UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests/Archive/Oct 2010

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 The average user's ability to move pages has been rescinded due to frequent abuse by vandals; as such, users will need to submit requests (similar in nature to those on Speedy Deletions and Protections) for pages to be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

Remi's Story/A Shot in the Dark

• User:RemipunX/Remi's Story/A Shot in the Dark

Journal page without the Journal nor user prefix. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:47, 25 October 2010 (BST)

Recent Actions

Editing_RRF/Malton_Herald_&_Sun/Black404ZPOV

• RRF/Malton_Herald_&_Sun/Black404ZPOV

Yeah. My bad. Please don't beat me. -MHSstaff 02:09, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Your request is denied. Well, at least the part about getting beaten is.

*Aichon beats you with a stick*

The page has been moved, however. —Aichon— 05:11, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Dual Nature Policy

• Dual Nature - is the name of the group as it appears on the stats page. The policy itself is just part of the article, besides the description of what the group is about it also discusses advantages and disadvantages of dual nature. --Aeon17x 07:30, 23 October 2010 (BST)

I don't really think it's necessary. It is in respects a policy not a group, and the stats page links there via the redirect anyway.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:38, 23 October 2010 (BST)

I concur. They aren't a group in the typical sense, and are instead merely followers of a policy. In addition, the wiki page itself is a policy page, not a group page. That there's a "group" recognized on the stats page is incidental. Denied. —Aichon— 23:22, 23 October 2010 (BST)

It's simply a matter of semantics. Dual Nature already redirects to Dual Nature Policy anyway. However, you could argue for the move as it would save redirects when pointed to the wiki from stat page links. Given that the redirect has <700 page hits, and the article >60,000, I think we're okay. 23:28, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Call it recentism, but Dual Nature is now the largest group in the game. It might not be an organized group but their presence there sure is not incidental, they made a choice to join it. --Aeon17x 05:04, 24 October 2010 (BST)

It's a policy which people are following, not a group. If hundreds of people put "Coalition for Fair Tactics" in their group box that wouldn't make that a group.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:00, 24 October 2010 (BST)

I'm not denying it's a policy. In fact the group wouldn't be there if it weren't for the policy. I'm just saying it's a legitimate group, and with it being the largest right now it's more recognizable as a group than as a policy. --Aeon17x 14:08, 24 October 2010 (BST)

No, it isn't a group, it's people following a policy. Your request has been denied, live with it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:18, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Just because it's not organized? What's the difference between this and On Strike then? --Aeon17x 14:22, 24 October 2010 (BST)

On Strike was organised... They all got together in a park and went on strike and Kevan responded... ......... -- LEMON #1 14:24, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Yeah, but if it weren't for the waypoint to Whetcombe it's also very much an in-game movement. Dual Nature put equal emphasis on playing both sides, On Strike did the opposite by playing neither. --Aeon17x 14:30, 24 October 2010 (BST)

that has very little (ie nothing) to do with whether one or another is organised. -- LEMON #1 14:38, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Just reviewing this request, is very interesting that Duel Nature is the largest group in the game, very cool, though I think the way it is now is the best it should be. Moving the page as per the above suggestion only insinuates that this is an actual group when it is more of an affiliation. -- LEMON #1 14:26, 24 October 2010 (BST)

How is it not a player group? Is a leadership required to recognize players choosing the same group in their profile as a group? --Aeon17x 14:30, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Because it's a policy, not a group. DN doesn't profess to being a group, OS did. Frankly, I'm going to ignore you now, because I see you as just trolling for free game.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:37, 24 October 2010 (BST)

yep -- LEMON #1 14:38, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Well, I just practice calling a spade a spade. Dual Nature is a group, at present the largest one, and it has very little (ie nothing) to do whether it started off with a policy or not. --Aeon17x 14:54, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Lets Read the page. "Those who prefer the state of survivor, yet do not wish to join an organization, may revert to life more easily. " Oh look, inherently states its not an organisation. Denied --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:02, 24 October 2010 (BST)

i can't yet tell whether your trying really hard to bring the sophisto or if you're just taking the piss, because you're still making literally no sense and your argument still doesn't justify the proposed move. but yes, you're right, the group has very little to do with whether the policy started it off or not. the more important thing to remember though is that it isn't actually a group so the statement, true or not, has null value in this discussion. -- LEMON #1 15:07, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Again that begs the question whether you have to be organized to be a group. And just look at the group rankings.

