Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have restored the discussion to the RM page, while recognising that the point (if not the action) taken by the person who moved it to a dozen separate locations is correct. There will be 68 of these - fragmenting the discussion actually hinders any process or any input as it has to be given at all 68 locations. A centralised discussion needs to be set up and linked from each of the affected pages plus this one - but for the fact that so many people opposed the move on the page to be removed from it isn't conducive to revealing the full situation to those wishing to express a view. So in summary - where should this single discussion be? Orderinchaos 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have revived a discussion at WT:VAN related to the festering question of consensus on reverting previously undiscussed moves. Specifically, after moving an article, creating a multi-entry edit history preventing non-admin moves and forcing editors who want to return the article to its orginal to post it at WP:RM and get wide "consensus" to move it back to its orginal title. Please discuss it there if interested. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How long usually should a poll last on a requested move? Emperor001 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests are generally completed after five days, but backlogs are common, especially if an involved discussion has taken place. JPG-GR (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask because I proposed a move for

Wilhelm II, German Emperor on June 3, but I didn't start a poll until June 11. Right now, the poll is at about 10:5 in favor of my move. Should I go ahead and move it? Emperor001 (talk

) 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll started June 10, this is the beginning for the 5-days time. And in any case, you cannot implement the move, if there is a consensus finally. It is up to a non-involved sysop to close the discussion, and, if there is a consensus, to make the move.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The page

There are certain characters, mainly non-Latin characters, on the mediawiki title blacklist. This list makes it impossible to move a page or create a page with these characters in them. Admins however can override this blacklist. So we might want to include a bit here that if Mediawiki stops you from making a move, you can request an admin make the move. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, yes. It seems MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-move in fact already points users here. I've added a brief mention if this to the header. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this page just for pages move only for moving over an existing page. Because establish user can move over a non-existing page only.--Freewayguy ^{Discussions Show all changes} 02:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

May we get some consensus on this topic, please?

Personally, I think that for claritys sake, the articles should be titled 'Roman Catholic Diocese of ...' rather than simply 'Diocese of ...' in the case that one is discussing a Latin-Rite diocese. There are too many other churches out there (Anglican, Old Catholic, other Catholic Rites, etc) that may have dioceses with the same names, and this may create confusion.

Considering the quantity of redirects by Malleus Haereticorum (talk · contribs) it would be quite a thankless task to try to put things back as they were, and there is no guarantee that Malleus would leave things be. This user doesn't seem to want to communicate with anyone regarding this, and all the re-directs were done unilaterally, sans input from others, so its at least possible that he/she may revert all of the re-directs. Then, of course, we would end up with a kind of edit war on our hands. Input, please.--Lyricmac (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

With more than 1000 edits in two months, he does not appear to have added any content. Besides the moves, all he has done is change internal links from

Wikipedia:Naming conventions, that you are going to have to end this with progressive vandal warnings and a ban.--Hjal (talk

) 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had to go after several cases where their is an Anglican diocese or bishop f the name in question. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Heading over to

WP:AN/I. Mangoe (talk

) 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the RC prefix has been there ever since I started editing over a 1.5 years ago. I was at first disappointed, then resigned. It makes sense. All dioceses I have encountered have this prefix. If you are having trouble with a particular editor, you are going to be forced to take him to mediation and arbitration, if necessary. The admins will handle him eventually. But it will take time. Sorry. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to notify him immediately when you apply for mediation. He must reply in x days or the mediation is rejected. THEN you can take him to arbitration based on that rejection. The arbs will handle him. BTW, you can do all these things simultaneously. One will pay off eventually. Good luck! Student7 (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and undoing the ones where there is a naming conflict. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm undoing them all right now. About half done. Malleaus has not responded to anything, and has only moved pages. He is a page move vandal. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just about done. I need admin help on about 20 pages to move them over existing pages. Just need the pages merged together to revert Malleaus' vandalism. Then the problem is completely solved for now. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Washington

Move from "Archdiocese of Washington to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_New_York

Move from "Archdiocese of New York" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_S%C3%A3o_Paulo

Move from "Archdiocese of Sao Paulo to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sao Paolo"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_S%C3%A3o_Salvador_da_Bahia

Move from "Archdiocese of Sao Salvador da Bahia to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sao Salvado da Bahia"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_S%C3%A3o_Sebasti%C3%A3o_do_Rio_de_Janeiro

Move from "Archdiocese of Sao Sebastiao do Rio de Janeiro to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sao Sebasiao do Rio de Janeiro"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Burgos

Move from "Archdiocese of Burgos" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Burgos"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Santiago_de_Compostela

Move from "Archdiocese of Santiago de Compostela" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santiago de Compostela"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Tarragona

Move from "Archdiocese of Terragona" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Terragona"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Toledo

