Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 31

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i'm a new user.kindly publish my page Mrityunjay singh gautam (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done This is not the place to request that. Try
  hundreds
  08:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Reptilians#Requested move 14 October 2018 has been open for about 6 weeks now, and the last edit was over a week ago. There's consensus for the move, but no one has closed it because the page is move-protected. Can an admin please close this discussion, or unprotect the page so that a page mover can do it? Bradv 16:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I have offered to help, but want clarity on the name to move to. - Donald Albury 17:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus at the moment for the proposed move, but I agree the whole topic area could use some cleanup.

Lizard people redirects elsewhere. The conversation looks like it could use some fresh perspective. Bradv

17:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the meta-level of policy, a pedantic following of Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus, i.e. "default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub", would lead us back to, if I recall correctly, Death of Jamal Khashoggi, which almost no editors want.
• The change to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi was intended to be a temporary measure without the intention to prejudge the outcome of the discussion - it's not a "longstanding" title.

Hope this helps someone neutral interested in closing the discussion... Having a month-long discussion continue longer risks diverting energy from article content... Boud (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about which one we should choose, but I do feel strongly that it deserves a discussion, since the two-word form appears to be about 10X more common. It's not possible to have that discussion in a dozen places at once, so please try again using the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves. Dicklyon (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Oops, I had intended this for your user talk page, but here will do. Maybe others will have opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• It depends when. Standard usage used to be “to-day” and “battle-field”. English is a changing language. It was normal for compound words to form via hyphenation, but I guess I am not the only one averse to using dashes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure neither hyphens nor dashes are relevant here, Luddite. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Style guides vary. My strong preference is to merge the words. Tony (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  I might be convincable. But with a dozen or more separate open RMs, I felt a dozen or more Opposes were in order. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@

I have restored it back to the original article name. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Paradisus Judaeorum, renamed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December, and may interest watchers here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the

after {{subst:requested move

please add | current1 = Current title of page 1

i.e. before | new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion

This will enable the code to be used without having to fiddle the number pairs because it doesn’t work without a | current1 . 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:8CB2:EE5C:2735:487 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Thank you but that's superfluity. The templates already add that via subjectpagetitle argument. Your claim that it doesn’t work without specifying the name is not true. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in most cases that parameter may be omitted, although there's no harm in going to the trouble of specifying it, as by default the template assumes that |current1= is the page on whose talk the template is placed on.

However, I just got around to updating the WP:RM documentation to show that this parameter may be used for discussions held on centralized WikiProject pages. The Template:Requested move documentation has said that since 26 September 2017.

For a current example of this usage, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#"Formula One" or "Formula 1". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please remove "(Discuss) –

The discussion at Talk:He Jiankui § Requested move 7 December 2018 is sceduled to close in about three days, if a consensus is reached. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I see, if the face of much opposition, I take this as a request that your move request be withdrawn. wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@CRISPR Editor:  Done – wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way outside of AWB to move multiple pages? I've seen that the

Is there a userscript to move these on mass as uncontroversial moves, or would you need to do this one by one - Or, requested technical? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe there is such a script, but page movers and admins can move more pages quickly than other users. Also, this proposed move should be fully discussed as Welsh Open (darts) exists. Iffy★Chat -- 14:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Welsh Open isn't the target move, simply the individual years of the event. The darts events themselves are not-notable for an event for each year, and even if they were, they wouldn't be the primary topic.

I've put in a request at

WP:PERM. Thanks for your feedback!Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 14:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover. I have not approved or rejected the request, but please review my response. Best, Dekimasuよ! 18:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

IIRC Only admins can mass move pages using AWB Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

request to revert undiscussed moves in these cases. Dekimasuよ!

16:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I was going to add hatnotes to the pages, It must have slipped my mind. I'll do that now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

An editor has proposed move RM process to AfD and TfD separately, please comment in

It depends on the circumstances. Sometimes an RM can be closed as no consensus but with a suggestion to start another one with a different target if the discussion has tended that way. In cases like this one, it should be left at least a couple of months. The proper process would have been to go to the closer and ask them to review or relist, and then take it to

WP:MR. Number 57

17:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I've asked the closer to relist. He refuses. My concern is that every hour it remains this way it influences changes all over Wikipedia that will all have to have to be uncovered and reversed. Oh well, if nobody else cares I guess I don't need to. --В²C ☎ 18:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The close has been reverted and relisted. Hopefully we can correct this now. --В²C ☎ 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) He's relisted it. And if he had continued to ignore it,

WP:MR was the correct venue. Number 57

19:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously inappropriate troll close, anyone may revert.
• BADNAC, any uninvolved admin may revert.
• The closer may revert. You may ask the closer to revert, but beware
  WP:HARASS
  , a recent trend in the way some people speak to closers they’ve disagreed with.
• WP:Move review

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusing “reopen” language in the section header here. I’ve reworded. I’m not asking about when you can revert a close. I’m asking when it’s acceptable to start a new RM soon after one was closed for the same article. Never? —В²C ☎ 22:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There is the essay Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, which mentions "Requested moves", and cites ""We have a long tradition that after a WP:RM is closed that it is not re-listed for six months after the last listing. --User:PBS (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)". I have been for a long time unsure whether this essay should be split, deletions from renames. In favour of not splitting is that the advice on appealing and renominating is the same.