Image:Dual nature group.PNG

Do you seriously ignore this and think it's still just a policy at this point? --Aeon17x 15:13, 24 October 2010 (BST)

I concur with the rest, although I would call it more as a playstyle rather then a policy. But yeah, definitely not a group, as explained above in great detail. Pursuing this issue further is discouraged, at this point it will be ignored, and frankly you're coming of as thick. --Thadeous Oakley 15:44, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Image:Sdf.PNG Here's another "Group" By your logic. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:53, 24 October 2010 (BST)

lol. Though I think his logic revolves around the distinction between groups and organizations. In a technical sense, a group is a collection of people who share the same characteristics. So if you say: There is a group of people playing urbandead who all have Dual Nature in their grouptag, then that is technically correct. Of course, I think it's fair to assume the stats page has always been about groups, as in organizations or clans. Dual nature is not a group in the sense of an organization and neither is independent. Dual Nature is a playstyle, like pro-survivor or zombie. --Thadeous Oakley 16:16, 24 October 2010 (BST)

As I said before, that page is a policy page, not a group page. In theory, someone could make a page describing the group itself, and then that page would go at Dual Nature, but the policy page should stay as it is, because that's what it is: a policy page. That there is a group that follows the policy, which no one is denying, is incidental and unrelated. I don't see why this is hard to understand. I mean, if I started using "Dam Tacticians" as my group name and encouraged others that advocated the tactic to do the same, we wouldn't suddenly commandeer the existing tactic page and move it. We'd either make a new group page or we would make no page at all since there was nothing formal in our grouping with each other. Using it as our group name was just a way of showing our support and use of the tactic, after all. —Aichon— 22:16, 24 October 2010 (BST)

bitch got owned -- LEMON #1 10:09, 25 October 2010 (BST)

The Kilt Store/Xebulba

• User:Pdeq/The Kilt Store/Xebulba - character page --~ 07:54, 22 October 2010 (BST)

First off, that's a group subpage. Secondly, it wasn't made by Pdeq.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:12, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Was there a server reset at some point? History shows the only edit was pdeq. It looks to me like a character page created on a group sub-page. The word member is all over it. --~ 08:17, 22 October 2010 (BST)

To my understanding, lots of groups have member sub-pages. Also, if it doesn't say "created page" in the edit summary, it's generally not the first edit, because, as you said, there was a server reset in April 2008. The page was created by Xebulba most likely, as he created the image used on the page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:18, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Although, I will delete this as a crit one of his user page, if you take it to SD.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:22, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Deleted as per Speedy Deletions.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:39, 23 October 2010 (BST)

OMC/Navigation

• Outside Mobile Connections/Navigation
• G F J 14:15, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:25, 23 October 2010 (BST)

This is The Zodiac

• User:The Russian Bear/This is The Zodiac - character page --~ 07:45, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Denied. It's a group page. —Aichon— 08:28, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Monty Preston

• User:The Russian Bear/Monty Preston - character page --~ 07:45, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Denied. It's a group page. —Aichon— 08:28, 22 October 2010 (BST)

DHPD Stuff

Please can all of these be moved to Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Archive/*

• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Department_of_The_Commissioner
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/HR_and_Recruitment_Office
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Department_of_Field_Operations
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Department_of_Public_Relations
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Testimonials
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/CVH_Alliance
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/the_dead_of_Dunell_Hills - I've also request this be unprotected so we can edit it to note it is out of date
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Informal_Roster
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Chaplain_Services
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Medical_Services
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Interdepartmental_Relations
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Department_of_Resource_and_Supply
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Internal_Communications
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Science_Department
• Dunell_Hills_Police_Department/Rogues_Gallery
• Journal:DHPD