Move from "Archdiocese of Toledo" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toledo"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Bia%C5%82ystok

Move from "Archdiocese of Bialystok" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bialystok"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Cz%C4%99stochowa

Move from "Archdiocese of Czestochowa" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Czesochowa"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Cz%C4%99stochowa

Move from "Archdiocese of Gdansk" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Gdansk"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Gniezno

Move from "Archdiocese of Gniezno" to "Roman catholic Archdiocese of Gniezno"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Krak%C3%B3w

Move from "Archdiocese of Krakow to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Krakow"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_%C5%81%C3%B3d%C5%BA

Move from "Archdiocese of Lodz" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lodz"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Lublin

Move freom "Archdiocese of Lublin to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lublin"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Pozna%C5%84

Move from "Archdiocese of Poznan to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Poznan"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Szczecin-Kamie%C5%84

Move from "Archdiocese of Szczecin-Kamien" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Szczecin-Kamien"--BLOCKED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_Warsaw

Move from "Archdiocese of Warsaw" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warsaw"--BLOCKED

These are the page moves that are left, which I need admin help to do. I am going to bed now. Very tired. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this solution for the actual diocese where there is a naming conflict. I think it constitutes unecessary disambiguation for diocese where there is no non-Catholic lexical equivalent. Savidan 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To spell out the policy that I believe Benkenobi18 is following, I suggest that we should create a diocese or Achdiocese page using the Roman Catholic (or other denomination) prefix "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX", and then, if there are no other dioceses with the same name, create a redirect page "Diocese of XXX". If there are other dicoeses with the same name, you should instead create a disambiguation page with "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX", "Maronite Diocese of XXXX", etc. I think this is important for clarity, since the situation exists in many places around the world, such as England and South Africa (RC and Anglican Dioceses), India (RC, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar), Eastern Europe (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, RC), Middle East (RC, Chaldean, Greek-Melkite, Maronite, Syrian), North Africa (RC, Ethiopic, Coptic, Greek-Melkite, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian), not to mention immigrant populations in places like the US, Canada, Australia and Brazil. (Npeters22 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any chance an admin can summarily dispatch the 3 RMs of certain Mexican cities

Yes, but it can go in the Uncontroversial section, and should be dealt with quickly. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it seem like no pages are actually being moved? Rau's Speak Page 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Moves depend on the volume of requests and the availability of people to do the work. Usually the requests are actioned after 5 days to give time for discussion, though will be left longer if discussion is on going or re-listed if there is no or little community input to show that a move should take place. Backlogs can build up if there are lots of requests or no one is available to do the moves. Is there a specific request that you are querying? Keith D (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mighty Avengers. Our discussion on the move has concluded in favor of it. It may appear that it has not, but that is simply because we have gotten of topic. It was lack of a move that raised my interests, and when I checked on another random page on the list I saw that it too had not been moved. Thank you for explaining this to me. I now feel ashamed of my impatience. It's just that my previous encounters with pages similar to this (

WP:RPP) always moved swiftly. Rau's Speak Page

10:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I listed a move request here, a user dismissed it as "incomplete", and now it's gone; another user removed the requested move template from the talk page. What on earth does "incomplete" mean, and why has nothing been moved? Fishal (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you did not follow the procedure to set up the appropriate areas for discussion, as explained on the main page and the template I posted on your talk page yesterday. JPG-GR (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I copied all three of those templates in the indicated places. Should I try again? And can you please just tell me what you meant by "incomplete"? All I wanted to do was make an uncontested move but was unable to because of the current redirect, and now I am frustrated because I feel like I'm being penalized for failing to have form 553-Z notarized before attaching to Worksheet 4107. Fishal (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I already told you what was incomplete - you did not follow the procedure to set up the appropriate areas for discussion. Do not attempt to copy and paste formatting from another listing. Follow the instructions as outlined. JPG-GR (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "formatting from another listing"? I know I have gotten moves like this made before without all this instruction creep. I'm about to just go ahead with a copy-paste of the material. I consider myself an intelligent person, but I cannot make heads or tails of just about anything you've said. Fishal (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure is clearly outlined on the page (

WP:RM). JPG-GR (talk

) 03:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes-- I followed it. That's what's so frustrating! Fishal (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Most importantly, there was no link to an area for discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I can't re-list? Fishal (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from proposing a move, no. JPG-GR (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

An admin recently closed the move citing that primary usage had not been established. However, it is made clear by those who support the move (three users) that the primary usage is established with examples. And of these examples given, three users support the move and one opposes. This appears to be a misconstrued judgement. I was wondering if another admin could make a better judgement and move the page based on the discussion. 71.106.182.162 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing made clear is that there are many places called

Abingdon, Oxfordshire being located at Abingdon rather than the dabpage. JPG-GR (talk