In the last few years we have had extended discussions within MRV discussions largely upholding six months as the general rule.

I have argued that following a "no consensus", the six months should reduce to to a default of two months. This would harmonize with AfD. User:PBS I think disagrees.

I vaguely recall broad agreement that a "very good reason" such as changed or new information may justify a quicker renomination, but this certainly doesn't support your case above which was immediate, withing a week, and spoke to mistakes not new information.

If in doubt, ask the previous closer. Ideally, a discussion will state, or allude, to whether more discussion is desirable, and the person to judge is the closer.

Wikipedia:Moratoria is related but doesn't quite speak to this. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 00:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy, exceptions are understood. And if nothing else, one can invoke

WP:IAR, I suppose. Re-titling all these articles with non-English names contrary to policy does not improve the encyclopedia; to the contrary. Anyway, the closer finally relented and the original RM has been re-opened and looks like sanity is prevailing (knock on wood). But that's only because this closer relented. Had he not, then starting a new RM would be the only recourse, as the grounds for an MRV were super thin in this case given that all participants but one, up to the point of the close, had supported. If the way the discussion is going now is any indication, a new RM likely would have succeeded in reversing the previous RM decision, assuming people would not object purely on "too soon" grounds (as if there should never be any exceptions). I get the "too soon" argument, but in some cases, local consensus gets it obviously wrong, misreading or ignoring policy, probably through ignorance, especially when article content experts dominate an RM and very few if any RM/title experts are there, and an inexperienced closer comes along and doesn't recognize what's happening... I think we should allow for exceptions to the "before 6 months is too soon for another RM" in cases like this, probably in some other cases. Back-to-back RMs should not be rejected by knee-jerk "too soon" objections. Let's evaluate the situation in each case. --В²C ☎

02:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree.

WP:MR was created to bring respect for the process to WP:RM, and it has been doing that job well. Someone claiming "they all got it wrong" and reverting RM-concluded page moves, or starting new discussions as if the previous discussion and close was worthless, were the features of the gross dysfunction of the old days of WP:RM. Tendentious re-arguing titling decisions will get you blocked and banned. If you don't like the close, and the closer doesn't agree, the answer is MRV. MRV can re-open the RM. MRV would work more quickly and easily if some people, including you, didn't overwhelm it with long-winded wordy repetitive verbosity. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 03:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Point taken about MRV. I forgot that a MRV result can be a revert close/reopen/relist. Not sure if the verbosity is the only or even main reason they take so long to get resolved. But often it's not really an urgent matter, just like with most RMs. But when people are using a dubious result as grounds to change much on WP, then it becomes urgent. I think we need recognition of such situations. --В²C ☎ 03:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, in this case sanity did prevail, as the reverted and re-opened close/move RM in question was now closed as "no consensus". But if the closer had not relented the only recourse would have been an MRV seeking a close/reopen/relist? --В²C ☎ 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

trying to start a article for "Revenge of the Dreamers III",— Preceding unsigned comment added by NC792 (talk • contribs)

@NC792: Your account is very new, and very new accounts cannot create articles directly. You need to use the WP:Article wizard. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed issues (greater or lesser) with a number of NAC page moves recently. This is normal and we can deal with any issues that arise through standard procedures. I don't object to NAC closes or the process for granting the page mover permission.

However, it strikes me that the administrators reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover do not tend to be those who frequently review or close discussions at RM. I think we might benefit from having more editors familiar with the process here interacting with editors who are requesting the page mover right. This is a suggestion that we add Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover to our watchlists and consider adding our perspectives to the discussions there. Dekimasuよ! 19:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying to monitor the discussions there, but more eyes would still help. Pinging, for example, Amakuru, Andrewa, Anthony Appleyard, bd2412, BrownHairedGirl, and might continue down through the alphabet if necessary. Do you frequent the page at all, or keep an eye on who is being granted these flags? I have seen Galobtter there recently, which is helpful. Dekimasuよ! 01:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Dekimasu.

I don't personally have the time and energy to participate in

WP:RM is not actually required. This seems to me to be a most undesirable omission; page movers should show that they have exercised good judgement in the formation of consensus of page moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 02:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BHG. It is entirely possible for editors who are not page movers, but have a reasonable amount of experience, to engage in non-admin closures of pages where there is an absence of consensus to move or consensus against a move. They should exhibit some ability to do this before closing discussions that do require a move. bd2412 T 02:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Page mover rights are also granted for doing draftifications at NPP and I think there are other uses for it beyond article moves at RM, which is why I think that isn't a requirement, though I certainly agree that some experience - even commenting, though closing is better - at RM is quite important in demonstrating familiarity with the relevant policies and guidelines (and also teaches people how controversial seemingly uncontroversial page moves can be). Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RMCI

rightly discourages non-admins from closing contentious or complex discussions, it seems to me to be that non-admin closures are unlikely to involve much detail.

