UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests/Archive/2011 04

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

This page is for the requesting of page moves by normal users. The average user's ability to move pages has been rescinded due to frequent abuse by vandals; as such, users will need to submit requests (similar in nature to those on Speedy Deletions and Protections) for pages to be moved by a sysop.

Guidelines for requesting a Page Move

Copy the template below (Or just type it), replace the text in red with the relevant details, and paste the template under the Move Request Queue heading. A day after a sysop has taken action on the request, move requests should be moved to the Archive.


Move Request Queue

There are no pages in the move request queue

Recent Actions

Actions via "question marks"


No worries pussycat, done. I left the redirect incase of incoming links. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 10:51, 28 April 2011 (BST)

Random Revive Policy

Looking how established (and linked) the policy is under that name, I'm not sure if that would be a sensible change. (Will check tomorrow though how much of the linkage comes from the template and if changing that one could easily take care of the global renameing.) -- Spiderzed 23:07, 26 April 2011 (BST)
The Page was 635 links, and the template is only transcluded on 89 pages, so it looks like the vast majority aren't to do with the template call. Tending to agree with Spiderzed here.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 23:20, 26 April 2011 (BST)
I'm not sure that's accurate. The majority of the links seem to be coming from {{reviver}}, which is transcluded on over 300 pages. If links are updated on both templates, it should just leave a handful of links to fix. If this is moved, don't forget about Category:Random Revive Policy and Random revive, which are both redirects. The new wiki software should automatically fix any broken redirects resulting in the move but AFAIK that hasn't been tested properly, yet. ~Vsig.png 23:31, 26 April 2011
Sounds like a good test to me! :D --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:31, 26 April 2011 (BST)
Also, it should be noted that when the page was created back in 2006, some users complained about the title, but Gilant wasn't a sysop and according to the archive page, there wasn't a page to make a move request. So, since he couldn't move the page, he just changed this subheading to indicate that the tactic was against random revives. I figured that since the original author was willing to make the change for the aid of reducing confusion for new players, that we should be willing to move the page for the same reason. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:42, 27 April 2011 (BST)
Alright, I'll do it. Give me a minute to knock it out. ~Vsig.png 00:47, 27 April 2011
Ugh. For some reason the what links here didn't indicate that quite a few of the links are due to the damn Reggie Boy "template". It's not a template at all. It just an image with a caption that has a link to Random Revive Policy. This is gonna take a while. On the upside, the redirects were in fact fixed during the move process. ~Vsig.png 01:05, 27 April 2011
Wow. I'm surprised they didn't make that into a template. Let me finish up what I am doing on the page, and I'll make it into a template. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:38, 27 April 2011 (BST)
Yeah, pffshh. Somewhat ironically, there are instructions on the No Random Revive Policy page to copy the image and caption directly to pages. Someone was lazy or ignorant to templates and that particular bit of code seems to have been very popluar. Anyway, I'm done with fixing links...I think. ~Vsig.png 01:53, 27 April 2011
There are still a few more links but unfortunately I have to leave. I'll pick up later where I left off. ~Vsig.png 02:00, 27 April 2011
I've finished the last links, but I'm thinking we should keep the old one as a redirect, for the reasons mentioned above.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 15:03, 27 April 2011 (BST)

The Dead's Resurgence

It's started yay, time to sort out what to do with it. Move to subpage of the dead? If not, I think it's time to go to A/D since the page has completely failed to have gotten off the ground since it was made. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:29, 22 April 2011 (BST)

