UDWiki talk:Administration/Move Requests

General Discussion

Move Requests

What goes on with this page? Looks like it'd be quicker to just move things ourselves, leaving a redirect on the old page. Didn't we used to be able to move pages ourselves? -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 10:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would read M/G, you would discover that we still can.--Gage 10:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you can still move pages, us plebs cant (except the long way). And there're pages been sitting there for 3 weeks with no comment... I even resubmitted on (without realising). Are they ineligble or something? -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 10:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Move Request Template

Would it make since to have move requests have a template much like the speedy delete template so that pages aren't marked for movement more than one, because there are several pages that I have almost re-requested a move for as well. I've made simple template that could be used for this here: Template:Moverequest, let me know what you think. Vantar 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that this template has one small flaw in it, it must be manually removed after the move is made. Does anyone know away around this? If this issue can be overcome I feel that this template has some potential. Vantar 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem... however what do others think about using that template to make requests without having to edit another page? We could make a Category:Move requests, and include it in the template. Then when someone finds a page they want moved, they can simply add the template, including the destination of the move. The page would show up in Category:Move Requests automatically. All a mod would have to do is open the page, and see the info on where it has to be moved to, on the page and click move page. Perhaps the template would need another section to record the reason for the move request, but it would cut down on editing and archiving for a simple function like move requests. The info about the move would all be in the actual page history, rather than somewhere else (A/MR) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of getting rid of the move request page and replacing it with a Category, I've made some changes to Template:Moverequest so it does what you mentioned anything else you would want in the template. Vantar 11:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks good for the purpose. Still not convinced that it's the way to go (despite suggesting it), would like more feedback. Others may see problems I don't. If I don't get feedback here, I'll put up a policy discussion, I guess, and sound it out that way -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well..

My archive for old talk was moved, and the thing is I just figured out that fact by pure luck, and found the new location by the long (becouse i had no idea of it) proccess of finding this page. Ok, I'm new and didnt know how to mane the page properly, and is totally correct to move it to a page with the proper name, but shouldnt the person that moved it or the person who asked to be moved leave some coment on my talk page? I understand that it would make it a longer proccess for the mod but maybe a template with a link to this page or someting. I mean, if i hadn't noticed the broken link in my nav bar....--♠ Che ♠-^{T GC X} 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Request Archive

Like the Speedy Deletions page, the Move Requests page should have an archive, as it is beginning to get too long. Perhaps something like what SD has? --V2Blast ^{T•P!•C•SR} 23:16, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Um this page does have an archive UDWiki:Moderation/Move Requests/Archive, every month the Recent Actions section is suppose to be moved to it it just does allways happen. I'll move the stuff that should have been archived already. - Vantar 14:20, 20 August 2007 (BST)

move question

Can sysops move categories? *looking innocently* --~~~~ [talk] 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it has to be done manually by visiting all the pages, real hassle but I doubt it could be done any other way because of how Categories are sorted anyway(with the tag being content on the page included, not the Category page). But yeah, can't move Categories.--Karek^maps?! 11:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Archival

It looks to me like archival happens every month. Should we change the guidelines on the page to suit? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:37, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Linkthewindow doesn't have a problem with it 13:12, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Discussion of Requests

January 2009

Humanity's Saviors

1st bit

You really are a fucking idiot. I'm going to say this clearly These. Are. Not. A. Subgroup. The Order of Philosophe Knights has no active subgroups. That category was overlooked in the recoding, if you hadn't noticed the page is based on the Knight's design. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Iscariot. You would argue that two groups, one created by the other, are somehow less connected (and thus worthy of demotion to a subpage) than an alliance and the groups in it? Interesting logic.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you at all, you're wrong and I'm right, I'm enlightening you. I have two very simple questions for you. Should we move MOB into RRF's space? and Of the two of us, who has access to the Philosophe Knights board and therefore understands what Humanity's Saviours actually are?

The Knights have one subgroup, this isn't it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that I cannot understand how the HS and PK work without access to their forums, yet you think you to have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the inner workings of the DEM to both pass judgement on whether we function as one group or not, in the case of the Recruitment page, and that all the DEM groups are really just subgroups of an alliance, in the case of your recent actions on this page.

