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 Station1 (talk | contribs) at 06:56, 9 May 2020 (→Uncontroversial technical requests: 1 done, 1 left). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.
Add a new request
Remove all requests

Technical requests

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Mrs. Mary Eales's Receipts (currently a redirect to Mrs Mary Eales's Receipts) → Mrs Mary Eales's Receipts (move · discuss) – Punctuation per published version (see image on article page of first edition); this is also the common BrEng form. SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Prefixing AD to 3-digit dates

YEARDAB:

For all the above, firstly, the RFC at Article Titles, said that there is no consensus to use AD. Secondly, is there any reason why the entire discussion of changing names, etc. took place on your talk page and not a project/project subpage? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AD is the disambiguator for all years that need it (such as AD 7), there was no consensus at the 2019 RFC to change that but since it had already been used for 2 digit numbers and 911 and 999 its established, though you can raise that specifically in another discussion. NCNUM was notified at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#3 digit number move discussions and this has been used since. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in this one (and all the previous batches) everyone has supported this, although I did note there could be formal RMs for any people thought were actually controversial I don't see that that applies to the whole batch which community (and local) consensus is clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the moves. They've had several pairs of eyes on them, they match long discussions for 1–100 and previous uncontested moves for 101–150, and they bring consistency to the series. Several later years have already been moved piecemeal with no serious opposition. Certes (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, there is well-supported precedent now. Three-digit titles have inherently no WP:Primary topic, so that whenever something else than the year can be described by that title, it usually becomes a dab page. And the disambiguated title for common-era years has been established in multiple RfCs as "AD nnn" (not "nnn (year)", "nnn CE", "nnn AD" nor anything else). — JFG talk 15:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:Sir Joseph has questioned the proposed move of the year articles it no longer qualifies for immediate action here; it should have a full discussion. How do people feel about opening a formal move request at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)? EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little hesitant about a move discussion at a user's talk page. I understand there was a notice on the project page, but that isn't the same as a discussion and people might not have noticed that. I'm not terrible invested in it one way or another, but I do think we would benefit from a more thorough discussion on how to deal with these considering that there are concerns with years and prefixes (suffixes) such as AD/CE/BCE, etc, that we find in WP:ERA in many different projects and I think we can wait a few days to see what that discussion comes up with so I think Ed's suggestion is a good one. While there, I think it would be a good idea to see if there is a way to automate these moves or if it's not even possible. If not, maybe making a subpage of TR, so once we do move these, we can do these in blocks without interfering with one another, since we had that happen in the past where a move script interfered with another move script and it cause problems. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These moves no longer appear to be particularly controversial so I don't think anything more was needed and as was noted individual ones can go through RM if they are actually controversial. If you think AD/CE/BCE needs more discussion then that's a separate discussion, the point is that that is the format used for all other years that need disambiguation as per the consensus several years ago and in 2019. Note that for the years after 200 we will probably need some larger way of discussing them but the 25 a time batches seems to work for up to 200. Indeed a script would probably be helpful but User:Ahecht/Scripts/sandbox.js is one that already exists for actually converting to DABs though one for detecting (lack of) primary topics would also be good. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was active in guiding the transition from one- and two-digit years (discussion of those moves was centralized at Talk:AD 1; see RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years?) and was aware that certain 3-digit titles (e.g. 404, 411, 666, 911 and 999) had been moved on a case-by-case basis, some with discussion and some apparently boldly. But I've just now become aware that a systematic mass-move of three-digit years has been initiated with the discussion centered at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#Batch 1 where "the 3-digit RM posse" was invited to form a local consensus. An RfC about articles on three digit numbers found no consensus for this – has there been a subsequent RfC that changed that consensus? Was WT:WikiProject Years notified about this new local discussion about mass-moving 3-digit years? I see an issue reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Year links in category descriptions and oppose further moves of this nature before any broken pages such as Category:142 establishments are fixed first. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reported the issue of 142 establishments etc. at WikiProject Years and suggested a simple fix. It affects only category blurb. I encourage someone to evaluate that suggestion and apply it if they see fit. Certes (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=955691699"