So I think that it is more likely that good analysis and judgement would be displayed through participation in the discussion. I'd be looking for evidence that the candidate was routinely doing a lot more than "support per nom" or "oppose per Foo", and was getting out some substantive policy-based reasoning which showed a grasp of the nuances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to engage those requesting the permission in conversations, hoping to convince them to read through aspects of titling policy with which they do not seem familiar. Unfortunately with the criteria as they are I find it a bit difficult to simply say no to editors without much experience. Usually "without much experience" means no history of participation in RM discussions at all. Dekimasuよ! 06:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The engagement is good. The sort of cases where someone technically meets the criteria but shouldn't get the right usually are discussed among multiple admins and makes for a more convincing decline when it is clear someone was evaluated thoroughly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

After looking at my close (very short and simple) and the discussion challenging it on my talk page, I'd like a few objective opinions from experienced closers about whether it's appropriate or not and whether I should reopen.

The close is here:

• Talk:Proteza_koniecpolska

It has been challenged here:

• User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM.

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 20:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Closing statements should explain the close, and reflect the discussion. They should not, for example, extrapolate into deletion recommendations if no one in the discussion alluded to deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My statement in question, But if the apparent dearth of such RS is accurate, this article should probably be removed from the English WP., is not a deletion recommendation, given the huge IF it starts with, and the "probably" qualification. It's practically identical in meaning to what the notice at the top of
    the article itself already states: If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Anyway, who restricts what can be said in closing statements? Where? Closers are generally given wide latitude in what is said there, and often use it. If you think closing statements should be restricted as you're suggesting here, or in any other way, then I suggest you try to see if you can get consensus to include such guidance at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions. In the mean time, don't try to hold me or anyone else to your imagination of what you believe the restrictions should be. --В²C ☎
    21:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You have wide latitude with what you say in your userspace pages. Closers of formal discussions do not have “wide latitude”. I think closing statements should be restricted to qualified respected closer’s, or cautious statements for beginners. I think you should not be closing discussions because you don’t get these subtleties and it takes forever to explain stuff to you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      • If you had a valid point, you would have nothing to explain, as you could simply point to the relevant guideline or policy. But since you're making up rules as you go, just to harass me, you've got nothing to base your opinion on. No wonder it takes "forever to explain". It's not explainable. --В²C ☎ 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• B2C - If you are not prepared to be criticized for your close, perhaps you should not have asked for opinions. As for mine: I think Smokey makes a valid point. I also think you should have closed the RM with a simple “no consensus”... and then (perhaps) followed it up with a separate talk page thread with advice on “next steps”... doing this would have separated your “official” action as a closer from your “unofficial” advice as an experienced fellow editor. By combining the two, you opened the door to challenges that you could have avoided. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice, though I have to note our past disagreements could be coloring your opinion. I recall other closers leaving similar advice in their closes. I do not recall anyone else doing that ever being criticized for it. Do you? --В²C ☎ 22:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've revised the closing statement again,
    WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. But if the suggested dearth of such RS is accurate, also consider the notice on this article which says, "If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted." [9] Better? --В²C ☎
    22:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Although someone else started the thread with "Please reopen", I don't it is nearly that serious. Moving forwards... It is a problem article. Few sources, none good, and what there is is local Polish. I reacted against what I read was a suggestion to move to deletion, and I know enough about railway lines on Wikipedia to know that that is not a suggestion to be made lightly. My best idea is
  Talk:Proteza_koniecpolska#Merge_to_Częstochowa#Transport. It is a side line that serves Częstochowa. --SmokeyJoe (talk
  ) 23:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

​​Does anyone seem to have figured out what's causing the MWException bug when moving pages? I'm not involved with Phabricator, but does the thread here being rated as "high" mean that it will be taken care of anytime soon? This used to seem like a random error, but it's happening to me quite frequently now. Dekimasuよ! 02:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• It had stopped for a while, but now it has returned. bd2412 T 02:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

​​​​​Any thoughts on creating a default admin gadget until T210739 is resolved? See phab:T210739#4896481/zh:MediaWiki:Gadget-T210739.js. I made a user script version for now. Thanks for the code, Xiplus. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• So process wise, you want people to just manually delete the target first? Seems like we could take care of that with just directions. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the only workaround that I know. The gadget/script just makes it easier. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  MediaWiki:Delete and move confirm (newly resurrected) seems sufficient? I dunno that we need to inject a brand-new ooui menu into every sysop's workflow, especially if it's intermittent. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  As far as being intermittent, it's been a while since I've had even one of these moves work properly. It seems pretty consistent at this point. Dekimasuよ! 02:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  I have been getting the error every time I try to move over existing pages, so I mostly gave up trying and just delete them first. Well, the user script is there for anyone who wants to use it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Anomie has solved this, bailing out the developers working on the new feature that will enable blocking editors from editing or moving specific pages. Alas, the "replecation bug" de facto blocked us all! It appears to me like the fix should make it into Thursday's software release; when it does send him some barnstars. The detective skills used to track it down were first rate. I have some new appreciation for the complexities involved in programming for a system that makes changes to a database that is replecated on many servers. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yay! Working again. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I can't find any forum that seems more appropriate. The article

Make a request at

page mover or an admin will swap them for you. Iffy★Chat

-- 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I shall follow your advice. Tim riley talk 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Re:

"Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can..."

and

"Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."