) 06:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree and would have similarly closed it as a no move. Keith D (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I request a prompt independent review of the "do not move" decision on the requested moves of numerous tennis biographies. All these moves were denied by one administrator and without any reasoning provided for the denial. More particularly, this administrator apparently treated each tennis biography move request as if it were just like every other tennis biography move request, without regard to the unique evidence cited for each biography concerning English-language usage as required by

Why do I feel like we are continually

WP:RM with so many at once, it was impossible for any interested editor to discuss them individually. When you disrupt (likely not intentionally) the process to the point where the requests have to be given their own subpage (a first in my experience here), I don't see how you could expect any other result. JPG-GR (talk

) 05:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I am still requesting the prompt independent review and reversal of the "do no move" decision, for the reasons already stated. The merits of these moves should be determined individually in accordance with existing Wikipedia policy,

WP:UE, not summarily and blindly dismissed en banc without any reasoning given. Tennis expert (talk

) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The huge move was disruptive, whether you meant it to be or not. Not to say that I oppose the ideas but, getting...50?...pages moved at once is impraticle and overwhelms most. What you want to do is list one and get discussion going on that,while wikipedia does not work on precedents move admin do at least consider consistancy, I believe. If you can get consensus on one of the articles then move onto annother, you will begin to prove a wier community consensus. Just my interpretation of how things would go down though, JPG-GR can likely give you better advice. Narson (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it was not my idea to use the

WP:RM had to be used, despite the fact that by its own terms, it does not have to be used. Blame those administrators. But we have to deal with where we are now. And fatigue, being overwhelmed, or the like should not be the sole justification for important decisions about 50+ articles. Tennis expert (talk

) 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpret. I was not saying you were intentionally being disruptive, but that was the case. 50+ requests, each on separate days, all within the course of the week. You don't request to move, individually, "A" to "a" and all the other 26 letters of the latin alphabet at once - you either list them as one (which is essentially what happened here) or you list one and discuss that, using that as a guide to whether or not you do the rest. JPG-GR (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand

WP:UE. This was made clear by Redux and myself repeatedly. The reason that 50+ requests were made on different days is because it was impossible to do the research for 50 different biographies, each with unique citations, in just one or even a few days. Editors have to eat, sleep, work, have relationships, go to the restroom, and do everything else in life besides satisfy your heretofore unannounced desire for all these requests to be posted simultaneously, lest they be labeled "unintentionally disruptive" ex post facto. Finally, I have no idea what you are talking about concerning a request to move all 26 letters of the Latin alphabet. Exactly when did I ever make such a request? Tennis expert (talk

) 03:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You say I don't understand

WP:RM. I never said any one binds all 50+. I'm saying that by proposing 50+ in a small period of time, you unintentionally implied that one did bind all 50. Regardless, the issue is moot at this point. JPG-GR (talk

) 05:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I implied no such thing, especially given that I and others specifically said just the opposite. But what you inferred is not something I can control. And, no, this issue is not moot. There are roughly 150 more tennis biographies on English-language Wikipedia whose names include diacritics. And my understanding is that there is nothing to prevent an editor from re-requesting the move of any tennis biography. Tennis expert (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No grounds for this request. The closure was neither premature (quite the opposite, it was about bloody time to close that) nor inappropriate (result was a resounding no move). Let go. Húsönd 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Premature? It's been around for quite some time...Even to someone involved in the discussion, consensus seems pretty clear with regards to this issue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the requested, "uncontroversial" move of Bank Street (Ottawa) to Bank Street. If anything, Bank Street College of Education should be at Bank Street as Google shows it is the much more frequent use. For now, I left Bank Street as a redirect to Bank Street (disambiguation). I would request any further discussion of this to take place on the talk page of Bank Street. Simon12 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See "Her name was Louise, not Louie, according to the vast majority of reliable sources". Also, the decision to move the article was made unilaterally by an administrator who was personally involved with the controversy surrounding this article's potential move. See 1 and 2. I believe that was highly improper, as was this administrator's apparent acceptance of the characterization of this proposed move as "uncontroversial" when he already knew that I, the creator of this article, objected. Tennis expert (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me say a couple things first: just because you created the article doesn't mean you

own

it. I also think it's a bit misleading (though not necessarily intentionally so) to characterize Anthony as "personally involved with the move", there was a request here to have it moved, and he performed it, on July 6th, and then a second request was made yesterday, after you moved it back, and Anthony moved it again.