Considering there are already pages for The Dead and The Dead 2.0, could we please have this either renamed into The Dead 3.0 or have The Dead 2.0 unprotected so we can have it there. The page portrays our group as we wish it portrayed, exactly as the page The Dead does. I don't see the problem with that, but I am not fully schooled in WIKI LAW. عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 04:02, 22 April 2011 (BST)
I should also add that Katthew asked on the talk page "can we edit it however we want?", and Karek's reply implied that to be the case. عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 04:10, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Which reminds me, I should talk to Vantar. It almost looks like you guys were vandalising an event page when it really ended up being a group page.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:11, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Thanks for the quick reply - yeah, this is pretty much the case. It's titled like it would be an event page but it ended up being what we intend our group page to be. Ideally, could you unprotect The Dead 2.0 and replace it with The Dead's Resurgence? As it stands, The Dead 2.0 is out of date and pretty much unnecessary content now that the group has been revived. عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 04:14, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Yeah but, technically that could be said about the 1st page too. It's more just a timeline of the group's forms really. Although I don't know much about the 2.0 one, don't think I was really around much for it. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:16, 22 April 2011 (BST)
terribly sorry it doesn't have more userboxes and a list of ranks to be a 'legit' group page WIKI LAW wins again – Nubis NWO 04:06, 22 April 2011 (BST)
It looks pretty good now, subpage of The Dead 2.0 seems best. Thanks for letting us improve it so much. xoxoxoxo --Riseabove 04:08, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Actually, this(mcArabicwords comment) is probably the best solution. Or have the resurgance page set aside as a group page with some Disambiguations added to the other two The Dead pages. Namely the primary page needs a disambig to the other two stating that the third is the current run of the group and that the group in all forms is the same, the various iterations are just marquees of massive upsurge in activity equivalent to group revival. I don't really see why the third page can't be open to their editing as a group in that case, since the primary page is the one linked on Stats.html. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:10, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Up until Nubis's edit on the 17th this was a page documenting an emerging event involving a group, not a page made by said group. I don't see why the dead should get control over the page seeing as it wasn't theirs to start with. They are free to make a page of their own they just can't take over an existing event page as their own - Vantar 04:22, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Well, to be fair, if they hadn't done something with it it wouldn't exist at this point. On top of that it was oked and unopposed on said pages talk page. It also seems fairly clear to me, at least, that if the page had gone any longer without updates or edits it would have been subject to deletion or removal by that point.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:31, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Man Vantar not to be a tard or anything (okay to be a complete tard) why do you care? Are you a member of the dead? Does the page pertain to your group's sudden surge across Malton? Now it's a Group Page. It's got a little box and everything chill out bro Phuzzy 04:33, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Likely, he feels like using WIKI LAW in an attempt to hassle goons in a rather silly way. Unprotecting The Dead 2.0 would be pretty awesome though!--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Retarded things go here --> Rosstika.gif 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 04:36, 22 April 2011 (BST)
What the fuck do you have against my edits. You wanna ARBITRATE this shit? – Nubis NWO 04:46, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Honestly, I only care because at the start off all this page was the only thing on Special:Uncategorizedpages(the page is now just heavily miscategorized). I also feel that letting groups have control over NPOV pages about them is a bad precedent. We can go the arbitration route if you want - Vantar 05:09, 22 April 2011 (BST)
I've got no issue with it either way. Just trying to see it from their point of view. Moving it to their groupspace has already been claimed as an acceptable solution for both groups. I think the only difference between us here is I don't think it's good precedent to allow NPOV pages about groups being set up for the sake of noting the group was, that's what I view the purpose of group pages to be. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:16, 22 April 2011 (BST)

Hi, just going to clarify why this request was made in regards to responses above. You are all right, karek said you can make whatever edits you want to it and he's right. But the state you have left it in isn't in the spirit of what the page is supposed to be. Likewise, I'm not trying to bring the dead down, moreso I'm trying to do what you would all prefer out of the page. Would you like it moved to The Dead 3.0 or to The Dead 2.0 or wherever? Because in its current state that's a good idea. I'll just clarify that the reason I said we might delete it if you want is because I honestly just thought you were loading it with templates and images to just turn the page into a clusterfuck to get it deleted since I thought it was implied you didn't want an NPOV page made by DHPD about the dead, to exist. Personally I think moving it as a group page to an article name of your choice is a good way to go if that's what you'd like. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 06:06, 22 April 2011 (BST)

We absolutely love the page as it is now and are fine with it being moved to The Dead 2.0. Thanks. عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 06:32, 22 April 2011 (BST)
Sorry. I went out and got drunk and forgot to come back to this. I have one quick question before I do the page move: would you like me to do the sysop move straight from "resurgence" to "2.0"? Doing this will essentially delete 2.0 and completely replace it with resurgence, so you'll have to say bye bye to the original page that exists now. Alternatives are I could just manually c+p the info onto 2.0 alongside the original info, and unprotect to leave you all to edit as you see fit. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:43, 23 April 2011 (BST)
oh ps, i'll unprotect the page either way obviously. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:43, 23 April 2011 (BST)
Yeah just replace the current 2.0 page with the new one, thanks! عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 20:57, 23 April 2011 (BST)
K done. If you need the old revisions from the old page juts give me heads up and I can post them somewhere for you to revise. Dead 2.0 is also now unprotected (might have been before dunno) -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 00:09, 24 April 2011 (BST)
Just delete the page and restore all the diffs. Should merge the page histories since you did a delete then move. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:51, 25 April 2011 (BST)