I don't think that this is a good way to do things. I think that the nominator should have the option of either making his point in the nomination or creating a neutral nomination and making his point in a "support as nominator" bulleted line.

I would like to discuss this informally here before I create an RcF asking the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominators already do and can when they are neutral to the move in question, thereby removing the implication. They just add a sentence that says 'RMd procedurally' or 'I have no preference', etc. --Izno (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support flexibility. A nomination can lead from the strength of the central simple argument (similar to the edit summary of a bold page move), the “support” is obvious, or they can redundantly with an abundance of clarity make a dot point “support as nominator”. Or people can go RfC neutral non style, present neutral information as background, and then make the POV argument from their first dot point. Any closer who doesn’t understand should not be closing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Closers should understand whatever is thrown at them, but this is still not a necessary change. The "neutral" part of the statement is already there, e.g. "
  Taq Bostan → Taq-e Bostan –". Anything after the en-dash that is not an argument in favor of the move is superfluous, because the proposed change has already been noted. The fact that a move is being proposed, and from where to where, is already shown within in the requested move template. Dekimasuよ!
  01:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• After several reads I still cannot read this. Can I ask you to better consider accessibility issues. Some of us, Hyphen luddites, simply cannot process anything involving “en-dash” without considerable effort involving rewording to remove all dashes. In my professional life, I have never used a dash, and never will. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry. I was simply drawing upon the most recent open move request from the main RM page. If you look at any open move discussion, it begins with a neutrally-worded template, followed by the line that consists of the current title, an arrow to the proposed title, a [sideways line], and then the reason for the change. I am suggesting that anything following the neutral template, the current title, and the proposed title other than a reason for the change is superfluous, because the template already serves as a neutral description of what the discussion entails. Dekimasuよ! 01:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think I agree With Guy Macon, but do not see much need to change anything. I read the instructions as non-mandatory advice. Failure to follow exactly should not see the request speedily closed. For someone new to RM, a simple single line of instruction is better than swaths of documentation on all viable options. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• That's pretty much what we do now: link to
  WP:RM#Nom when nominators !vote. I can't recall anything being speedily closed for this reason, although I may have done procedural closes when the text was never altered from "place your rationale here." Dekimasuよ!
  03:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would oppose any change to this setup at
  WP:RM; if evidence in favor of the move is not presented, there is no case to answer. To request a move despite being uncertain of whether one should take place is a burden on the system, and changing this will invite the creation of frivolous requests. Another reason we instituted this setup (in addition to mostly deprecating the separation of "debate" into survey and discussion sections) was to reduce the tendency to treat the discussion as a vote. Whether the editor requesting the move notes support separately or not should have little effect on the outcome of the discussion. Again, the underlying principle is to simply say what you mean. Dekimasuよ!
  01:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t really understand your response to me, but I agree with all of this dot point. I oppose open ended RM nominations. Every nomination must include a specific proposal, otherwise the request is premature. Use a simple talk page thread for discussion of options that are general or open ended. Neutral nominations are possible, but they should be restricted to a procedural nomination by the closer of another discussion where the closer reads a consensus to follow up with a differently focused proposal. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I completely reject the false dilemma of asserting that a neutral opening statement is the same as an open-ended opening statement. The system used on RfCs has many examples of neutrally worded openings that include a specific proposal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying what you want to do in the opening and then explaining all the reasons why you think it should be done in your "as nominator" comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• When a move request is opened, the specific proposal is included in the template; there is no need for any additional neutral opening. "
  Taq Bostan be moved to Taq-e Bostan?" The information generated by the template is followed by the reasons you think the move should be performed. There is no need for any "as nominator" comment or !vote after you have already said why the change should be made. I'm not understanding why this is an issue, but there are about 190 move requests open now, so would it be possible for you to find a few where you think a change to the instructions would have been helpful and share them here? Dekimasuよ!
  07:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

​I've history merged the disambiguation page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Did I miss something in the edit histories? – Muboshgu (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 05:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, there was a disambiguation page that shouldn't have existed. I redirected it to the new redirect page after moving the baseball player to a disambiguator. I'm still unclear on what I did wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

At a glance it looks like you may have created a new disambiguation page at Edwin Jackson when there was already one at Edwin Jackson (disambiguation), instead of moving the existing dab page to the plain title. Dekimasuよ! 16:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Dekimasu is spot on. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you can help. I've brought up at both

There's also an argument for Paul Forster (bowler), however, "bowler"s would be quite easy to mistake for skittles players, or ten pin bowlers. Where would be a good place to raise the question for a change in naming convention for these types of articles? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps

WT:NCSP? There are many sports that are generally handled with this sort of disambiguation. Dekimasuよ!

17:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Questionable page move

Resolved

It seems improper for Template:Julius Caesar (play) to have been moved from Template:Julius Caesar by The Transhumanist. Should this be reverted. There is no ambiguity in need of disambiguation.--00:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks a good move to me.

WP:CLS navigation template for Julius Caesar, and for Template:Julius Caesar (play) to match its parent article Julius Caesar (play). --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 00:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not an expert in the policy regarding template disambiguation, but on article space pages we don't disambiguate until the competing page comes into existance. Is there a policy in this regard for templates to match article space and category space even in the absence of a competing page?-

WP:WAWARD

) 01:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In article space, there is a practice of hyper-concision aka brevity aka title minimalism. It is little benefit for any reader or editor. For templates, it would have even less than zero benefit. Templates, like categories, should follow their parent article. They should not be briefer, but sometimes there are reasons for increased description. Templates and categories following their parent article for titling style makes things very much easier for understanding template and category associations with articles. Articles are what really matter, templates and categories serve articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.--

WP:WAWARD

) 05:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You’re right, TonyTheTiger, the community generally eschews unnecessary disambiguation, and most don’t consider uses that don’t have coverage on WP when making disambiguation decisions. I am not aware that templates are treated differently. That said, in this case the disambiguation appears necessary, as explained by SJ above. —В²C ☎ 07:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This move request (Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § Requested move 31 January 2019) is only five days old, but I'm planning to nominate the article for Wikipedia:In the news tomorrow Feb 8 and would rather it be at a stable location – and have time to rewrite the lead for a move, if needed. Would it be possible to close the move discussion today? Though I don't want to rush it or have an ill-considered decision. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was relisted @ 11:58, 7 February 2019 – wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: You relisted this discussion though there is close to 1,500 words of discussion by a dozen editors (including nom). The relisting instructions recommends Users [...] relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. For my own curiosity (I'm interested in move procedures) I'd appreciate knowing why you relisted it. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi

consensus was clear enough to close as either moved or not moved. Thanks, SITH (talk)

17:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 21:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

My only comment is that you continue to demonstrate exceptional persistence in flogging a horse which has been dead for years.

If there was a barnstar for long-term

WP:IDHT, you would be a worthy recipient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 02:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Every time I am reminded of that, my yog hurts. Jonathunder (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The Yogurt Principle is a general principle that applies to many situations other than the one it is named after. Hopefully we have learned from it. Sadly, many closers remain reluctant to close per general consensus just because there is no local consensus. —В²C ☎ 03:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As you keep talking about this, I'll give my (dismissive) response to it: I see no coherent principle presented here other than that you think moves that you like are good moves. For several of these, your "strong policy-based arguments" seem like

π, ν

) 03:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Post the 2016 campaign, HC reverted to HRC. The community made a bad decision, for no benefit to any reader, giving in to the agitators.

The principle is a matter of circular logic for when it works; it can be said to "describe" any situation where something moves from a stable situation to a more stable situation, considered in hindsight. It is not a principle for "applying" as it does not have a robust underlying theory. The notion that a powerful closer should discriminate between a "local consensus" and a "general consensus" is seriously flawed. If there is a difference, a discussion participant must introduce the argument to the discussion. If the closer does this, it is a WP:supervote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No robust underlying theory? Perhaps you missed this part of the nutshell: there are strong policy-based reasons to move to the proposed title, and the move would result in a situation where there are no strong policy-based reasons to move the article back. The underlying theory is that in such a situation once the move is made, there would be "no strong policy-based reasons to move the article back", and thus the article would be stable. How is that not robust? And these situations are not as subjective as one might think. After all, anyone can easily imagine a proposed move as if it had been performed, and then see what if any policy-based reasons there may be to move it back. The classic example is of course Yogurt itself, in which several of us pointed out repeatedly for years the dearth of policy-based reasons there would be to move the article once the article was moved to Yogurt, and nobody else was able to counter because of course there were no policy-based reasons that would apply. This of course has been made obvious for the 8 years of absolute peace since the move, but my point is it was just as obvious before the move to anyone who seriously considered it. And so it is in many other situations (not saying it always is; YP applies only situations where it is obvious).