Regardless, because of the number of reliable sources you've provided, I would agree with keeping the article at Louise, not Louie. Even if it is the case that her name was actually Louie, remember that

WP:V states that the threshold is what can be verified, not necessarily what is true. Louise is clearly the name preferred by reliable sources, so we should use it as well. Parsecboy (talk

) 16:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming ownership of this article. I am simplying noting the applicability of this, which says in pertinent part, "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." I created the

Louise Bickerton article on November 7, 2006, and its name was stable until July 6, 2008, when the administrator in question changed the name of the article without there having been a discussion of the change on the article discussion page. Tennis expert (talk

) 06:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither I, or my university have anything to do with this issue; I see no reason for you to make any of this personal. If there is this alleged plethora of sources that support your claim, then by all means, simply provide them. As far as I can tell, you have singularly failed to do so up to this point. Parsecboy (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Making reference to the relative acceptibility of sources is not a personal attack. There is no reason to think that it is. You do have something to do with the issue, because, I believe, you changed the name of the page. You may like to check here [[1]] for the sources mentioned. They may not represent a plethora, but they are certainly more reliable than the others apparently used as the basis for the article name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.111.99 (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently there seems to be doing a lot of renaming of templates going on, followed by orphaning, and nominating them for speedy deletion as "unused". See my comment at WT:RFD#Move, orphan, and db, and for preference centralise any discussion on that matter over there.

Incidentally, wouldn't it be more logical for renaming of templates, and deletion of their redirects, to be handled over at WP:TFD? (Compare for example, how WP:SFD is scoped.) Alai (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has spent a good deal of time at both

WP:TFD, they're gonna get a lot more attention over there. JPG-GR (talk

) 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me that this should have come under the principle espoused by admin Dekimasu in the very first section here, "Undoing undiscussed moves": "If the move in question is recent and/or caused the opening of the RM, I close it from the perspective that the discussion must show support for the new title, or I will put it back at the old title (if the new title lacks consensus, I close it as "The result of the move was restore...""

I see there that that is not an official "guideline", let alone "policy", but it seems to me to apply in this case. I have only the closing admin's edit summary ("no consensus on destination") to go on, but it is not clear to me that the "revert of undiscussed move with no consensus for new name" principle was taken into account.

Thank you for your consideration. Jeh (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the request for an independent review. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the result is no doubt due to the fragmented and re-"organized" discussion. I have no idea what was attempting to be accomplished by rearranging the talkpage, but it is a complete and utter mess to say the least. How can consensus be arrived at in terms of where the article should be located when it's hard enough to even follow the discussion? JPG-GR (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The "move" discussion is all in one section at the top of the page as requested, and was not itself reorganized. If you skip through the "Ramu50" subsection under the rename discussion you'll find all the other subsections there are pretty small, and there is a summary at the beginning of the rename section giving everyone's opinions. Nothing else on the page outside of the "move" discussion section is relevant to the "move" discussion, though I can certainly understand why that is not obvious. Jeh (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Once this revert-of-move issue is settled I am going to solicit a third party opinion re the talk page. I'd really like someone to just delete all the lengthy discussions as not productive. Since I'm involved in them I don't think it would be ethical for me to do that on my own. One thing at a time, though. Jeh (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you prefer that a subsection that disagrees with your position is ignored? Your rearranging of the talkpage appears to be what caused the clutter in the first place. Why you felt the need to sort an otherwise threaded discussion by user is unclear. Frankly, the only solution I see at this point is to archive the whole thing, re-propose the move and actually utilize the preformatted templates which help guide the discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was already sorted by user. All I did was add subsection headings. I do not see how this makes it more likely that any subsections are ignored. The length of the "Ramu50" subsection does make it likely that later subsections would be ignored, but that would have been the case without the headings too. No, I should not have gotten into such an extended discussion with Ramu50 (not the only one, either). Jeh (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Under

WP:REFACTOR, you are not allowed to refactor Talk pages unless everyone who contributed agrees. ("If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.") Has this consent been obtained? EdJohnston (talk

) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, no, I was not aware of that at the time. It seems to me though that "if another editor objects then the changes should be reverted" is a bit different from a requirement that everyone who contributed (everyone? Even those who contributed years ago?) agrees. Anyway, the extent of the "refactoring" was to take a large number of existing whole sections (topics), gather related ones under a small number of upper-level sections (topic categories), and move stale sections to an archive. I left all the existing text blocks and threads intact. The editor who had suggested a reorg (but using a different pattern) said he liked the result. One IP editor who came along later (and apparently contributed on WP for exactly that one day) said the result was "terrible", but did not identify as a previous contributor to the page or indicate any previous familiarity with the page. (Do we have to discuss this here?) Similarly the only thing I did to the rename discussion section was to add subsection headings for each user who had commented on the rename. Since one of them (Ramu50) had become quite extended this seemed to me to make it easier to find each user's comments in that section, especially those that followed the Ramu50 thread. Jeh (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since there have been three editors now commenting that the organizing effort made it worse, I have undone it. And since doing that, I see what you all mean. There's nothing I can do, though, about the "requested move" section (save deleting most of the Ramu50 thread, which I don't think Ramu50 would appreciate). That section is already in chronological order - again, all I did was add subsection heads, I rearranged nothing. Jeh (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't doubt you've undone somethings, people's comments are still not where they originally made them. You moved people's comments into section headers of their usernames. I would advise to cease trying to move anything else around and leave it be. JPG-GR (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Am I not making myself clear, or are we using different meanings of the word "move"? I don't (and didn't) think I "moved" anything. I merely inserted a section head before each person's first comment. I honestly thought this would make it easier to find each editor's comments, as each would have their own subsection in the page TOC. Other later commentors followed suit, adding their own section heads. I made a huge mistake in arguing with Ramu50 for so long; that is what tends to hide the opinions added after that. (But yes, I'm leaving it be.) Jeh (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (edited Jeh (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Comment: I looked through the move discussion. It is extremely long. Jeh, could you summarize for us here?

