→Hold requests: re |
→Hold requests: re |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
:'''Comment''' I'm a bit dubious that the Elizabeth one should have opened while the Charles one was pending, but given that it was, and that it dealt with every other British monarch of the past three centuries but George I and II, I'd say it's fair enough to also discuss the appropriate name of the two monarchs of that period who are not the subject of the previous RMs. That way, the same principles will be applied and we'll have consistent naming practices, hopefully.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
:'''Comment''' I'm a bit dubious that the Elizabeth one should have opened while the Charles one was pending, but given that it was, and that it dealt with every other British monarch of the past three centuries but George I and II, I'd say it's fair enough to also discuss the appropriate name of the two monarchs of that period who are not the subject of the previous RMs. That way, the same principles will be applied and we'll have consistent naming practices, hopefully.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
::It's not the perfect template, but you could remove the RM template and add {{t|Closing}} inside of an {{t|atop}}/{{t|abot}} pair, using {{para|estimate}} to indicate that you are waiting on the close of the other discussion. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
::It's not the perfect template, but you could remove the RM template and add {{t|Closing}} inside of an {{t|atop}}/{{t|abot}} pair, using {{para|estimate}} to indicate that you are waiting on the close of the other discussion. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::...on the other hand, the first move in question is so straight-forward that it does not need to be closed pending the outcome of the other. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:31, 31 July 2023
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 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Backlog notice, revisited
I brought this up a bit over a year ago at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 34#Backlog notice, and the status quo was kept, but things are changing with the template and it feels like a good time to bring it up again.
Right now, the backlog notice at the top of the page requests help from administrators. In reality, the majority of editors who perform these moves are page movers, or sometimes even just normal editors. Outside of very few cases (which can be brought up at RM/TR if a page mover closes the request, or left for an admin to officially close), most moves are performable by any page mover. Therefore, I suggest changing the backlog notice to something along the lines of "This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more page movers.", or just the generic message from {{backlog}}.
The reason I bring this up now is that the currently-used template, {{Admin backlog}}, is being merged into {{backlog}}. If the bot will have to be updated (which it probably will, given I imagine a parameter needs to be added), this would be a convenient time to request wbm1058 update the bot. (We also have a giant backlog at the moment (please help!), and all of the requests I've checked have been closable by me; if anyone wants to check and confirm that a significant portion of the requests do not require admin help, this would be a good time.)
I guess the one question I have is whether this is possible in {{backlog}}, but I imagine someone can update the template if it's not. (Once again, the template has to be updated to account for the merge from Admin backlog, so I don't think this is a big deal.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
RMCI edits
@2pou: Regarding Special:Diff/1163031477, thanks for the discussion link. It was to make RMCI a guideline, and from what I observe from skimming it, it is likely a no consensus case, so it remained an essay. The "mandatory" part was added by @Red Slash during the course of RfC, but since the RfC itself remains unresolved, I think it would be better as the status quo. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom, I honestly have no qualms with what you are working towards, and you can feel free to restore. More than anything, I thought that the lack of linkage to the previous discussion was an issue considering the {{efn}} word choice and that having it at least linked in the history would help with posterity (since it took me some time to find out what it was even referring to). I figured using the Undo feature would also alert you in case you weren’t aware previously. Concur that mandatory comes off a bit strong. -2pou (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Move request from "Draft:Fifty Vinc (record producer) to "Draft:Fifty Vinc"
Hey everyone, I would like to request a move from Draft:Fifty Vinc (record producer) to Draft:Fifty Vinc. I think, in regards to the topic and content in the draft article, the title "Fifty Vinc" is more fitting. Thanks in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Done —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- That was quick. Thank you very much. Matthew Tailor (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:CHEMPREFIX moves
In a request for WP:CHEMPREFIX move, the following discussion took place:
While I'd gladly perform any such moves per WP:CHEMPREFIX, I think we could be more systematic and create the huge list of pages that would need to be moved under this criteria and let a bot handle this (TolBot). I expect the number of such pages to range in several hundreds if not thousands. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think a potential approach could be to write a query to search "alpha", "beta", etc. in page title, and checking if it falls within WP:WPCHEM domain. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Any such list should also be checked against the WP:COMMONNAME, as some compounds appear frequently in advertising, and lay discussions, nutrition and diet material, so may indeed exist most commonly as the spelled-out latin-lettered form -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Asked for a query: Wikipedia:Request a query#Spelled out Latin characters in Chemistry articles. If anyone has ideas to make the query better, feel free to chime in. I also agree that in some cases, the spelled out form might be common name (e.g., Omega-3 fatty acid), so a manual reviewer might have to go through such a list, to weed out these cases. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- There, Cryptic wrote: "quarry:query/75087 now has pages transcluding either chembox or infobox drug, and quarry:query/75088 pages whose talk transcludes either of the wikiproject templates. Both, and quarry:query/75085 for the cat tree results, correctly match non-space word boundaries now, too, so should've had a lot more results even before adding the alternate templates." Would anybody like to jump into it, filter it and initiate a mass move? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Asked for a query: Wikipedia:Request a query#Spelled out Latin characters in Chemistry articles. If anyone has ideas to make the query better, feel free to chime in. I also agree that in some cases, the spelled out form might be common name (e.g., Omega-3 fatty acid), so a manual reviewer might have to go through such a list, to weed out these cases. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Any such list should also be checked against the WP:COMMONNAME, as some compounds appear frequently in advertising, and lay discussions, nutrition and diet material, so may indeed exist most commonly as the spelled-out latin-lettered form -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Requested moves/Technical enhancements
I've drafted up a template (Template:RMTR) to help make responses to requested moves a little better by adding done and not done with reasons, which could be expanded to standard RMs if wanted, but the point of this discussion is to determine if there is consensus to implement this template to RM/TR. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is all of this complexity (for either process) really necessary? RMTR seems to be working fine as is. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes but currently done requests are removed immediately after fulfilment, which makes it hard for users to easily check on their requests. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- People familiar enough with Wikipedia processes to request moves should know how to check the page history. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though it makes requesting input easier. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- People familiar enough with Wikipedia processes to request moves should know how to check the page history. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes but currently done requests are removed immediately after fulfilment, which makes it hard for users to easily check on their requests. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be opposed to having some standard templates for not done (This article has been moved in the past, a name change does not mean the article title should change until COMMONNAME is met, etc.), but I think our removal of requests works fine for now for requests that are done.. The one thing that might be useful is an archive for past requests, which there was an RFCBEFORE for, but I can't figure out if that was ever followed up on. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm quite tempted to use my very limited python knowledge to write a bot that does clerking tasks, though that will be a few months until I figure it out. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 04:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
RMTR invisible comment
The "remove all requests" button currently uses the old version of the invisible comment, which states to place new requests at the top instead of the bottom. That should be updated, and I would do it myself, but it requires the queue to be cleared using the current method (reverting to an old revision of the page). If the next person who clears the queue and sees this can make this change, that would be appreciated. I've left the code below (it was created above at #Top or bottom?, which seems to be past the 30 day archive limit so that may get archived soon?) – it should be added under the uncontroversial requests. revert requests and admin needed headings.
<!-- Insert the following code below, filling in page names and reason: {{subst:RMassist| current page title | new title | reason = reason for move}} and enter on a new line, at the bottom of the existing list; do not add spare lines between entries; do not add a bullet point; if you do not wish the request to be converted into an RM if contested, then add |discuss=no --> Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I figured this was likely to get forgotten, so I just did it now instead of waiting. Here's the diff between the old and new blank revisions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have also asked at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#WP:RMTR new entries order to implement the change. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Question re John Hunt Publishing
I occasionally get ads from this company by email. About a month ago, got one that they were changing their name to Collective Ink. Sure enough, their website now redirects you to the new site wholly branded with the new identity. But, no source covers this change. What to do? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Rather than hold discussion here, it should take place on the talk page of the article. However, we follow independent reliable sources per WP:NAMECHANGES, so if there are none available that use the new name, it may be too early to proceed with a move. Dekimasuよ! 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I hear you. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Twitter page discussion
A move discussion was started on the talk page of Twitter, but it doesn't look like the template was set up correctly. I don't feel that I know enough to fix this, but I'm hoping this is the right place to mention it and that someone else can. - Odin (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- The move discussion was closed based on WP:SNOW, so this resolved itself. - Odin (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Hold requests
Is there a way of putting some move requests on hold while another move request is dealt with? See some discussions at Talk:Charles III, Talk:Elizabeth II, and Talk:George I of Great Britain. PatGallacher (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a bit dubious that the Elizabeth one should have opened while the Charles one was pending, but given that it was, and that it dealt with every other British monarch of the past three centuries but George I and II, I'd say it's fair enough to also discuss the appropriate name of the two monarchs of that period who are not the subject of the previous RMs. That way, the same principles will be applied and we'll have consistent naming practices, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)