UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests

Template:A/MRsub

Shortcut:
A/MR

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 The average user's ability to move pages has been rescinded due to frequent abuse by vandals; as such, users will need to submit requests (similar in nature to those on Speedy Deletions and Protections) for pages to be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.

===[[PAGENAME]]=== *[[MOVE TO HERE]] *~~~~

Move Request Queue

Save the yeti

Something should probably be done about this, probably merging with Save the Yeti A ZOMBIE ANT 02:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Zerging ~ _{03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)}

That's appropriate. Case closed. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On a more serious note, if two pages exist then a disambiguation page is probably in order. Name one Save the Yeti (group) and the other Save the Yeti (Parody) or something appropriate. I don't really like the group page as is. I really would mind seeing it redirected to Zerging but anything that doesn't glorify the "group" would be better than it is now. As is, the list of profiles is the only thing I find appropriate. ~ _{14:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)}

I really didn't think there was anything in the group page that "glorifies" them.. I thought it was a pretty cut and dry presentation of "This is a zerg group and should be viewed with disdain. --NOCKTRNL 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But edit it to whatever you want.. I dont care..one of my alts has been hunting yetis for awhile..(Almost killed 50 of them) and I just figured it was time for a page to spotlight their zerging.. maybe get a group hunt goin'..? Anywhoozle I made some minor edits to the page to make my and the general populaces opinion of these zegers more apparent.--NOCKTRNL 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not really what I meant by making it less glorified. IMO having anything more than "A zerg group that existed between 2012 to the present" is giving it more credence than it deserves. The profiles might be useful. I'd definitely lose the latest "asspy[sic] basement dweller" crap that you added. Seriously, it ought to just be a one or two line page or a redirect/disambig thing IMO. ~ _{05:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)}

Merge the Save the Yeti and Save the yeti pages, I don't think this is really a case for disambiguous. Keep the Save the Yeti call for killing them, add the member list from the other. Add whatever smack talk, formatting, etc, it doesn't really matter. --_K 17:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm done editing the page.. Like I said I saw a need and filled it, you guys can do whatever you want to it. Might I recommend putting names with the profile links? --NOCKTRNL 20:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree merging is the right thing to do. One is clearly a parody (it even has a nice caveat message up top) while the other tries to be informative. I can try cleaning up the informative one and slap a disambig message on the top but the naming structure is what I see as the issue here (capital Y vs lower case y). ~ _{17:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)}

So, I agree with others that they shouldn't be merged. One (the lowercase "yeti" page) is the official page for an actual in-game group, except that it's been created by a non-member and populated with what I presume is supposed to be an extended NPOV statement that isn't actually very neutral at all, while the other (the uppercase "Yeti" page) is a parody group with a probably-too-similar name. They're distinct entities, and this shouldn't be merged.

Regarding the official page, stuff like the lists of profiles or allegations of zerging (regardless of the fact that we all know them to be true) belong either on the talk page or some other page entirely (which someone is welcome to link from the talk page). Unless the owner of the yeti accounts wants to step forward and claim ownership (anyone? anyone?), the most that should be on the official page is an NPOV statement that is actually neutral, and even that is a stretch (*insert reference to The Dead precedents here*).

The parody page is named something that's uncomfortably close to the official page, but if neither of the pages actual owners (Chi or yeti) want to step forward to complain about the confusion, I see no problem with leaving it alone. —Aichon— 19:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with merging them. One is an informational page explaining that the yetis are zerging, albeit with humour. The other one is the same thing with more information, just not tongue in cheek. They could easily co-exist on the same page and probably should; I find it weird that a zerg group should have 2 wiki pages to be honest. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that...IF you can convince Chirurgien to go along with it. The way I see it, the parody page is an owned page for a parody movement, so we have no right to push information onto it without the consent of the page's owner. And I guess the only thing I see as strange about all of this is that the zerg's actual group page was created by a non-member, meaning it probably shouldn't exist at all. —Aichon— 01:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way so I don't really want to convince people (let's face it, I'm pretty lazy). Having said that, Chirurgien doesn't own the page- The group does, whether they claim it or not. He has no authority over it as far as I believe and if he wants authority he should have it moved to a neutral page name. A ZOMBIE ANT 10:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I sat this discussion out for a few days in the hope it'd resolve itself, so I feel ya. ;) I'm mostly just trying to provide my rationale for why I'm not inclined to merge them as an official sysop action so others have a chance to convince me otherwise.

