Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requested moves

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 7 November 2014 (→Requests to revert undiscussed moves: Furthermore...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. In either case, if you are unable to complete/revert the move, request it below.

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.
  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to a technical move is another page in the way, you can request the other page be deleted. This applies for example if the other page is a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. If it has a single history line, see WP:Move over redirect instead. To request the other page be deleted, add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves


  • Dutch Landrace goat → Dutch Landrace (goat) (move) (discuss) – Moved in good faith by Anthony Appleyard following a request here by SMcCandlish, who knows perfectly well that his preferred form of title is controversial and does not have WikiProject consensus – Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cited ample evidence it isn't controversial. Also, please stop with these "who knows perfectly well" in loco parentis comments. Not only is it grossly incivil, it's doubly fallacious, as both the fallacy ad homimem and the fallacy of begging the question (a form of the circular reasoning fallacy; your premise is that moving animal breed articles, ever, at all, should be automatically controversial, but this has not been demonstrated by anything, and you cannot proceed by stating this as a known fact in your efforts to demonstrate that it's true). PS: It also constitutes imputing mental states to me that Jlan cannot possibly know unless he's become omniscient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xinjiang goat → Xinjiang Goat (move) (discuss) – SMcCandlish knows perfectly well that any move of an animal breed article is to be regarded as potentially controversial and to be handled through the ordinary RM process, as he has been told by Jenks24, by me, and by the entire community which imposed a three-month move ban on him for such moves. He also knows perfectly well that the "natural disambiguation" he is attempting to impose on these articles does not have the consensus of the relevant WikiProjects. How much more of this is needed before it is seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE? – Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no policy to that effect anywhere, and you're not going to magically create one with hostility like this. You and Montanabw made a big deal out of my incautious mass moves of articles several months ago, but this doesn't qualify. (And the point of a three-month move ban is that it lasts for three months, not forever.) You then failed to gain consensus to undo those moves anyway; while my actions were controversial in being a somewhat unilateral effort at article naming consistency cleanup, it turns out that the community has actually accepted my rationales for them retroactively, despite your organized efforts to overturn them. There's nothing controversial at all about this Xinjiang Goat to Xinjiang goat move, or that of Don Goat to Don goat, below. They simply comply with a) the wording in the articles themselves, b) WP:NCCAPS, c) MOS:CAPS, d) MOS:LIFE, e) the rest of the breed names in that and other categories, and f) all the recent relevant RMs that have closed with a consensus. I suppose this will pointlessly go to a regular RM discussion now, where these points will be borne out, and that's okay, though it's a bit of a waste of time.

      On the question of disruptiveness, I think your hostile post here fits that description (particularly under WP:POINT); see also your antagonistic and content-destructive revert here, and renewed hostile posting between you and Montanabw about me at your talk page here, a continuation of a long-standing pattern of verbal abuse by the two of you. [Update: See also two incivil accusations in short order by Jlan of incompetence on my part that boomerang back on him, here and here.] I'm sorry that you didn't get your way in some RMs, but you need to stop personalizing and outright manufacturing disputes. Update: He's continuing anyway, contesting a dozen more uncontroversial moves, above, despite virtually no chance they will not proceed as I've requested.

      PS: Someone asked me a while back why I was using RM to make noncontroversial moves that I didn't really need administrative assistance with, instead of just moving them myself. This is why. After a great deal of deliberation, I cautiously moved these two articles myself, them being utterly noncontroversial moves (for at least 6 reasons, already enumerated above), predicting that certain parties would be drawn out and demonstrate a WP:BATTLEGROUND goal of undoing any move I made simply because I made it. I'm sad to be proven correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      PPS: Three aspects of Jlan's edit summary also have to be addressed here: 1) "his moves of animal breed articles...": This is clear evidence that Jlan is pursuing, and involving RM in, a personal dispute with me in particular, not raising a policy- and facts-based concern. 2) "moves of animal breed articles are controversial": They are not, any more than article moves in any other topic (in fact, far less so than in many). Jlan keeps asserting this this special controversialness, but it's just not there except to the extent that he's making it happen. 3) "do not have consensus within the relevant WikiProjects": This fails WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, as RM is not beholden to getting consent from wikiprojects that claim scope, but rather follows WP:AT policy and (where it delegates to them) site-wide guidelines such as WP:MOS and WP:NCCAPS. It also appears to assume falsely that I'm some kind of outsider to these projects, when I'm actually a participant in them, and regularly edit content in these sorts of articles, and even create new ones, e.g. Dutch Landrace pig, which I created, with sources, yesterday. Jlan is in no more position to speak for WP:AGRICULTURE than I am. It's very noteworthy in this regard that Jlan and the two other editors opposing most of my RMs over the last several months have been virtually alone in their efforts. WP:AGRICULTURE, WP:MAMMALS, etc., have had months to "rise up" and declare a unified opposition to MOS:CAPS, WP:NATURAL, and other policies and guidelines these RMs reference, and they have not done so. (Even if they did, they'd then need to make a case at those policies and guidelines to change them, not just insist on ignoring them in "their" articles. We've been over that idea many time before,and it's why WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy exists, to circumvent it.) I'll turn Jlan's question back on him: "How much more of this is needed before it is seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE?"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=632831058"