Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice is automatically updated by MusikBot (talk) and will hide when there are fewer than 3 requests and they are all under 7 days old. |
Page mover
User:Absolutiva
- Absolutiva (t · th · c (RM/TR · RMs) · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · CSD log · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello, I should grant my page mover rights over a year and 14,942 edits, so I made requested moves, I understand this guide, it's for my third time. Absolutiva 23:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I'm only seeing 1 technical request, and while there's decent participation at requested moves, I don't see any activity in closing move requests. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)- Can you please explain this move, given that there is also Salvator Mundi (Palma Vecchio) and in light of MOS:ART/DAB. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
User:Itcouldbepossible
- Itcouldbepossible (t · th · c (RM/TR · RMs) · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · CSD log · rfar · spi · cci)
I have been active for around four years now, and have become involved in New Page Patrol recently (though I don't have the right yet!) As a reviewer, I come across articles that have potential but are not yet ready for mainspace, and I have to draftify them to follow the most constructive path forward. However, moving these articles currently leaves behind a cross-namespace redirect in the mainspace. Granting me the page mover permission would allow me to suppress these redirects at the time of the move. This will also eliminate the need for WP:R2 or WP:G8 speedy deletion requests, thereby saving significant administrative work. I had the right granted for a period of 3 months in the past, and I would like to have them permanently for the ease of my work. Itcouldbepossible Talk 13:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing consensus to move here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your rationale also has some issues. Nobody discussed COMMONNAME in the discussion, and the Google Maps name isn't relevant in determining the official name of a place. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would suggest relisting the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- To be fair, I would have closed it the same way because of a mix of WP:RMNOMIN and WP:IAR. The only other participant isn't really contesting the move, no one has outright opposed after two relists, and searching myself plus the links given by the nominator show that the name is probably an error. The rationale could be better though. HurricaneZetaC 00:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Though outside of that there's not a lot of activity in RMs or moves. @Itcouldbepossible you just returned after 2 years, so I think you should get more experience before re-requesting this perm. WP:RMCI might be helpful, and you can always review WP:NC and its various subpages whenever relevant. HurricaneZetaC 00:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Voorts, thank you for your feedback. I agree that my closing rationale was poorly phrased should have explicitly referenced the official Boulder County plat documents that the nominator had provided in the nomination, but I will still stand firmly of my action of moving the page, rather than relisting it for a third time, mainly because of two reasons. The request had been open for over a month and had already had relisting been done twice. There was no opposition, and the only other participant Speederzzz, had initially asked for proof, and the nominator duly provided the official government plats, and Speederzzz's response was, I presume, positive. Therefore, relisting an unopposed move for a third time felt unnecessarily bureaucratic. Secondly, even though no one had explicitly mentioned about WP:COMMONNAME in the discussion, I felt that the nominator's evidence about local HOA names and bus routes, was a fundamental COMMONNAME argument, and the country's plat evidence did establish WP:OFFICIALNAME. And hence, I weighed the strength of the evidence against our naming conventions, rather than just counting which shortcuts were name dropped.
- Hi @HurricaneZeta, thank you for pointing me to WP:RMCI and WP:NC; I am going to read through those and will try and spend the next few weeks participating and gain some experience.
If the reviewing admin feels it is best to decline this request for now while I get those "reps" in, I completely understand and will reapply when I have a stronger recent track record.Thank you everyone for the constructive feedback! Itcouldbepossible Talk 09:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- To be fair, I would have closed it the same way because of a mix of WP:RMNOMIN and WP:IAR. The only other participant isn't really contesting the move, no one has outright opposed after two relists, and searching myself plus the links given by the nominator show that the name is probably an error. The rationale could be better though. HurricaneZetaC 00:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would suggest relisting the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your rationale also has some issues. Nobody discussed COMMONNAME in the discussion, and the Google Maps name isn't relevant in determining the official name of a place. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)