Backing up for a sec, I think most of the confusion comes from how we're answering these questions: who owns the uppercase page, who owns the lowercase page, who owns the content of each of those pages, and what is allowed on a group page that isn't created by the group? To me, it's obvious that the in-game yeti group owns the lowercase page (even though, as you said, they've never used it), since it matches their group name exactly and is what's linked from the stats page. I think it's also evident that NOCKTRNL's content doesn't belong on their page, since it was never his to edit. And in terms of the uppercase page, depending on how you answer the ownership question, either Chi owns the page and its content, or Chi doesn't own the page, in which case we'd move the content to a page he owns. Either way though, it's still his content.

And that's why I'm not keen on merging the pages, since regardless of anything else, it's still his content. I've contacted him on his talk page and will try to remember to poke him on IRC or in-game if I see him, but the best outcome I see coming from this is that Chi gives the okay to move his page without us having to make an official decision about it. And we can also ask him about merging NOCKTRNL's content into his page, but other than him giving his consent, I wouldn't be comfortable doing so. —Aichon— 16:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If I claim ownership of the yeti group, can I do whatever I want in the namespace? --_K 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to ask that. In my mind, sure, why not (others may disagree)? So long as you're willing to live with the consequences of claiming officially for the record that you're a zerging, scum-filled cesspool of an individual who deserves to have all of their alts kicked out of any groups they belong to currently and then hunted down and griefed into oblivion until you learn to play fair. I'd prefer to continue thinking more highly of you than that (as well as working alongside you in PKer events), so I hope you won't claim the page. —Aichon— 22:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think I would more likely zerg than lie for funsies, I'm not sure how well you know me. Also, this. --_K 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that at all! What I was pointing out was that unless it's a serious claim, it can't be honored, and if it is a serious claim, serious claims come with serious consequences, oftentimes regardless of whether or not they're actually true. —Aichon— 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I knew it was the uppercase the owned the page. I only checked one profile, the first one on nokternals list, and it was uppercase. At least I thought it was. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to get technical about page ownership, we should do it right. Now my wikilawyering is a bit rusty, and it's hard to find official canon on ownership guidelines (where the hell is the link to Special Use Page Guidelines) but if memory serves, only User pages and Group pages can be deemed owned content. There are two pages and neither can rightly be called a group page. I'm going to go back to my original suggestion and say that Save the yeti is made into a disambig page. Meanwhile, I suggest the existing page is moved to Save the yeti (unofficial) where the community can edit it. Save the Yeti can either be moved to a different named page or remain where it is (I prefer the former). Both pages listed on the disambig, with a statement along the lines "No official group page yet exists, however the following unofficial community pages have been made:". I do see merit in having two separate pages, but if merging is wanted or needed, it can be handled by users, no other administration action needed and the page ownership concerns will have been addressed. ~ _{07:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)}

That's more or less correct. To be honest, I think the whole thing's being blown out of proportion. I only suggested a merge for the sake of tidiness, I don't typically want us getting headaches over something that isn't hurting anyone. And the only person that could be hurt by a takeover of Save the Yeti, are the yetis, and until they come forward and ask for rightful ownership of the page I wouldn't trouble myself over working out the 'correct' solution. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh, works for me (and I agree it's been blown out of proportion, which is largely my fault). It gets the non-member content off of the group page and deals with the ambiguity of the uppercase page, without addressing the issue of/setting a precedent for how we deal with pages that differ in capitalization only, which is something I'd rather not have us tackle.

Also, Both of You for Sysop 2014. —Aichon— 14:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow.. something, something... "The bureaucracy would doom us all, if it wasn't for the bureaucracy".. or something like that. --NOCKTRNL 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to UDWiki . By the way, your signature does not link to your user page, which is a clear violation of the Signature Policy. Please correct it immediately. Failure to do so may result in your editing privileges being revoked. ~ _{20:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)}

Unless the sysops chose to not enforce that rule, which is apparently something they have the option of doing. It is clear what his user name is, which should meet the intent of the policy. Also, I support the disambig on the top of both pages unless someone claims the group. --_K 22:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The sysops actually have nothing to do with the signature policy. You're just as capable of enforcing it as anyone else, if you go back and check what it says. ;) —Aichon— 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

How can I create a super cool custom sig like all of you have? Would anybody be willing to share some knowledge with me or must I first fill out the proper forms in triplicate, have them notarized and then sent to VAPOR, Aichon, and Spiderized via registered special courier before anyone is permitted to instruct me? --NOCKTRNL 00:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

By I can enforce it, you mean I can ask whoever to not do it or start a vandalism case and ask the sysops to take appropriate action, if they so choose? Ultimately any policy which relies upon banning or warning requires sysops to enact those penalties. I believe we have already determined there is no compulsion for sysops to follow policy, therefore all policies are at the discretion of sysops. Also, Nocktrnl, the easiest way is to find a sig you like, aichon has a nice one for example, find the page it is on (aichon's is here, and also is super complex), steal his code and edit as desired. Other options: Help:Signatures or Help:Templated_Signatures --_K 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry wikizen, but I cannot comply with your request for assistance with <signature> because you have placed your request on an unauthorized page for <signature assistance>. Administrative pages such as this are for administrative requests only. Please post your request for <signature assistance> outside of the administrative namespace. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ _{02:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)}