As to The notion that a powerful closer should discriminate between a "local consensus" and a "general consensus" is seriously flawed... didn't you recently uphold a closer doing exactly that at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_November#Jaggi_Vasudev? After all, the local consensus there clearly supported the move, 14 to 6, yet the closer whose decision you endorsed declared consensus to oppose the move. I considered that a super vote in that case because both local consensus and policy-based reasons (general consensus) supported the move. --В²C ☎ 19:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was a strong policy-based argument for keeping the page at yoghurt: Namely, that the article had been stable at that title for eight years (coincidently). The only lesson learnt from your self-indulgent essay is that if you keep banging on, you'll eventually get your way. That's not a lesson we should be teaching, in my opinion.--Ykraps (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I do think that there should be a principal that if the same issue is raised over and over again, and each time a majority is in favor of changing it, but not a supermajority, the persistence of majorities favoring a change in previous discussions should be a factor weighing in favor of the proposal. bd2412 T 22:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Ykraps, yes, there was that strong policy-based argument for keeping the page at yoghurt. That's the point: to look past that and think, from that situation, while it was still at Yoghurt, what policy-based argument would there be, if any, if the page was moved as proposed. In other words, while it was at Yoghurt, think about what if it was moved to Yogurt, would there be any strong policy-based arguments to move it back again to Yoghurt? And, the answer, which was obvious then and even more obvious 8 years after the move, was no. Once the article was at Yogurt, back to its original variety of English, there would be no strong policy-based argument to move it back to Yoghurt. That's how it is, and that was always the point. Had nothing to do with getting "my way", unless you recognize that "my way" is nothing but title stability and resolving disputes about titles. I just presented a similar argument favoring restoring the original British English variation at Talk:German mediatisation#Requested move 22 January 2019, which at least some editors found persuasive. That one was not nearly as controversial, but it's a similar underlying principle. Now that it's moved back to the original variant, what strong policy-based argument can there be to move it back to German mediatization? None. Ta da! I got "my way" again. Title stability!

BD2412, recognizing a majority though not a supermajority regularly favors a move is a different consideration. The Yogurt Principle is more about imagining the article is moved as proposed (assuming there are strong policy based arguments supporting and opposing the move), and considering what if any policy based arguments might there be to reverse that move, and, if none, to move it. It's about recognizing that at the current title there is controversy, but at the proposed title there won't be. --В²C ☎ 18:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Good day. I'm not exactly sure the best way to go about this so that's why I'm here.
There are articles for almost all of the 901 barrios of Puerto Rico and an editor suggested they not be named with parenthesis (as I did when I created them), but be separated by commas.
The list of articles is List of communities in Puerto Rico. Most of them should be an easy enough move but there may be some issues with articles that have already been moved before.
Please let me know how to proceed. My idea with (User talk:Ymblanter) is to move them:
barrio name, municipality to barrio name, municipality, Puerto Rico

• Lajas, Lajas would become Lajas, Lajas, Puerto Rico
  .
  
• Algarrobo (Yauco) --> Algarrobo, Yauco, Puerto Rico

• Guayabo Dulce ---> Guayaba Dulce, Hato Mayor, Dominican Republic AND ---> Guayabo Dulce (disambiguation)
• Guayabo Dulce (Adjuntas)---> Guayabo Dulce, Adjuntas, Puerto Rico.

So my question is should we just go ahead and make the moves or should (we call the movers) and place a redirect request on each of the articles' talk page? --

talk

) 19:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

How long after an undiscussed move can that section (and as opposed to the standard "Uncontroversial technical requests"). Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions notes about the stable title, even if not the original title. While this would affect consensus generally, I'm asking here since we have that section. I think I have read somewhere that the standard time for a title to be considered long standing is 2 years.

My suggest might be in general that "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" can be used if:

1. A page has been moved without discussion less than a year from a title that it was stable at for over 2 years.
2. A page has been moved against a previous consensus (particularly a formal RM) regardless of how long ago (per
   WP:NOTBURO
   people may consider IAR to not reverting a move where things have changed favouring the move that weren't the case at the time of the previous consensus, particularly if it was noted that the situation may change in the future).

I ask about

The section was added on the 4th of June 2013 by User:Peter James. Generally as I understand it, those at "Uncontroversial technical requests" can easily be contested by moving them to "Contested technical requests" while those at "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" are generally automatically granted unless an immediate revert is deemed unsuitable, compared to a full discussion. See Talk:Kolossus#Requested move 23 January 2018 where the difference was pointed out. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support no limit. A limit to lock in
  a silent consensus gives incentive to make quiet, sneaky moves to barely watched articles. The only exception should be page moves by the creating author in the first few dozen page edits. —SmokeyJoe (talk
  ) 22:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree. But to reiterate, we’re not talking about ALL undiscussed moves, just those that were at least clearly controversial at the time of the move. There is no requirement to go through RM for uncontroversial moves. —В²C ☎ 06:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Surely having no limit would be too far, as B2C notes at least being uncontroversial at the time of the move. AFAIK many moves were made in the early days that if reverted unilaterally would be considered too controversial[11]. With regard to "sneaky moves" all moves are in the move log and editors can check the user's move log so if a page move was made that was not clearly inappropriate and it isn't objected to within a year (which is IMO more than enough time for someone to notice) then it should be considered de facto community consensus. If a move was preformed that is clearly inappropriate that remained in place for years and was attempted to be moved back (with objection), then there would likely be consensus at RM to but it back at the appropriate title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:Silence is the weakest form of consensus. Age does not lock in an old decision, however a large number of subsequent edits possibly does matter. —SmokeyJoe (talk
        ) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Case-by-case analysis of the circumstances seems to have worked fine to this point. Dekimasuよ! 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Talk:Rum_and_Coke#Requested_move_5_November_2018 was a nice case where the bold move was old, but the reason for exception was the subsequent development of the article, not the time passed. (The question of defaulting to reverting the bold in the case of “no consensus” was moot because the discussion actually found consensus to not move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to prepare a multipage move in my sandbox page. Can I use the {{requested move}} there, not subst'ed? -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I get a user to do a move like on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiz shows (talk • contribs) 10:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Which page do you want moved... and what do you want it moved to? Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I figured it out. --Quiz shows 21:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requested moves has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please swap