Radio:Penny Heights

( Talk:Radio:Penny Heights | Links | Page History | Page Logs | Move Page | Delete Page )

Requester: Karekmaps?! 00:01, 11 April 2011 (BST)
Reason: Nonexistant namespace.
Destination: [[Penny Heights Radio]]
Moved. -- Spiderzed 10:09, 23 April 2011 (BST)

I forgot that sub-pages are only templates when in one's namespace

The Ridleybank Resistance Front/Barhahville Constabulary/Member Template to Template:Barhahville Constabulary Member, plez. --VVV RPGMBCWS 20:32, 13 April 2011 (BST)

You can transclude any page simply by adding braces and one colon like so {{:The Ridleybank Resistance Front/Barhahville Constabulary/Member Template}}. In this case it produces The Ridleybank Resistance Front/Barhahville Constabulary/Member Template
Do you still want it moved? ~Vsig.png 20:42, 13 April 2011
No thx. --VVV RPGMBCWS 20:47, 13 April 2011 (BST)


( [[Talk:User:DanceDanceRevolution/sandpit/ghosts]] | Links | Page History | Page Logs | Move Page | Delete Page )

Requester: Karekmaps?! 00:01, 11 April 2011 (BST)
Reason: Used in Utility templates, so it obviously should be in a more appropriate, unowned, namespace.
Destination: [[Help:Ghost_Pages]]
DOne, will fix links when I return home -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:08, 11 April 2011 (BST)


( [[Talk:User:DanceDanceRevolution/ghost2]] | Links | Page History | Page Logs | Move Page | Delete Page )

Requester: Karekmaps?! 00:01, 11 April 2011 (BST)
Reason: Used in Categorizing, so it obviously should be in a more appropriate, unowned, namespace.
Destination: [[Template:Ghost]]
We'll just let DDR Move this one. ~Vsig.png 02:17, 11 April 2011
I posted a note on hist talk page when I put these up, hopefully he'll be along shortly. --Karekmaps?! 05:06, 11 April 2011 (BST)
I moved it to Template:WikiGhost, just to specify more about the content, dunno why just seemed more right to me. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution
No complaints here, what works works. --Karekmaps?! 07:04, 11 April 2011 (BST)
I went ahead and fixed the links. I came across User:DanceDanceRevolution/ghost in the process. Any suggestions on where to move that one? ~ Smallv.png ~ 08:25, 16 April 2011
Nowhere and change the inculsions to this template if they're protected. It's a userpage and sacrosanct of crit 1 and this one already fulfills that purpose. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 12:34, 16 April 2011 (BST)
Got the inclusions, should be a non-issue now pretty much. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 12:37, 16 April 2011 (BST)


Requester: Karekmaps?! 01:53, 10 April 2011 (BST)
Reason: Makes more sense here, cleans up Template namespace.
Destination: A/PM/Intro
Done. -- Spiderzed 02:04, 10 April 2011 (BST)


It's been uploaded to the wrong address). Should be Image:Image-MCDURankPT8.png to keep in with image format and correct number (it's rank 8 image for the MCDU. Note: do not confuse with Image:Image-MCDURankPT9.png with is the rank 9 image and is in the right place. Many thanks. --Neko 02:40, 2 April 2011 (BST)

We can't automatically move images, sorry. You can only manually do it, then we can delete the old image for you. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:17, 2 April 2011 (BST)


Would like it as Guides:Guide_to_Forming_Standard_Generic_Paramilitary_Pro-Survivor_Trenchy_Groups, please.--Penguinpyro 11:11, 27 March 2011 (BST)

Would you maybe prefer Guides:Forming Standard Generic Paramilitary Pro-Survivor Trenchy Groups? as in, without the redundant 'guide to' at the front? -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 11:39, 27 March 2011 (BST)
Nvm. Done as requested. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:17, 2 April 2011 (BST)
Personal tools