Fair enough, I guess, if that was what you were getting at. But about sysops not following "policy", the only time that's come up was in relation to a weird situation where some non-policy rules on a particular page said sysops could choose to essentially act as moderators on that page, but I and others felt that our ability to do so flew in the face of all of the actual policies that make it clear sysops are not moderators, so we chose not to exercise that extra authority. But when it comes to our actual duties, a warning is a warning, and the signature policy is, well, policy. The two situations are not alike.

Also, as Kirsty said for the signature stuff. She beat me to the links. —Aichon— 05:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou all!--<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 5px rgba(0,0,0,.25),-1px 0px 3px rgba(255,255,255,.4),1px 0px 3px rgba(255,255,255,.4),0px -1px 3px rgba(255,255,255,.4),0px 1px 3px rgba(255,255,255,.4);font-family:cochin,times,serif;font-size:14px">—'''[[User:NOCKTR|<sp 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Actions

FOD Stuff

Been meaning to do this for a while. FOD's official group page is now The Flowers of Decay. I need old pages moved over to the new namespace.

• Flowers of Decay

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive

• Flowers of Decay/GroupBox

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/GroupBox

• Talk:Flowers of Decay

>Talk:The Flowers of Decay

• Flowers of Decay/history

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/History

• Flowers of Decay/campaigns

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Campaigns

• Flowers of Decay/diplomacy

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Diplomacy

• Flowers of Decay/achievements

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Achievements

• Flowers of Decay/kills

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Kills1501-2000

• Flowers of Decay/kills1001-1500

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Kills1001-1500

• Flowers of Decay/kills501-1000

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Kills501-1000

• Flowers of Decay/kills1-500

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Kills1-500

• Flowers of Decay/DAFFODILS

>The Flowers of Decay/DAFFODILS

• Flowers of Decay/recruit

>The Flowers of Decay/Archive/Recruit

I can fix links and redirects after the move. Thanks in advance. ~ _{04:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)}

Done. Let me know if you see any issues. I didn't fix any links or any of the existing re-directs, so those are all up to you to fix. Once you fix everything, I or one of the other sysops should go back through and delete the redirects that the moves created, so let me know once that's done. —Aichon— 20:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok fixed all the links and redirects. I'd like to keep Flowers of Decay as a redirect but all others can now be deleted. All of the talk pages for the new archived pages should be correctly redirected. There are a couple of double-redirects now but should be cleared up by deleteing the original sub-page talk pages. A few links still exist on User:Raddox's and User:RobOppenheimer's pages but I figured they can fix if they ever come back to the wiki. There's a couple of sandbox pages I want deleted and I'll putnthem up on A/SD. Thanks for doing this Aichon. ~ _{06:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)}

I have deleted all obsolete redirects but the ones to the main page and the main talk page. I have also fixed Raddox' and RO's old links, as such minor link repairs are as good faith as it gets when it comes down to userspace edits. -- Spiderzed█ 14:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You missed some talk pages. Talk:Flowers of Decay/history, Talk:Flowers of Decay/campaigns, Talk:Flowers of Decay/diplomacy, Talk:Flowers of Decay/kills, Talk:Flowers of Decay/achievements. Also, the links you fixed on Raddox and RO's pages are not quite correct. Sorry, none of that is a big deal to me just pointing it out before it's cycled complete. ~ _{18:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)}

Deleted the named talk pages. As for the userpages, I can't be bothered to go through them again and re-check the links. Feel free to fix them yourself. If anyone drags you to VB, you can say I told you to. -- Spiderzed█ 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Saucer of Milk

• Kamikaze Roadkill
• Vanankyte 21:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. I have left the redirect for now, as your members change their tags and references. -- Spiderzed█ 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Cobra stuff

• Cobra

⇒Cobra (disambiguation)

• Cobra (group)

⇒Cobra

• Cobra (group)/Diplomacy

⇒Cobra/Diplomacy

• Cobra (group)/Extensive Enterprises

⇒Cobra/Extensive Enterprises

• Cobra (group)/Guide

⇒Cobra/Guide

• Cobra (group)/Joining

⇒Cobra/Joining

• Cobra (group)/Recruitment

⇒Cobra/Recruitment

As was noted on the PKA on 2nd December 2012, all members of The Original Cobra have been MIA on the contact list, with multiple key mambers having been inactive for an even longer time. None of them has become active again since.