• Who closed the move request on this board, and what is the diff for that person's decision?
• In the most recent move discussion, which editors supported the move back to 'AT Attachment', which editors opposed it, and who had a distinct opinion?

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The move request was closed by JPG-GR. Here is the diff for the move closure: [2]

Summary of editors' opinions:

• Supporting move back to "AT Attachment":
  Frnknstn
• Supporting move to "AT attachment":
  Iterator12n
  noting that "attachment" is not a proper name and so should not be capitalized (my reply: but it's part of the spec title, so should be cap'd)
• Supporting keeping "Advanced Technology Attachment":
  Electron9
  (believing that this is the actual name)
• Something else:
  The Anome
  ("AT Attachment with Packet Interface" as this is the full name of recent versions of the standard)

My position is:

• As the move to the current name, "Advanced Technology Attachment", was not discussed, and
• After discussion there is clearly no consensus for the name "Advanced Technology Attachment", and
• There is support for the original name, "AT Attachment", from the defining authority on the topic, the T13 committee, and
• There is no support for the name "Advanced Technology Attachment" from the T13 committee; nowhere in the spec docs is "AT" ever spelled out as "Advanced Technology" (in fact they avoided use of that term due to potential IP issues). In other words, "Advanced Technology..." is factually, verifiably wrong. (I do have to admit though that it's in common use, which was The Anome's original reason for the move.)

Therefore, it seems to me that the "no consensus for new name after undiscussed move" principle espoused by admin Dekimasu at the top of this very page applies. So the move should be reverted, i.e. the page moved back to "AT Attachment", with redirects from "Advanced Technology Attachment" and several other variations.

If others prefer other names like "IDE" or "ATA/ATAPI" or etc., those should be separate move discussions, conducted after this revert question is decided.

I'm sorry that my "reorganizing" efforts clouded the issue. I thought I'd seen that done on other talk pages. I've done the best that I can to undo it, indeed I spent a good hour checking diffs after undoing it to make sure nothing was dropped and nothing was misrepresented and everything was in proper time sequence (other than as affected by another editor's "archiving" of pieces of threads he started, I am not going to un-"archive" them). I would hope that that will now be seen as a separate matter and will not affect the revert question. Jeh (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking over your helpful summary, there is a plurality in favor of the move of at most 4 to 3. If I were closing a move debate, I *wouldn't* call that a consensus to move. Perhaps you could take this up directly with

AT Attachment, and maybe there will be new people in 3 months who won't be worn out by the controversy and willing to give it a fresh look. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My key point is what is said up there in the first section on this page: You shouldn't need a consensus to revert a move for which there was no discussion and for which there is clearly no consensus now. If you look at the current discussion as an after-the-fact discussion for the previously undiscussed move to "Advanced Technology Attachment", you get support of at most 2 to 5: Only The Anome and Electron9, and even The Anome would support something else ("AT Attachment with Packet Interface"). Alas The Anome can't revert this, I don't think, even if he wanted to: he's not an admin and the "AT Attachment" redirect page now has two items in its history. (btw, just to be clear, it's "The Anome", with the article. "Anome" is someone else!) Jeh (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment should have referred to

WP:AFDs are, and there is no official move review. If editors begin an actual move war, admins will intervene. Otherwise, do the best you can. It's up to editor discretion. EdJohnston (talk

) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Once an RfM was (un)successful, what are the proper guidelines for the talk page, et cetera? Mouse is back 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is archived with the result given and any move templates (i.e. {{

move}}) are removed. JPG-GR (talk

) 04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay; thank you. Mouse is back 05:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why my proposed move was incomplete (

As the template I left on your talkpage explains, of the three steps to correctly propose a page move, you have yet to complete any of them properly. 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)JPG-GR (talk)

