UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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 The average user's ability to move pages has been rescinded due to frequent abuse by vandals; as such, users will need to submit requests (similar in nature to those on Speedy Deletions and Protections) for pages to be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
Borehamwood/Archive
To Talk:Borehamwood/Archive please THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 12:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
AVRail 288
What a weird page. I think the page could be quite good with a bit of formatting and images for flavour. In the meantime, can we move it to AVRail 288 Accident as it seems to be solely about a historical event regarding the train. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 12:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Alphadog
- User:Spider/Alphadog
- Not technically a group, should be moved to namespace. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 00:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I apologise, at the time of creation, there was no Alphadog group. However, I have a character, Alphadog001, who is a member of the Alphadog group and I intend to gather new members for my group using this group page, therefore I should have ownership of the Alphadog page as per UDWiki's guidelines for page rights. Especially since the current situation will cause problems with the recruitment of my group. As far as I know, this is the first recorded group called Alphadog in urbandead history and I request as leader of the Alphadog group that my ownership of the Alphadog group should be recognized and this move be reverted. I would also like to note that the existence of an older character called alphadog102 should not give it ownership over my Alphadog group, any more than would the existence of a character called "Ridleybank Resistance Force" would give ownership of the [RRF]. Similarly, although there are many characters called Alphadog, they should not have ownership in the same way that the many characters called John Smith do not have ownership of a John Smith group. --Spider (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm curious about what was going through your mind when you claimed all those accounts were part of a group, and then after this move request claimed they are all zergers and griefers/impersonaters? [1]Those two are distinctively different. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 09:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Having to learn wiki syntax and then manually writing 8000 characters in a table format while searching for UD profiles was mentally taxing.--Spider (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's more noteworthy that alphadog is the leader of DK13, which has nothing to do with this group. Why clone it? Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Having to learn wiki syntax and then manually writing 8000 characters in a table format while searching for UD profiles was mentally taxing.--Spider (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm curious about what was going through your mind when you claimed all those accounts were part of a group, and then after this move request claimed they are all zergers and griefers/impersonaters? [1]Those two are distinctively different. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 09:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone else have anything they can make from this? Quite odd. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 07:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I find it strange that someone would want to create a group with the name of a well known zerg, especially a zerg group that the CDF go up against regularly (I am assuming this Spider is the CDF Spider). stelar Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge 08:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I actually think that's the reason it does make sense. It looks to me like Spider made a character in response to annoying zergers he was dealing with, claimed ownership of the page that matches those zergers, and then used said ownership to make "self"-deprecating comments about "their" group so that it's abundantly clear they're zergers. Essentially, he's adopting their name in order to make them look bad (not that they really need any help, of course). So far as the wiki is concerned, his group exists in-game, so it has a valid claim of ownership to the page. The group page can't falsely claim membership of people who aren't in the group, but that issue was corrected in a recent edit, so it's no longer a problem. I'm actually okay with reverting the move. —Aichon— 19:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- So you're fine with him taking the initiative to 'claim' ownership of a group of zergs he has problems with, but with him addressing the information in a now neutral-ish way. Not the position I would have considered but I do understand your reasoning. What do other sysops think about move? Leave here or move back? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 10:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- More accurately, if someone wants to go to the trouble of making an in-game group, and no one wants to contest them, the wiki is supposed to reflect the game, so they have ownership of the page. We’re not moderators, after all. As for being neutral, nope, it doesn’t need to be. It just can’t be lying about its membership, which it was doing previously. It just needs to reflect the game, but it can do so from a POV angle. —Aichon— 13:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- So you're fine with him taking the initiative to 'claim' ownership of a group of zergs he has problems with, but with him addressing the information in a now neutral-ish way. Not the position I would have considered but I do understand your reasoning. What do other sysops think about move? Leave here or move back? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 10:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I actually think that's the reason it does make sense. It looks to me like Spider made a character in response to annoying zergers he was dealing with, claimed ownership of the page that matches those zergers, and then used said ownership to make "self"-deprecating comments about "their" group so that it's abundantly clear they're zergers. Essentially, he's adopting their name in order to make them look bad (not that they really need any help, of course). So far as the wiki is concerned, his group exists in-game, so it has a valid claim of ownership to the page. The group page can't falsely claim membership of people who aren't in the group, but that issue was corrected in a recent edit, so it's no longer a problem. I'm actually okay with reverting the move. —Aichon— 19:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent Actions
Squadron_1111_secondary_refuge
- Squadron111/Squadron_1111_secondary_refuge
- Looks like this is a subgroup within a group. Should probably be moved to the above recommended spot. --
LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman 
#24 - 
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 08:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- The page is a year old and has practically no content. I'm voting delete. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 10:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- I second that so I've created an entry on A/D THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 09:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
DONE
Just making a note that I moved DONE to User:Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection/DONE as per the discussion on that talk page. —Aichon— 21:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Archives
| Move Requests Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