Ever since, both in-game and on the wiki Cobra and Cobra (group) have been used synonymously in common speech. As was most recently seen in the latest arbitration case, the distinction doesn't serve any purpose anymore and solely causes unnecessary confusion.

In the interest of the wiki being an as truthful and accurate information resource for Urban Dead as possible, I hereby request that the above move requests get carried out. -- Spiderzed█ 14:52, 12 October 2013 (BST)

I feel like the current article Cobra should be split, with the top portion moved to Cobra (disambiguation) and the lower (content) portion moved to another page. Disambig pages shouldn't have such content on them. Not sure what title would be best - Cobra (Original) seems like it'll have some confusion, maybe Cobra (former group)? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:42, 12 October 2013 (BST)

Maybe simply Cobra (historical)? -- Spiderzed█ 17:30, 12 October 2013 (BST)

You've got balls, I'll give ya that. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:27, 12 October 2013 (BST)

It's terrible form to not inform the lesser cobra on their talk page. Do that, give it a week, and I'll consider it. Are you concerned that all the links to cobras history will now send you to a group that was created much later? --Rosslessness 00:04, 13 October 2013 (BST)

I will gladly send them a notice to get that sorted out. - As for incoming links, this won't be a problem at all, as they are pointing to the very same group. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 13 October 2013 (BST)

There's an arbitration ruling regarding this stuff that everyone should brush up on. It specifies that the page be "sealed" as a former group page with a disambiguation block. That former group is Bullgod's "Cobra" that is now inactive, but was a well-known group that had a decent wiki presence, plenty of content, and, most importantly, possessed the original claim to the Cobra page. As a continuation of that same group (at least, I believe that is what you would claim of yourself), you would normally be entitled to edit the Cobra page, except for the fact that the arbitration ruling bars you from using it for your own group.

In such a case, the only option is to create a new page and use it instead. The Dead had to do it when they were forced to create The Dead 2.0 because they weren't allowed to edit The Dead after they returned, and they didn't even have to deal with the complication of a competing claim to "The Dead" as a name. The circumstances preventing you from using the page are a bit different, but the outcome is the same: you're not allowed to use it. Sorry. —Aichon— 06:32, 13 October 2013 (BST)

You are citing Karek's conclusion, but omitting the reasoning behind that conclusion:

“	The problem that I keep running into though is that both groups do, in fact, exist. The reason this is an issue is that the wiki is a reflection of the reality of the game not the other way around.	”
—Karek

The other group has ceased to exist as far as the reality of the game is concerned. Furthermore, on the wiki Cobra and Cobra (group) have now for a long time been used synonymously. With the reason for the distinction being gone, the distinction should go as well, as it serves no purpose anymore but to cause confusion (like in the recent arbitration case).

As for The Dead, the reason behind it not being editable is a very different one. The Dead are a historical group page, and the decision to put the revived group under the same name would undo historical status, as historical groups must be inactive. A similar example would be Flowers of Decay/Flowers of Disease, where the revived group has decided not to re-use the old name in order to not harm the historical status. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 13 October 2013 (BST)

Let me restate things a bit, since I didn't convey my thoughts well. The inactivity of the other "Cobra" is irrelevant, since it doesn't change the fact that the page belongs to neither of you. The ruling states that it belongs to the former group, and the former group is as (in)active today as it was the day that Karek made his ruling. As such, the situation remains unchanged.

If you can track down Goribus or whoever and get them to agree to dissolve the arbitration ruling, I certainly won't object. Hell, grab Karek and get him to affirm that he never intended for it to bind you in this way, and I'll probably go along, since I'm sympathetic to your situation. But without provisions for inactivity in the ruling, we don't have much recourse. It's one thing to use a provided line of reasoning to better understand what was intended by a vague statement, but it's something else entirely to outright nullify a ruling, since 1) it's not our place to do so, 2) the arbitrator may have had unstated reasons that are still valid for making that ruling, and 3) we've never treated the reasons as binding, only the ruling itself. —Aichon— 00:52, 15 October 2013 (BST)

Is there a precedent for altering an arbitration case's outcome due to further changed circumstances? If not, then it stands (possibly unless another arbitration case is brought to change it?) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:25, 14 October 2013 (BST)

There's precedent for ignoring ridiculous rulings (e.g. put an image of a duck on the Main Page), but I'm not aware of any precedent for ignoring or altering rulings that are reasonable and have remained in place for years unless there are provisions built into the ruling. —Aichon— 00:52, 15 October 2013 (BST)

Declaring this a no action taken. If you would like the pages moved, the arbitration case must be voided by action of Goribus or opening of a new case. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Archives

e Move Requests Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2014 H1 H2 Years 2015 2016 2017 2018