The criteria that matters here is not what the original song was titled but how the song is most commonly known today as determined by looking at usage in reliable sources. See

consensus through discussion, starting by creating a Requested Move discussion at Talk:Saturday Night (Is the Loneliest Night of the Week) per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. --В²C ☎

18:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a move proposal at Talk:Saturday Night (Is the Loneliest Night of the Week). - Station1 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was request processed. В²C ☎ 02:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

---

These events occurred in the following chronological order:

1. 2019_Balochistan_attack is filed at AfD [12] See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2019_Balochistan_attack
2. 2019_Balochistan_attacks [13] by 11S117
3. February 2019_Balochistan_attacks [14] by Anupam
4. Same user, Anupam, tries to revert title to be in line with ongoing AfD, but can't, so files technical request to revert accordingly [15]
5. Technical move request accidentally converted to contested request [16]
6. Contested move request converted to revert request [17]
7. Technical request is labeled not done by StraussInTheHouse, at least pending outcome of Afd [18]

Here is the complete discussion as of a few minutes ago:

*

February 2019 Balochistan attacks (currently a redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019) → 2019 Balochistan attack (currently a redirect instead to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019) (move · discuss) – The article is going through an AFD right now, so I believe that it would be best to wait until the AFD concludes before moving the page. Anupam^Talk

20:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: re-request once the AfD has concluded, assuming it is kept. SITH (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Balochistan attack. That is why I feel that the article should reflect the original title before the AfD concludes. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk

07:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it would actually be better to put it back at the article title that was used when the AfD was opened.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be an automatically accepted revert of a unilateral move (actually two of them) made after the article was nominated on AfD. --В²C ☎ 19:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with В²C. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#What_to_do? for extended discussion.--В²C ☎ 21:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be an automatic immediate revert to the title it was at at the time the ongoing AfD was filed, as requested? It's a bit confusing to have them be disparate right now, I think.

--В²C ☎ 21:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC) added comment from Crouch, Swale --В²C ☎ 23:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have processed this. It was probably a misunderstanding. Dekimasuよ! 23:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I reverted B2C's latest edits to

Having

π, ν

) 03:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A hatnote is not sufficient. I think RMNAC needs a major revision to harmonize. As WP:NAC is much older and better, I think WP:RMNAC should stick to administrative instruction, and point to WP:NAC for advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The current guidance that is in effect for RM NAC is

WP:BADNAC section, simply add clarity regarding the way things are today. --В²C ☎

06:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The things that

WP:RMNAC

is missing are:

WP:BADNAC

#1 (INVOLVED)

WP:BADNAC

#2 (contentious discussion)

WP:BADNAC

#3 (inexperienced)

WP:BADNAC

#4 (requires admin actions)

I think WP:RMNAC should point to, and defer to, WP:BADNAC.

#1 is already well respected everywhere

#2 and #3 may be contentious in the RM community, but these things are characteristic of the AfD community which works much better. As a regular of DRV and MRV, I see massively more problems with NAC closes per RM discussion than per AfD discussion.

#4 doesn't seem to be as big an issue, I'm not sure.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Massively more problems? Got a few dozen example to back that up? —В²C ☎ 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've probably written close to half of NAC at this point, so I'm totally biased. But as a general rule, I think we should be working to centralize guidance at NAC rather than having multiple pages covering NACs for each individual area. Much of the content at NAC applies to all NACs and so it adds to rather than runs parallel to guidance on specific types of closures or specific types of XFDs. GMG^talk 17:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree in general it makes sense to incorporate what RMNAC says into NAC rather than have a separate RMNAC, though I wonder if we can do that without bloating NAC. --В²C ☎ 18:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else object to restoring the hatnotes?

Does anyone besides SJ have an issue with the hatnotes I added to

The specifically wording you crafted served to say that WP:NAC is irrelevant to RMs. you in particular are the worst NAC-er, and if not banned from RM, should definitely be banned from RM policy pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Worst" by what standard? Once again, any evidence supporting your claim? --В²C ☎ 22:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I simply copy/pasted the wording in the previously existing hatnote for deletion discussions, to also use it for RM discussion, as seen in the diff:

• "the actual guideline on non-admin closures of deletion discussions".
• "the actual guideline on non-admin closures of Requested Move discussions".