Thanks to all the admins, especially

Yes, nice job - all. –

talk

) 05:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we completely clear the backlog about once a quarter year around here (or so it appears in my last few months here). Thanks not only to the admins who help to clear the backlog, but all those who do the housekeeping speedies and history merges when I request them. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If a Request ends in "No consensus" does that not signify name change cannot take place because dispute is too divisive? To be blunt a fellow editor believes it signifies dispute is over and has removed NPOV tag from article. This seems a bit brash considering how split we were on the Request poll. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Anyone have any idea about this? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If people discuss the move, and "no consensus" is the result, it shouldn't be moved.--Rockfang (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The situation is significantly more complex. The NPOV tag was placed on the page because an editor felt the existing title was not the most neutral term. A survey and move change was then placed by that editor, which failed to gain consensus to rename the article (6 opposed to renaming, 4 for renaming). The POV tag was removed, as there was no existing resolvable dispute. Editors who wanted the name change challenged the POV tag removal. A number of people discussed this, several admins got involved and ruled that the POV tag should not be on the article without a resolvable dispute. An editor took a poll on whether the POV tag should be on the page, current standing is a consensus that the tag should not be on the article.[3] Atom (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really not that complicated. What I posted above is simple and true. The other editor, Atom, is trying to make it complicated to support his POV. Feel free to check the above mentioned article histories and draw your own conclusions. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a head's up to any admins who are presented with an "uncontroversial" move request of any mammal article to "fix" the capitalization: Please do not approve it. Capitalization of mammal articles is a very heated issue and appears possibly headed to mediation. See the following discussions/fights as evidence:

• Talk:Iriomote Cat#Edit warring
  (2–4 March 2008)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#misapplication of WP:BIRD
  (declined as content dispute) (2–4 March 2008)
• Talk:Bobcat#Capitalization again (29 February – 1 March 2008)
• Talk:Fishing Cat#Capital Common Name
  (29 February – 1 March 2008)
• Talk:Canadian Lynx#Name
  (29 February 2008)
• Talk:Cougar (June–August 2007, 25 September–10 November 2007)
• Talk:Cheetah (5–10 February 2007,11 August–7 October 2007)
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style -- Discussion and consensus at WP:MOS about animal common names and the capitalization issue (July 2007 - August 2007)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 3#Capitalization re-visited (March 2008)
• Talk:Snow Leopard#Secondary and Tertiary Sources on Capitalization
  (June - July 2008) (This is the most pertinent one)

I have been reverting any moves I run across that attempt to "fix" the capitalization one way or the other until some consensus is reached. I realize that every user who came to RM with a request, and the complying admin, had no idea of the situation, so I thought I would hopefully nip this in the bud and bring it to the attention of RM. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been researching the Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball#Ed_Martin_scandal today and am realizing that this could evolve into a very extensive separate article. What do you think the name of such an article should be? Here are some names I was thinking of:

• Ed Martin scandal
• University of Michigan men's basketball 2003 NCAA sanctions
• Michigan Wolverines men's basketball 2003 NCAA sanctions
• Chris Webber perjury investigation
• Michigan Wolverines men's basketball federal investigation

Many other related names are possible. I don't know what the proper name should be.--

User talk:JPG-GR removed rebuttal comments in Wikipedia:Requested moves at [4] stating that the rm discussion was on the talk page. As you can see, it is NOT in the WP:RM talk page. He also restored the proposal by User talk:Croctotheface to rename the ABN AMRO article to "ABN Amro" in the August 10 section of the WP:RM page. So I restored the rebuttals to make it very, very clear that the ABN AMRO renaming proposal is contested. It was JPG-GR who first moved the ABN AMRO article to "ABN Amro", causing the renaming war in that article, so his edits should be investigated and I've already reported this in the WP:AN. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain the structure of

Talk:ABN Amro as that is the only way to properly centralize discussion and attempt to form a consensus. JPG-GR (talk

) 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that the controversial section is only for move requests that were originally posted in the uncontroversial section, and then contested by another editor (or requests that were malformed of course). As JPG-GR states, the proper place for the proposal in question is in the dated section. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this Rube Goldberg approach is how it got moved to Amro without consensus in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The "do not move" decision was made (1) (2) by an editor (

Give it a rest, TE. The past discussion/precedent was when you brought the 50+ tennis/diacritic-related proposals at the same time a couple months back - which ended in no consensus. You proposed a move, and (1) consensus was not found to support your proposal and (2) past precedent supports the current location. If a move proposal does not go your way, the community is not against you, nor the person closing the proposal. JPG-GR (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 06:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) What exactly is the "past precedent" that supports

WP:UE. That was ridiculous then and is ridiculous now. (3) You are not impartial concerning this matter, as your past history proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, and therefore you should not have acted concerning the Vaidisova article. Whether you are with me or against me is irrelevant. Tennis expert (talk

) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to enter into a competition with you to see who can have the last word, especially on this beaten-to-a-pulp dead horse - history can speak for itself. The fact that you think that I'm working in a non-impartial way combined with our past "interactions" suggest that there is nothing I can say to convince you of my impartiality and I have numerous ways to better spend my time. JPG-GR (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you did not provide the "past precedent" upon which

WP:RM needs impartial administrators to make reasonable decisions based on policy and not on a frenzied desire to just clear backlogs or reduce "clutter". Tennis expert (talk

) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I'm not going to spend (read: waste) my time trying to convince you of my impartiality. For clarification, I didn't close

WP:RM, whether they be uncontroversial, controversial, tennis-related, or horse-related - any disagreements you have with any decisions I make aren't going to "run me off". Good day, sir. JPG-GR (talk

) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't have closed

WP:RM is to ask a disinterested administrator to make a decision based on consensus. You are incapable of doing that for tennis biographies. Tennis expert (talk

) 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Major guideline change dispute about bio article disambiguation

Resolved

 – Just an F.Y.I.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#GENERAL preference for person-descriptive not field-descriptive disambiguators is an ongoing dispute/discussion that is of relevance to regular editors here (it starts out a little noisy but has a subsection for hopefully more substantive discussion).

The issue: Under discussion is whether to retain at least general, default guidance that bio articles be disambiguated by a human-descriptor rather than a field/topic-descriptor - "Jane Doe (chemist)" as opposed to "Jane Doe (chemistry)" - while allowing for exceptions (perhaps especially in sports), where this may not be practical under Wikipedia:Disambiguation's guidance to use short disambiguators - "John Doe (baseball)" vs. "John Doe (baseball player and coach)". Detractors suggest that there was never any consensus for such advice to begin with, while the counterargument is that the advice codifies actual general WP practice, and that that is the proper role of guidelines to begin with.

Current status: The advice has been removed from

Looks like a combination of editors have fixed this for you. You need to add the reason for the move to the request on

WP:RM (just before your signature) and complete the section on the article talk page with details of the requested move. Keith D (talk

) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I regrettably felt forced to semiprotect
  ascii art in less than an hour. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 04:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems fine to me, with the exception of the talk page at Meleke having been redirected to the talk page at Jerusalem stone. I removed the redirect and placed an appropriate Wikiproject banner, so it should be straightened out. Parsecboy (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiamut^talk 02:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Can someone take a look at what happened to

However what then appears to have happened is that

I'm unclear whether:

1. I've misunderstood the discussion (now deleted so I cannot check it); or
2. The admins doing the deletions misunderstood the discussion; or
3. everybody involved did understand the discussion but decided this outcome was better anyway; or
4. same as 3, but there is now going to be a push by other editors to move things back again.

I certainly have no personal objection to the outcome. I just think an admin should look at this because if we have got the wrong outcome, unscrambling will be needed. AndyJones (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Resolved, probably. I see User:JHunterJ has reversed this. AndyJones (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I added my requested move in to the most recent date possible, which is yesterday. There's currently no date header for today. I hope this is OK?? (I note that other editors have done it too.) I imagined that my trying to add a date might be illegal, or break the entire internet, or cause measles, etc. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We apparently missed creating the new section for today, thanks for fixing it. And yes, the entire internet is broken, thanks to you. And now I've got measles. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

heheh thanks for sorting it out. Sorry about the measles and the internet. :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. User:C-3PO has done several moves listed here before the discussion time is up. I expect he's trying to be helpful. But there is little point in listing a controversial move for discussion if someone moves it before the discussion period is over. Should anything be done about it? Should the moves be undone? 87.113.23.139 (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are more problems with these moves: the discussions weren't closed on the article talk pages nor were the move tags removed; the listing weren't removed from WP:RM, and no double redirects created by the moves were fixed. I am in the process of reversing the moves. While there may be some that could have been moved early (for example, if there was unanimous consensus on the talk) cleaning up piecemeal where none of the other parts of the process were followed is more difficult than just reverting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For the moment I am not moving Outrageous Fortune (film) back. A dab page was created after the move at the old title, which would have to be dealt with to reverse. Another problem to note in addition to the lack of follow through I listed above: some of move requests sought additional moves to complete which were not done. The request to move Soulless to Soulless (album) was so that the disambiguation page currently at Soulless (disambiguation) could be moved to Soulless. Soulless was moved but not the dab page. Okay back to working on the reversal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar problem reversed at

I've Got You Under My Skin (song). These can't really be done separately, creates a mess.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. There were even a few that had only opposition listed at the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit, for cleaning up the mess! :-)

talk

14:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason for splitting the group into four?--

Yes. To avoid confusion and bloat. As I noted, some moves are highly controversial and others aren't. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Roger, if I did not get confused, with my average intelligence, of listing them, than why would the move administrator who does moves, who is eminently experienced in the process, and has done far more complex moves before, become confused?

