Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requested moves page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requested moves page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days

I'd like to see article CBLT moved to CBLT-DT, as the television station has switched to digital broadcasts, and its call-sign has changed accordingly. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page isn't the place to post a move request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move to request a page move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, the name of this elector and bishop was only "Franz Georg von Schönborn", not "von Schönborn-Buchheim". Please look at the discussion of the article. It is right that the family von Schönbon got goods from von Buchheim in 1711, but they did not add "von Buchheim" to their name. Please change the lemma to "Franz Georg von Schönborn". Kindest regards -- Spurzem (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page isn't the place to post a move request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move to request a page move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My English is not so good that I could understand the instructions. Sometimes it is difficult to understand it in German. Therefore I ask you to do it for me. Thank you very much. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There have been a couple of instances lately where a closure has been questioned on the grounds that the discussion was ongoing. I wonder if it would be helpful to institute a standard measure for this. If no new posts have been made to a move discussion in 24 hours, is it safe to close? 48 hours? 96 hours?

There are rare occasions where it's appropriate to close a discussion even though it's ongoing, but those are fairly bold judgment calls that fall well within IAR territory. If we're going to adopt a guideline regarding closing ongoing discussions, it would probably be best to say that in almost all circumstances, an ongoing discussion that reaches the backlog should probably be relisted instead of being closed.

Thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• RMs can sometimes be a bit slow, and I get the feeling not that many people are really interested in RMs or know what page to watch for these. I'm inclined to go for 48 hours. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer not to bring in a standard measure. I often comment on RMs in the backlog in the hope helping the closing admins see a consensus (and I don't think I'm the only one). If that makes the RM last a further 24 or 48 hours, that would kind of defeat the point. Perhaps if there was a distinction made between and actual threaded discussion and simply support/oppose with no follow up comments by any other participants. But even in those cases, I think common sense would serve better than having some hard-and-fast rule. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of agree. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the point of relisting these so that closers don't "waste time" looking at them? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 100% clear, I admit. I think of the backlog as a list of discussions that need closing. If a discussion isn't ready for that, it's nice to move it out of the backlog, and I think this makes it easier for closers to go straight to discussions where they're needed. It can sometimes create heat and static if ongoing discussions are closed by an over-eager closer, and bumping them up to the top of the list makes that much less likely.

I guess we could also agree to let discussions stay in the backlog while things wind down, and not to mind if the backlog gets big. That feels kind of weird, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing requested move tags from userspace drafts and telling those who placed them that they should submit their new article to AFC. This was the plan according to this discussion. I've noticed that this is something that a bot should be able to search and execute fairly easily. Does anybody have bot experience? I've posted at bot requests (very backlogged and busy) and got some offers of help.

I've also realized that part of the reason these requests keep coming to RM is because of the wording of the {{userspace draft}} template. It says "Finished? move the page". Autoconfirmed users can move pages, unless the target already exists or is protected, but newer users cannot, and as a result they attempt to move the page, then upon realizing they can't they follow instructions for a move request. This bites because these editors are getting the runaround. We might be able to direct these users to AFC if we change the template. Thoughts? Cliff (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we're going to direct new users here to move their new articles into the main namespace, then we ought to handle those moves here. If we're not going to do that, then the {{userspace draft}} template should change, and direct them somewhere more appropriate. Letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing is certainly a good idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bot that will affect the RM process is being discussed for approval, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4. Cliff (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Water pollution should be name Water Pollution with a capital "P". Due to my OCD, I felt it necessary to bring such a small matter to the attention of others.