Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 27 May 2014

NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.

Misplaced Pages:Move review is now official. Use this process for contested move request closes.

On 3 June 2007, it was proposed that this page be moved from Misplaced Pages:Requested moves to Misplaced Pages:Proposed moves. The result of the discussion was no consensus, not moved.

Archives

For why RM was created, see: requested moves -- policy change? Oct 2004–Jan 2005 Jan 2005–Feb 2005 Feb 2005–Mar 2005 Mar 2005–Aug 2005 Aug 2005–Dec 2005 Dec 2005–Jun 2006 Jun 2006–Sept 2006 Sept 2006–Feb 2007 Feb 2007–May 2007 May 2007–Nov 2007 Nov 2007–May 2008 Jun 2008–Oct 2008 Nov 2008–Jan 2009 Jan 2009 Jan 2009–Jun 2009 Jun 2009–Oct 2009 Oct 2009–Jun 2010 Jun 2010–Oct 2010 Oct 2010–Jan 2011 Jan 2011–Sept 2011 Sept 2011–Jan 2012 Jan 2012–Apr 2012 Apr 2012–Aug 2012 Aug 2012–Dec 2012 Dec 2012–Dec 2013 Dec 2013–

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

Suggestion for finding an non-involved admin

Hi folks - sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I couldn't think of anywhere better. I started a move discussion (Talk:Halifax_Regional_Municipality#Requested move 2014), and the discussion is reaching the end of the suggested minimum 7-day period, and appears (to me, at least!) to be arriving at near-consensus - only one dissenting opinion. However, I'm obviously not a disconnected editor, and I probably have neither the skills nor the rights to do this move, even if I was. My question is: "How do I find such a person?" Thanks in advance for any advice! AshleyMorton (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sea of bold

This section is awash wish bold text which makes it hard to follow. Could this be streamlined at all? Perhaps the use of bullets or a numbered list to outline the various options for different situations, to reduce the reliance on bold text? —sroc 💬 15:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I toned it down some by changing the internal section links from bold to italics, and unboldfaced some of the shouting of instructions. Of course we already have a section Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#When not to use this page which already uses bullets and bold. I'm not happy about the note about (Republic of) Ireland articles in the lead section, and will look into a solution for that. Is it better now? Let me know if you have any more specific feedback about anything that's not clear. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Much better. I've made some minor revisions as well. With our combined efforts, I think it's much clearer and easier to follow now. Thanks! —sroc 💬 14:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, shouldn't the footnote about Ireland articles be in a separate "Notes" section at the end of the article? Perhaps using the footnote text ? I realise the lead is transcluded, but isn't this the only page that calls it? —sroc 💬 14:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved the notice about Ireland titles from the RM lead section to the closing instructions, where the intended audience should still see it. A more robust outright block on using {{requested move}} on these three talk pages is technically possible, if consensus demands that. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bird common name decapitalisation

As per the new MOS:LIFE guideline, forged by consensus, all animals, including birds, now should be listed at sentence case names. So, like, do we have one big massive move request? Is that necessary? My suggestion: find a team of administrators willing to blaze through and move Emperor Penguin to Emperor penguin and all the other birds that need to now be moved, and get work on that done as soon as they are willing and able to start working. (It has to be admins for reasons that I'm sure you all know well.) Red Slash 21:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've begun work on some of these, haphazardly. I'm willing to join a more systematic approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I submitted classical requests (Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Articles requested moves) because I do not know other ways to move these pages. But I agree that a more organised and efficient approach directly involving administrators would be preferable. Coreyemotela (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

The RMs aren't really helpful; you're kind of wasting your time setting them up, others' time commenting on them, and then some admin's time in closing them. I'd recommend changing the text—all the text, not just the lede/taxobox—and then move what you can, and when you've done a bunch of them that you can't move maybe list them here or just say what taxon you did or something and then JHJ or myself or someone else can move the rest. That would be more efficient, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of preemptive drama and move war avoidance, I would suggest all such moves contain in their edit summary a link to the discussion: ]--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The direct link to the discussion is Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation. The more systematic approach is discusssed on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#What's needed?. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

Well, it is now. It wasn't when I wrote the post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne Hotel

Hello. I've removed a redirect which looked irrelevant. I'd like to move my userpage User:Zigzig20s/Melbourne Hotel to Melbourne Hotel, but because the page already exists, it won't let me. Can an administrator please do it for me? Thank you. Sorry--I don't know how else to ask after reading the project page; it's not clear at all...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No admin action needed. Move your page to Melbourne Hotel (Perth) and convert the page at Melbourne Hotel to a dab. The is no good way to determine which if any of these is the primary topic. I also suspect that there are other like named hotels that are notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Which ones? At the moment, the Melbourne Hotel page redirects to a hotel which is not actually named Melbourne Hotel at all (though it used to be named that way). So the current redirect seems irrelevant. We have here a hotel actually named Melbourne Hotel however, so I don't see why it shouldn't occupy this page...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Vegaswikian that this redirect should become dab & should not be used as the name for the new article. The redirect is not irrelevant as it provides a redirect for a researcher looking for the historic hotel in Florida by its original name. The new article should become Melbourne Hotel (Perth) as to not confuse anyone. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why, as that hotel in the US is no longer called the Melbourne Hotel. I think the hotel in Perth bearing this name should be found at Melbourne Hotel, with a see also line at the top for the American hotel (which is a detail). Misplaced Pages is not meant just for the USA.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many hotels in Misplaced Pages using the format of Hotel (Location) - it is a common technique used to avoid confusion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, but here we have a hotel bearing the exact name...It makes no sense to redirect this page to a hotel with a different name!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense as it avoids confusion to use a dab when there are two or more hotels with the exact same name, and identify each by some other characteristic. The fact that the name has changed is very relevant to the history and using a dab makes it easier on researchers, IMHO. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Nothing a hatnote can't fix. I have moved the userspace draft to Melbourne Hotel. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Melbourne Hotel (Perth) until consensus can be achieve per this discussion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