Many Thanks! Purple Cat ~ DHPD 19:51, 17 October 2010 (BST)

Right, I've started, but this will take a while because of link fixes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:55, 17 October 2010 (BST)

Thanks! Any links internal the DHPD space I should catch as I clean up over the next few weeks, if that's any help. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 19:59, 17 October 2010 (BST)

I'll get them, it might just take a while.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:22, 17 October 2010 (BST)

Bear in mind, all of your redirects and templates are going to be pointing to archives though. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:45, 17 October 2010 (BST)

I have a plan. Once I'm done the DHPD category will be a thing of beauty. Or at least, in my head that's how it will all work. I think most of the templates are out of date anyway, to be honest. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 20:52, 17 October 2010 (BST)

Ace. I'll whip these up by the end of the night.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:58, 17 October 2010 (BST)

The journal one is confusing. What you linked to is a redirect, and, if you meant Journal:Dunell Hills Police Department, that already has 3 archives. If it's that, do you want it moved to Journal:Dunell Hills Police Department/Archive4?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:16, 17 October 2010 (BST)

That's right and, yes, move it to Archive4 I guess.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Louise (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Right, that's the lot. Good luck sorting out your namespace.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:01, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Todd Sidney

• User:TossiT/Todd Sidney

Character page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:49, 12 October 2010 (BST)

Done by Yonn. —Aichon— 22:46, 13 October 2010 (BST)

Could have sworn I'd left a message. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:01, 13 October 2010 (BST)

Knowing you it's in last month's archive. 23:02, 13 October 2010 (BST)

I checked. It isn't there. The only thing there is... horrible.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:04, 13 October 2010 (BST)

Also, why, when we have an archive template, do we not use it on this page, and instead choose to link to it? Seems a little silly to me.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:05, 13 October 2010 (BST)

Because it's included on A/MR. It'd look silly to have the same template included twice. —Aichon— 23:14, 13 October 2010 (BST)

Oh, I see. Since I access MR via RC, I never see the archive template. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:35, 13 October 2010 (BST)

Red October

More of a "should we move this" than "do move this" - I'm thinking the group should be moved to Red October (Group), and the original page made a disambiguation for the group and the event, given that the group's marked inactive and the event's more pressing at the moment (and has various connected pages which could do with listing too, I guess). Opinions? 19:10, 11 October 2010 (BST)

Meh, just add a note to the top of the group page, did you mean the event? etc. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:12, 11 October 2010 (BST)

I could get behind that. —Aichon— 19:16, 11 October 2010 (BST)

Added a tiny sentence to the top of the page. Look good? Would also appreciate people on other browsers checking it hasn't gone weird.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:20, 11 October 2010 (BST)

Looks fine on Firfox. Thanks for making the edit. --~ 19:22, 11 October 2010 (BST)

Personally, I'd leave it the way it is. Groups have control of their namespace, and while the group may be inactive, I'm not inclined to bump them from their namespace without there being another group trying to make a claim to the name (and even then, I'd be a bit hesitant). Plus, as far as I know, it's a one-time event, and not something that would need a long-term presence such as a disambiguation page. In a month, it'd make very little sense to have that disambiguation page, since both of the items it'd link to would be inactive/done and the need for disambiguation would be gone. —Aichon— 19:16, 11 October 2010 (BST)

Common sense I salute thee! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:29, 11 October 2010 (BST)

User:Axe Hack/Game

To User:Axe Hack/Game/RN 0. But leave the talk page where it is, please. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:10, 7 October 2010 (BST)

Done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:13, 9 October 2010 (BST)

User:Axe_Hack/User:Axe_Hack/Game/RN_0_Look

To User:Axe_Hack/Game/RN_0_Look. The mistake is blatantly obvious... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 05:46, 7 October 2010 (BST)

Done. —Aichon— 05:55, 7 October 2010 (BST)

Talismen

Misplaced user page created by User:Talismen. Probably move it to the User:Talismen page, as it is currently empty. -Dezonus- ^(talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (BST)

Moved by DDR hours ago. —Aichon— 07:51, 2 October 2010 (BST)