What you mean by bloat?

If any moves are controversial, than the place to discuss it is

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 05:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the moves will probably not be opposed ("XX Operation" > "XX Offensive", for example). Others will. Lumping them all together makes it difficult to determine where consensus lies on each. This is really not suitable for a blunderbuss proposal. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, even more to the point, lumping controversial with uncontroversial tends to produce one outcome - no consensus on the controversial ones, therefore no consensus on the whole proposal, therefore no moves at all. If there's one thing I've noticed - the larger the multimove, the greater the likelihood it ain't gonna happen. JPG-GR (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, someone is going to have to explain how this is incomplete --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I think I have it - trying again. I really do think the instructions could be more helpful. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you use the templates as recommended, everything will be created correctly every time. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If the instructions told me how you expect them to be used, I would be able to. The instructions are at best ambiguous (I would say positively misleading) as to how to use them, leaving first-time users to flounder around, as I have done.--Rogerb67 (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made some small changes to the instructions of this page that I think would help new users to avoid the mistakes I made in good faith while attempting to follow the same. Please look at them at User:rogerb67/sandbox (and User:rogerb67/sandbox/Header. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only make out two changes - the first of which isn't true (use of the recommended templates is not mandatory) and the second is superfluous (if the instructions are followed, no modifications to a proposal moved to the incomplete section is required). JPG-GR (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Those were the changes. Now I'm really confused for two reasons:

1. The (presumably templated) message you kindly left on my talk page explicitly states it is mandatory.
2. As far as I am aware, those are the changes I made when the requests I made were marked incomplete. If those things aren't mandatory, I don't understand why they were rejected in the first place, and why they were accepted when I tried again (the second time was a request someone else made, perhaps they didn't follow the instructions?)

--Rogerb67 (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also found the instructions very confusing when I first suggested a page move, and the message on Rogerb67's talk page certainly disagrees, re step 2

"Please make sure you have completed all three of the following: .... 2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.",

with the text on the project page which says

"If the discussion does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow, although it is convenient to use the heading ==Requested move==, because this is assumed by the template in step 3. The template {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} can be used to create a framework for a poll, but be aware that polling can be divisive."

I think there is a need for clarification of the instructions on the project page. PamD (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt that they can always be improved, but it's tricky. It's a high-volume process, with lots of people at various stages of experience involved. Catering for them all without paralysing the whole process with instruction creep involves some compromises.

What specifically do you think we can we improve? How specifically would you suggest we do it? Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that first of all, the templates used by administrators should agree with the instructions on this page; it doesn't help confidence in the process when the page says one thing about step 2, and the message on your talk page says another.

Actually I have an idea why my requests may have been rejected. JPG-GR was being very efficient around the time I submitted the requests; it seems plausible to me that lag in replicating the databases meant he didn't see my edits to the target page, even though I made these before changing this page. Of course by the time I resubmitted, having made (apparently unnecessary) changes, my earlier changes to the target page would be visible to all, so naturally the request was accepted. I did get at least one case yesterday where I was blocked from editing due to replication lag, or something akin to that. It seems likely in retrospect that without the lag, my requests would have been accepted first time --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance through the logs appear to support this finding - when I checked the talk page, there was no discussion area. Additionally, I have modified the incomplete move notification template to clarify that the second recommended template is recommended, not mandatory. While it is nice to have a standardized area for discussion (which makes the discussion a LOT easier to find), it is by no means necessary. JPG-GR (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to redirect to

Forsyth Central High instead of Cumming, Georgia. It can be speedily deleted to make way for a move. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail

) 16:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the pages for you, everything should be in order. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. :) Yeah, that's what I meant by RSD, but anyway... --Hippie Metalhead (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You recently filed a request at

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section
   here
   .

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at

There was a discussion to change a redirect: currently "Stealth Bomber" redirects to "Stealth aircraft." It has been agreed to redirect "Stealth Bomber" to B-2 Sprit since it is the only known Stealth technology heavy bomber to date. Can any editors/administrators please help with this? Many thanks in advance, and I will try to learn from the process to pass along the logistical knowledge to future editors.Critical Chris (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm....

WP:SOFIXIT? JPG-GR (talk

) 08:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any editor can change a redirect. All you have to do is go to the redirect page, and change it. Redirects typically only have "#redirect [[target page]]", so you just change the link. I have updated the redirect for

Stealth Bomber as you requested. Parsecboy (talk

) 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

91.110.135.22 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Moved to

Alexander Stokes. JPG-GR (talk

) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi you left a message on my talkpage. As far as I can tell, no one has contested it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)