To answer your question, no, I don't believe the MOB page should be a subgroup of the RRF, though your logic seems to say they should be.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want the DEM to be treated as just an alliance, then maybe you shouldn't call it an "organizational construct" that "oversees and coordinates the operations" of its member groups and that "Member groups are in all senses part of the DEM, fully sharing information and resources with the core groups and are bound by all DEM policies." This opposed to what's on HS's page: "The connection between HS and the Philosophe Knights is fairly weak", "neither group has command over the other" and so on. Is it really so surprising that you're treated the way you describe yourselves? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't. Does it say we're a group of survivors anywhere in there? At any point they wish, any member group in the DEM can decide they don't like the DEM Chairperson or rest of the DEM and leave, or whatever. We work together because, believe it or not, teamwork it more effective than everybody having their own agenda.

On this note, I think I have proved my point, so I'm going to leave this conversation. If you want to continue calling us a single group, go right ahead and do so. It's obvious no amount of evidence to the contrary would change your opinion.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2nd Bit

Given that I checked, and as you no longer hold a seat on the War Council and therefore may not speak for the RRF, and as per every DEM argument below, do we get the GC and BC pages moved back to where they rightfully belong under the DEM's justifications? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because you don't know what you're talking about any more than Labine does and you know it. Stop trolling admin pages, and consider that your only soft warning on this matter.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Soft warning me over a case you're involved in? Regardless, I know less than Labine? Is he a serving member of the Gore Corps? Are you?

My word was good enough to take in the case of Humanity's Saviours, it's odd that's not the case here. Are you or are you not a current member of the RRF War Council? Accordingly are you authorised to speak for the RRF in this case? Am I a member of the group in question as were the requesters of the DEM below? This is nothing but your own pride speaking, every point the DEM can make the GC and the BC can respind with in kind, this is nothing but pure bias. Until such time as a member of the War Council overrules me, I am the user with the most relevant information regarding the RRF, not you. If this was any other group these pages would be moved back as the DEM's were, the only difference is yourself and whatever feelings you may have over the group you no longer speak for. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make that Karek is not part of the RRF WC ? He ruled on this case in favor of the HS, keeping their page in its rightful place (as in not being a subpage of the PK). We rule against your interest and its bias, we rule for your interest is bias as well ? WTF ? BTW, stop shitting on admin pages. Last warning, --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it my favour? I am not a member of Humanity's Saviours. Kindly trying to place words into my mouth, it is disingenuous.

The fact, as Karek is aware, concerns an earlier case that he said he would research on and provisionally ruled on based on his own experience. My own research has proven that his initial ruling had no basis over that of rumour. Therefore I question the basis of his original assumption,as is my right as a member of a group he has disadvantaged by declining its return to its own group space. My questions are pertinent to the validity of his ruling to the cases I originally brought and that he promised he would look into. The fact that I have found and know the base and validity of his statements to be fallacious do not make my posts here in bad faith, no matter of how you prefer to remove me. My edits are an attempt to resolve a pending case in the appropriate administration page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gore Corps

Let's look at the Axe High arguments you accepted. Existed before joining current group? Check. Had that space until Cheese moved it by the request of someone not in the group? Check. Operates separately? Check.

You'll notice I don't dispute the TA or AU10 moves, however these fit the same criteria as Axes High, so how about you stop showing bias and start being fucking objective? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm RRF and I have no problem with this (I don't think Moloch would be too bothered either to be honest). Stop being a picky bastard and go outside and get some air. -- Cheese 22:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I contested the original move, you overruled me and went and fucking moved it. If Axes High's page gets returned to it's own personal space, these should as well. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't accept the arguments made on the wiki, I was talking with group leaders via IRC and got more information regarding it. In addition to the fact that it was a somewhat questionable move in the first place as shown by the discussion following it. Second, you're arguing with the wrong person regarding RRF groups and structure.--Karek^maps?! 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How convenient(!) An IRC conversation that no-one can check. We'll just take your word for it and have no oversight or even log it here shall we? I notice we're trying to sweep it away by moving this to Recent Actions. At least Grim was fucking consistent... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)