moves based off of a discussion you yourself opened based on your personal determination of how it was going, I cannot help but be reminded of a recent RM about the goddess Pomona (here, for people unfamiliar) and your rather WP:BITEy response to a new editor who made one unilateral article move (rather than hundreds) based off of a discussion they themselves opened based on their personal determination of how it was going: . I think you would do well to read it again and reflect on it and its potential applicability, particularly the last two sentences you wrote to them. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
DePiep In the RfC, which opened on 16th Feb never gave any suggestion that of an acceptance of a (mythology) disambiguation for items in the categories for gods of mainly ancient religions. This was a unanimous view.
Egsan Bacon I take your point about bite but please also note that the RM that you refer to was both opened and closed by the same editor who you in your link present as a newcomer and I was not the editor to raise issue following the close. The fact is that there is a lack of NPOV in regard to the way present day religions an past time myths are respectively presented. I honestly did not expect Misplaced Pages to stand for and endorse this. GregKaye 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye:, with respect, while you may take my point about bite, you appear to have missed my larger point entirely. Firstly, I did not "present" Some Gadget Geek as a newcomer, they are a newcomer. First edit, Nov 9, 2014, 12:16 AM. Total edits through February (when this took place), 367. By anyone's standards, that is a newcomer. I am unsure why you would choose to phrase your mentioning of it in a way that implies I was misjudging an editor's status. And no, you were not the first editor to raise the issue. But you were the first editor - the only editor - to swear at them. No one else asked them WTF were you thinking???? No one else referred to their actions as your policy abusive fuck up?? That was all you.
But the larger issue, the main issue, the reason I brought it up at all, appears to have escaped you judging by your response. Perhaps, in your pursuit of WP:GREATWRONGS to right, you have decided it is unimportant, that because you are doing it for a good cause, it is alright. Perhaps you simply do not see the connection. I will endeavor to make my point very clear. A couple of weeks ago, another editor did something that you considered at the time a policy abusive fuck up. They moved a page based on a discussion they started themselves. You took great umbrage when this happened. You yelled at them. You used profanity. You were uncivil. You were bitey. Now, you have done the exact same thing, except you have done it several hundred times in just a few hours. (No, you did not formally close the discussion you started, but the fact that you cited the discussion several hundred times makes it clear that you were declaring the discussion was closed and a consensus existed makes pointing out that you did not formally close your discussion like Some Gadget Geek did theirs a distinction without a difference.) This is, to me, an example of what you referred to then as a clear example of disruptive editing. I had hoped you would realize this when I raised the parallel and do the right thing. Now, I am politely asking you to do no more than you so impolitely demanded from someone else (I refer to when you said, after all the swearing, find a way to, yourself, resolve this situation). Revert all your remaining moves yourself. Open up RMs. Do things the proper way. Please. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Egsan Bacon I am in a situation in which I made moves based on contributions to an isolated RfC which, if anything, should have also been addressed to, for instance, the history and geography group as well as to the religion and philosophy group. In the situation as I have taken it the most straightforward route to resolution would be to now present an RM to see if there is editor support to move the articles back to their earlier titles. In the RfC there was and continued to be unanimous support for moves from ".. (mythology)" disambiguations in relation to the god/desses of ancient faiths.

To my shame I had forgotten about the Pomona thread. In my case however I opened an RfC which in no way did I push but canvassed views from editors who I took to be concerned with what I considered to be the most relevant topic: religion. I have presented lists of all the moved articles with the intention of opening routes for moves to be undone if required. However, all the moves were made in good faith. I think that contextual usage even in regard to Pomona supports moves from, for instance, the ".. (mythology)" disambiguations. In scholar we find:

pomona AND deity got "About 1,510 results"
pomona AND mythology got "About 2,330 results"

In regard to the RM related to the, Gaia, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus articles we similarly find:

gaia AND deity got "About 4,830"
gaia AND mythology got "About 7,600 results"
mars AND deity got "About 23,700 results"
mars AND mythology got "About 32,900 results"
jupiter AND deity got "About 24,800 results"
jupiter AND mythology got "About 26,900 results"
uranus AND deity got "About 3,730 results"
uranus AND mythology got "About 4,970 results"

In the RM I said: "Searches in the web in general on one of the figures gave a similar pattern of results. The combined references to similar figures of, for instance, Ancient Greek mythology / Ancient Greek religion as goddesses, gods and deities far outstrips their unfortunately prejudging references of the pertaining to mythology. I honestly thought that this kind of move would be a no brainer."

I appreciate your mention of WP:GREATWRONGS and am more than happy for editors to follow the "your pursuits" link that you provided. However, in relation to actual usage, the wrongs of the current disambiguation extend way beyond the great ones that you mention. GregKaye 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Revert all - such a sweeping set of moves, particularly undoing years of convention for mythology disambigs, should certainly have come through WP:RM. And, respectfully @GregKaye: the "most straightforward route to resolution" is not to "present an RM to see if there is editor support to move the articles back", it is for you to move the articles back and then present the RMs in favour of the moves. The convention per WP:BRD is that consensus has to be shown in order to enact the move, not to move back it back.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)