But your move really makes no sense as your hotel is NO LONGER named Melbourne Hotel??Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Your hotel"? Just because a hotel has been re purposed, does not mean it is not nor can be considered as the primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's use some common sense here. There are two articles on buildings that might be referred to as the Melbourne Hotel. Even under normal circumstances, a dab page is not required, but one of these articles doesn't even include Melbourne Hotel in the title. There is thus no conflict between titles, since no one is suggesting 1900 Building should be renamed. A simple hatnote will get readers to the other article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This seem to me a fairly clear cut case. The article on a topic actually and currently named Melbourne Hotel is the primary topic when what it is compared to is another topic actually known by a different title, that has not been its name since 1984, and for which there appears to be far less mention in reliable sources. The red link currently on the DAB page barely looms as figuring into the equation. The basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to existing Misplaced Pages pages (red links shouldn't even appear on DAB pages unless articles also include that red link and there are only three here; see MOS:DABRL). To top if off, the red link name is not even clearly ambiguous with the topic. Thus, WP:TWODABS applies; the article should be moved back to the primary title and a hatnote will take care of anyone searching for the old name of the 1900 building. It doesn't look like there will be many such people needing it for direction – which is the very reason why a hatnote is more appropriate than a DAB page here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed the same logic I used when I moved the draft to the undabbed location. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Any further commentary or should we restore the solution I had originally made? Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs moving?

Hi, just in case someone who understands the procedure can do something with this...

It seems that Talk:Kalgoorlie, Western Australia got "left behind" and should go to Talk:Kalgoorlie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.61.186 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 May 2014

•  Done Cheers! bd2412 T 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving a part of an existing page to a new page

Dear,

I do not know how I can move a part of an existing (too long) page to a new (separate) page.

It has indeed be suggested and agreed that the section The Bruckner Problem of the page Anton Bruckner would be moved to a separate page called "The Bruckner Problem". See Proposal: move the Bruckner problem material to a separate article.

Please let me know how I have to proceed for doing it.

Thank you in advance for your help, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to do it, but I have not succeeded. See The Versions and Editions of Bruckner's Symphonies. Please help. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Meneerke bloem: You're on the right track. See Misplaced Pages:Splitting. You have the new detailed sub-article. Now, remove redundant text from the parent article, leaving just a summary of the sub-topic, per Misplaced Pages:Summary style. This is not something page-moving can handle. Copy-paste with attribution, per Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Harbor Commons / New York Wheel

Harbor Commons previously contained both 'Harbor Commons' and 'New York Wheel' material. More than half of the content, and most of the edits, were New York Wheel specific. The 'Wheel' material has just been split to New York Wheel (which was previously a redirect).

The 'split' edits appears not to comply with WP:PROSPLIT (To conform with Misplaced Pages's licensing requirements, which require that content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from ]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to ]".)

Bearing in mind the content/edit proportions, does the following course of action look appropriate?

• Revert Harbor Commons 'split' edit
• Delete New York Wheel
• Move Harbor Commons to (new) New York Wheel page
• Split 'Harbor Commons' material from (new) New York Wheel page to new Harbor Commons page in a manner compatible with WP:PROSPLIT

Asking here on account of the 'move' component. TIA. 180.183.4.79 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey 180.183.4.79. No need. All you need is two dummy edits, one at each page providing belated copyright attribution. See, e.g. here for an example.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Giant Markets

Talk:Giant Food Markets of Broome County, New York#Move? (17-26 March 2014) is overdue for closing. 82.132.217.154 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I re-opened the requested move, which had been improperly closed, albeit in good faith. Sorry, once the tag is removed from the talk page, the request fell off of our radar. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Portal renames

Can some people please look at Portal talk:Molecular and cellular biology where portals are being renamed after having failed to establish consensus? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Time between RMs

