Wikipedia:Page movement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:35, 9 January 2009

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

This page in a nutshell: Although most users are entitled to move pages, pages should generally only be moved according to WP:NAME and should not otherwise be moved against WP:CONSENSUS.

Page movement sets out Wikipedia's policy on page moves and Wikipedia:Requested moves. This policy should be interpreted using other policies and not in isolation. In particular editors should familiarise themselves with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NAME and WP:IAR.

Introduction

On Wikipedia, usually anyone logged in can rename a page from its current name to a new one. This is also called "moving" because the effect is as if the page has been moved. A redirect is automatically created at its old name so that links still work.

Common reasons for moving pages are:

Decapitalization - Improper capitalization of page titles, against capitalization guidelines.
Misspelled – The most common reason is that a page name is misspelled or incorrectly capitalized. Please fix any and all of these as you see them.
NPOV – Terms used in a title express a perceived bias or point-of-view (POV). NPOV policy requires that articles be given "neutral" titles – using the most general and objective terms. (Redirect titles are not covered by NPOV policy.)
Disambiguation – Ambiguous titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic.

Never cut-and-paste

Pages should be moved using the Special:MovePage function, never using cut-and-paste. The latter damages attribution history — The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.

Edited redirects

Moved pages which have been made irreversible by trivial additions to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves. A non-administrator can have such redirects deleted under WP:CSD#G6 by posting at its top {{db-move}}.

Often the edits are more significant, e.g. the redirect page has been turned into a disambiguation page, or the target of the redirect has been changed.

After moving

After a page is moved, the redirect should generally be kept and categorized accordingly, unless the redirect is demonstrably harmful, and especially if it is a plausible or common misspelling (or not a misspelling at all). If a page was erroneously created once at the wrong title, there is a good chance it will happen again (as a duplicate article). However, if the redirect is truly an implausible search parameter and it was recently created, it may be tagged for speedy deletion by posting at its top {{db-r3}}.

Uncontroversial and controversial moves

If there is no reason to anticipate controversy on a page move, the page may simply be moved. This may be done directly or else by listing it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting uncontroversial moves.

Although it is likely that a move suggestion anticipated as potentially controversial will be removed from this section if placed there, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle applies and there is no requirement that the user moving the page be 100% certain that there is no opposition. If the move is reverted, the proponent of a page move should not edit war to achieve his goal, but instead list it as a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Other_proposals. There is no requirement that the person listing the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves be a proponent of the move.

Mass moves

When requesting that multiple pages be moved, it is not necessary to have individual discussions for each one, if the issues involved are the same for each one. The talk place should take place on only one of the articles' talk pages, with notices on the other talk pages of the articles to be moved, directing editors to the discussion.

Closing a move discussion

Editors closing move discussions should consider all applicable policies and guidelines when determining consensus, most commonly WP:Consensus, WP:Naming conventions and WP:Neutral point of view . Editors who have been involved in the discussion should not close it. If consensus is unclear, non-administrators should not close the discussion. (See WP:Non-admin closure for some widely-accepted guidelines as to how this applies to deletion discussions.)

Appealing the closure of a Wikipedia:Requested moves proposal

There is no formal procedure for appealing a closure of a move request. Generally speaking, if you believe the closing editor was in error, first discuss the close with that editor. If you are unable to reach agreement with him or her, you may request review on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, where other editors and administrators can review the decision. A consensus is required to overturn a closing decision.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 == Uncontroversial and controversial moves ==
-If there is no reason to anticipate controversy on a page move, the page may simply be moved. This may be done directly or else by listing it at [[Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_uncontroversial_moves|WP:RM#Requesting uncontroversial moves]].
+If there is no reason to anticipate controversy on a page move, the page may simply be moved. This may be done directly or else by listing it at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting uncontroversial moves]].
-Although it is likely that a move suggestion anticipated as potentially controversial will be removed from this section if placed there, [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] applies and there is no requirement that the user moving the page be 100% certain that there is no opposition. If the move is reverted, the proponent of a page move should not [[WP:Edit war|edit war]] to achieve his goal, but instead list it as a proposal at [[Wikipedia:RM#Other_proposals]]. There is no requirement that the person listing the page at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] be a proponent of the move.
+Although it is likely that a move suggestion anticipated as potentially controversial will be removed from this section if placed there, [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] applies and there is no requirement that the user moving the page be 100% certain that there is no opposition. If the move is reverted, the proponent of a page move should not [[WP:Edit war|edit war]] to achieve his goal, but instead list it as a proposal at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves#Other_proposals]]. There is no requirement that the person listing the page at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] be a proponent of the move.
-=== Avoid seeking out controversies ===
-An editor should not invoke the Requested move process as an absentee filer, or for unnecessary reasons such as a hypothetical controversy. Unnecessary process is wasteful and absentee process is a discourteous failure to discuss. Both frustrate the goal of retaining productive editors to build the project.
-*An unnecessary RM process occurs when an editor lists an RM because it hypothetically ''might'' be controversial, or is objectionable to others – rather than the listing editor.
-Many helpful moves can unhelpfully be made into time-wasting controversies to be processed. Someone, somewhere, can be found to object to most project edits, even though most edits are adequate to build the project through [[WP:Eventualism|eventualism]].
-By contrast, an RM process with sufficient cause occurs due to an editor's own objection to a move – based on stated, objective reasons that avoid [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]].
-*An absentee RM process occurs when an editor lists an RM without posting to the talk page.
-An absentee RM listing may be requested for delisting by objecting to it under the listing at the [[WP:RM]] page.
-=== Cooperate with article RfCs ===
-Avoid process conflicts with RfCs that have reached consensus related to a page move.
-An article [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, templates, or categories|Request for comment]] (RfC) is a general process for obtaining wider community consensus on page content, hosted on the article's talk page. An RfC can discuss all topics including page move renames. A [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] (RM) is a narrow process that only discusses page move renames. To avoid a [[WP:Wikilawyer|wikilawyer-like]] outcome by which details defeat principles, a narrow process should defer to a general process.
-An editor who objects to a move made in accordance with a recent RfC, should attempt to determine other editors' views of his/her objections. If being a new editor to the article, he/she may not know important facts that led to the move. The objecting editor should post to an open RfC, or if closed, elsewhere on the article's talk page.
-This discussing of one's objection takes some time and effort, comparable to, and respectful of, the effort that other editors put into the RfC consensus. Failure to discuss substantially, followed by an RM, is also considered an absentee listing that may be requested for delisting. (See [[Wikipedia:Page movement#Avoid seeking out controversies|#Avoid seeking out controversies]] above)
-*If the objecting and other editors cannot come to an agreement, the objecting editor may file an appeal of the move using the same process by which Requested moves are appealed.
-*If the objecting editor files an RM, rather than an appeal, other editors may request a change to an RM appeal, by objecting under the listing at the [[WP:RM]] page.
 ==Mass moves==