Do you have an issue with the deletion wording? Or it's okay because I didn't add it? --В²C ☎ 22:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:RMCI should be wound back from where it crosses into soft worded guidance. I should be a technical instruction page, not a guideline. A hatnote stating that "the actual guideline" is that instruction page is wrong. WP:NAC should be considered the guideline. It used to be an essay, but I see the taggery has developed to it being an "explanatory supplement" to an "information page". This is terrible. We need a NAC guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 22:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

What does that have to do with my question or my edit? --В²C ☎ 22:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, sorry to drag you into this, but can you help us resolve this, please? --В²C ☎ 22:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I did give B2C constructive advice. Ask Amakuru for advice, yes. "I am still meaning to seek to get WP:RMNAC harmonized with WP:NAC; I think you have been served poorly by the loose writing of RMNAC." B2C's edit was to neuter WP:NAC with respect to RMs. Completely the wrong direction to what needs doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get too deep into this dispute, but I do think that RMNAC sums up the position of the community reasonably well when it comes to RM discussions. For better or for worse, the majority of discussions are not closed by an admin these days, and it has long been recognised that closing discussions, some of them contentious, is a good way to demonstrate competence if you ever do decide to run for the tools. The page mover user right, although intended primarily as a technical ability rather than a community status, does nonetheless confirm the view that it is the norm for nonadmin users to perform nontrivial page moves. We have the fallback mechanism of

WP:MRV to clean up obvious bad closes, but again it is well established that the fact that the closer was not an admin is not in itself a reason to reverse a close. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk

) 01:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The point in question is not about non admins closing discussions, it is about whether

WP:AfD longer and better. Yes, non admins sometimes close contentious AfDs, and when they do it well we know we have someone good, and when they do not do it well they pull back. In contrast, WP:RM is a troublesome process that annoys the broader community more than it does good, and it has a long history of WP:LAME troubles. Ivory Coast. Yogurt. Star Trek Into Darkness. Sarah Jane Brown. Massive time sinks. In contrast, WP:AfD runs much more smoothly, and on more important matters. RM should be taken more seriously. B2C is the prime example of a troublesome non admin RM closer. When he closes contested discussions, is he saving the community time and effort? I think not, and I don't understand why he would want to push ahead so boldly, and I don't think it is OK for us to let him neuter the applicability of BADNAC to RMs. Hatnote "see also" sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 09:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about special esoteric rules for their own sake, then BADNAC does not apply to RMs. It's specified only for XfD discussions. If we're talking about common sense and actual practice, much of the guidance currently grouped under XfD at NAC isn't actually XfD specific, and is an artifact of the history of the page. If you look at NAC as it was two years ago when major rewriting/expansion began, it was almost entirely guidance related to XfD, and a few afterthoughts. But clearly, there is guidance currently under XfD that is general guidance. For example, you could not reasonably argue that you could close RfCs and RMs with a supervote, even though the guidance for supervoting is grouped under XfD.

The problem currently is that the rewrite toward making NAC a guideline stalled out after the last major change regarding IPs closing discussions, and the few of us that were working on it just kindof wandered away to work on other things. What actually needs to happen is that the guidance for XfD needs to be filtered between XfD and general guidance. As we do that, I am of the personal opinion that we should be taking disparate guidance, like that on RM, and moving it over to NAC in a structure that makes sense. If we have moderately experienced editors who are interested in learning about NACs, then it is to their benefit if the guidance is all centrally located, and that group is really IMO the target audience. GMG^talk 11:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the guidance at BADNAC, and indeed much of the rest of the NAC page, does in practice apply to non-admin closures generally and is not unique to deletion discussions. I agree too that it'd be beneficial to disentangle truly XfD-specific material from our broader NAC recommendations. If there's consensus to do so, I'd be willing to assist. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding RMNAC, it does seem a bit confusing or unfocused, and the division of what's defined where (and why) isn't quite clear to me. I see that it identifies as being specifically about non-admin closures of requested moves, but strays into things like conflict of interest which are not uniquely non-admin issues, or into information about technical moves. Per GMG, I'd agree that the content in NAC, BADNAC, and RMNAC should probably be restructured in order to present a single set of consistent, coherent guidance on the questions of who should perform closures, and how problems with closures should be handled. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Per

This is a question of style and should not be elevated to policy at

WP:AT. - Station1 (talk

) 01:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is too confusing for AT. Hyphens work well when correct. E.g.
  Hand–eye coordination is inferior shorthand to Hand-to-eye co-ordination. --SmokeyJoe (talk
  ) 01:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Cricket in England#Requested move 10 March 2019; nom is really looking to merge two articles. Perhaps someone could take a look and take the appropriate action? PC78 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure this has been discussed before, but I think too many requests are getting relisted unnecessarily. It seems to me the default from some users is to relist anything after 7 days are up if there are a handful of participants, regardless of things like strength of arguments. For reference, there are now 42 relisted discussions. There were 19 at this time last year [20]. I think some of the guidance at