Copied from Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Time between RMs

Should there be a minimum time between RM discussions? Specifically, a minimum time after a RM proposal failed to gain consensus before trying much the same thing again? I think there should be, because it is easily trolled and exhausting of participants, distracting to editors who would rather improve content, and because repetition causes people to instinctively dig their heels in. An exception would be new or different information to previous RMs. Otherwise, I think six months is reasonable, and has sort of been followed historically. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Six months seems to be pretty traditional, one downside of naming an exact number is it invites those dissatisfied with the previous outcome to try every X units of time. The other problem I see making it explicit is that if and when new information comes up that might change the result, people will toss out "But it hasn't been X units of time yet". There is also the difference between a non-conensus result and definitive earlier result. That all said, I actually agree six months is good time limit for the first retry, but might want to see if up to nine months or a year if that fails. I'd also add larger scope consensus changes as something that would allow a relist; such as an RfC that changed a guideline or policy, though in those cases the impacted pages in theory could be moved without an RM. And I would allow wrong venues to relist, for example an RM that involved a disambiguation page that neglected to notify all the related pages; and allow of course the move review process to send something back for relisting. PaleAqua (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  One other exception I'd allow is if an significant number of !voters change their view after an RM closes. PaleAqua (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Any "good reason" should be sufficient. However, how do you test whether !voters change their mind unless you have been continuing to discuss it? If you continually discuss it, then you bias results to favour those who are prepared to repeatedly "discuss" the same thing, and this is an off-putting behaviour. The counter-question is: "Is six months really that long?". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, any "good reason", not just new or changed information. Badgering/beating dead horse shouldn't be allowed, but it is possible for people to change opinions on their own. I know I have at times. Also a lot of times consensus builds over lots of separate but similar localized things into something generalized. PaleAqua (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral - closing admins often give guidance, 3, 6 or 12 months. These have been raised about 10 days back at WP:AN with the suggestion that a log/list of such closes should be made. To be honest I think it's working as is and doesn't need overregulating. Some RMs are poorly attended, or not seen, or something else happens elsewhere. Those RMs shouldn't be held to an iron 6 month rule. If it's the annual Burma/Myanmar, HillaryClinton or SarahBrown fest, well... those cases have plenty of article watchers saying enough is enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Setting a time limit does not really address the underlying issue - which is that it is disruptive to rehash the same arguments over and over again. Rather than pegging the filing of a second RM on some arbitrary passage of time, I think the deciding factor should be whether the proposer can bring something new to the discussion (something not discussed or ignored in the previous RM). Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with that. Perhaps a requirement that a repeat RM within six months of the last close must directly address that discussion, and state what is new about this new proposal? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why allow a rehash after six months? It's still disruptive to repeat the same arguments over and over... no matter how much time has passed.

Side Question... would it make sense to move this discussion to WT:RM? It is kind of peripheral to what this policy page is about. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The point here was to add something to Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah... I understand. Then I definitely oppose... I don't think Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes is the right venue to discuss the issue. How much time should pass between RMs is a procedural question that is better stated at WP:RM. This policy is more focused on the "big picture" ... as long as we point to WP:RM (which we do), we can leave it to WP:RM to set its own procedures. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC) .

• • To help avoid repetition, a couple of times I've created frequently asked questions lists/summaries covering the arguments for the various positions being taken, so any new discussion can start with, "See the FAQ—do you have anything to add?" I think this helps a lot with perennial discussions. isaacl (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We should certainly discourage people from flogging a dead horse, but I don't think a general time restriction is the way to do it, given the wide range of potential circumstances. The rule would also be rather vague and difficult to apply, particularly the exception for "new or different information to previous RMs". You could virtually always argue that there was new information, such as how the person/thing/whatever has been referred to in sources published since the previous RM. Neljack (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm with In ictu oculi - namely, I think such moratoria are sometimes appropriate, and in such cases they are usually imposed by the closing administrator, in response to comments about a moratorium in the discussion they are closing. In other words, in such cases a moratorium is part of the consensus evaluated by the closer. It usually includes the caveat that the discussion CAN be reopened if new information becomes available or if someone comes up with a new argument. This is currently within closer/consensus discretion and should remain there. We don't need a rule saying that it SHOULD be done, or specifying the term length. Basically I strongly support maintaining the option of such a cooling-off period, but I oppose making it into a rule. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add the tradition to the this page. It only needs to be one sentence long eg:

While consensus can change, unless there is substantial new information to present, or the previous requested move was closed with another re-list time, wait at least six months before initiating an new requested move.

I disagree with user:In ictu oculi assumption that just because a RM is poorly attended that it should a reason to reopen a debate more quickly. I think puser:Blueboar that many editors get caught up in such discussions and are worried that unless they keep rehashing their position, that their opponent will assume that silence is consent, so they continue to dance like a puppet on a string, when really all they want to do is move on to something more constructive. An explicit time-out rule like this would help to dampen down the fires. After a time consensus can change and new editors may enter the debate so rehashing the same points is not necessarily undesirable. What is undesirable is rehashing them before enough time has passed for a new consensus to emerge.

The six month moratorium is known to regulars at RM and is considered good practice, but may not be known to other less experienced editors (why should it be). Adding a sentence making the tradition explicit will still allow closers to give further guidance, but the default would be a time-out rather than the ambiguous situation we have at the moment which allows move warriors to feign ignorance of best practice and continue their campaign ignoring the outcome of an RM that the do not like. The most obvious example I know which would have benefited editors waiting at least six months between bouts is the great yogurt fight. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)