Page mover

User:Crystallizedcarbon

• Crystallizedcarbon (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)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

As a new page reviewer I find some articles that would be best suited for draft space. I request the permission to be able to do the move without leaving the redirect and having to request its deletion. I do have extensive experience with moves w/o redirect as an admin in eswiki. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not much to go on as far as evidence on the English Wikipedia, but since it's one of your most recent moves here, can you explain your reasoning behind this move? (Edit summary: "To distinguish from the deleted article with the same name about the mythological being"). And maybe also this since the page started out at Catalonia's declaration of independence, you moved it to Declaration from the representatives of Catalonia, and it's now at Catalan declaration of independence? Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for the first move was to disambiguate what was at that time an upcoming movie with the mythological being. An article under that title about the mythological being had been previously deleted at AfD (please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odiyan)
• This move was done on 16 October 2017. At that time there was no declaration of independence. A document titled Declaration from the representatives of Catalonia was signed by some MPs (those in favor of independence) outside the parliament. You can check in the article itself that that is the title of the document signed. So at that time there was no declaration of independence. The title was wrong and had to be corrected. A few days later, on 27 October 2017, a resolution based on the "Declaration of the representatives of Catalonia" declaring the independence of Catalonia was voted in the Parliament and was approved (see here). After my edit on that same day, the article title could be changed and the page was moved to Declaration of Independence of Catalonia. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The second explanation makes sense to me, but the first one still indicates possible problems. Wikipedia:Disambiguation states that "disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." In this case, the other topic was not only not an article, but had already been deleted. Recreation of the article on the mythological being is always a possibility, but we generally do not disambiguate article titles based upon the chance that another article will be created in the future. This is a good indication of why the film's article is now back at Odiyan. I was hoping that you would point this out in your reply. Dekimasuよ! 08:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Dekimasu, I do understand and agree with that criteria. At the time of the move, I wanted to differentiate with the mythological being, also because I was about to nominate the article for AfD per WP:CBALL and WP:TOOSOON since the article was about a future event, had no references (please see here) and because in my initial search per WP:BEFORE I could not find enough coverage by independent reliable sources to justify inclusion. I wanted to avoid the confusion of having to list the article as a second nomination since the subjects were different, perhaps that was also not necessary but seemed reasonable at the time. Shortly after, sources were found with sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, so I withdrew the AfD as nominator. At that time it did not occur to me to move the article back since my focus then shifted towards improving the article by adding those newly found reliable sources. I do understand that moving it back then would have been a good idea. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you need more elements for evaluation, please feel free to check this list of page moves (which include many examples of moves without leaving a redirect) at eswiki. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary page mover rights by Dekimasu (expires 12:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The bot is more conscientious than me. My Spanish is not great, but I looked through the list at es. If there are no problems, this can be extended or made permanent. Best, Dekimasuよ! 18:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mainly because I notice this request is expiring/coming up for review in two days, I thought I would comment on the move log; it looks like about half of the draftifications have been reverted (via histmerge). This, to me, implies that either a) the draftifications shouldn't have happened, b) there should have been better communication with the creator, or c) or the histmerges should not have happened. Given that the merged articles are not at AFD it means (c) is not the issue, which makes me question if the draftifications were appropriate. I don't know if this would invalidate an extension of PGM, but it definitely makes me pause. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check the state of the articles when they were sent to draft. All were unsourced except for one that had been edited directly by the subject and was mostly original research. In many cases they have been improved there as intended, all authors were notified, but some recreated the articles in mainspace and improved them there. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In all of them I followed this advice: "Move to draft: NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Primefac: To further clarify: Also from WP:NPPDRAFT: "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication. Such pages can be moved to the draft namespace manually. An explanatory note and link to the draft should be left on the article creator's talk page. The resulting redirect should be suppressed if you have the page mover user right, or tagged for deletion with CSD R2. The MoveToDraft script is a useful tool for automating this process." option d) is that the author of the article moved to draft and notified to improve it by adding references there, recreates it in main space and improves it there rather than following AfC. At that point there is no mechanism for enforcing the AfC process as A10 applies only to article space. Once the article is improved and sourced, histmerge is performed to keep the whole history as the recreated article was a copy of the original article moved to draft. The merged copies should not be taken to AfD because I draftify articles that seem to fit our inclusion criteria, but at the time of the move failed WP:V or other major policy. If the subject of an article does not seem fit for inclusion, I usually use one of the deletion options (including AfD) instead of sending them to draft. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Request If there are no issues with my moves to draft, I request for the extension of the permission. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dekimasu, thoughts? I'm rather solidly on the fence. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Primefac: This may clarify what I was trying to explain on my previous comments: User_talk:JJMC89#Dujone_(2009_film). If you have any advice for me on how to better serve the project, I would appreciate as always any constructive criticism. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though it still needs improvement, Permude is an example of my intended outcome when draftifiying, the article now has references that source the content and the author has learnt how to do it in the process. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. No one seems to be complaining, so I'll go ahead and grant this. Sorry for the faff and the wait. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Primefac: No worries at all; I understand perfectly. Thank you for your vote of confidence. If you do see any thing that needs improvement, please feel free to trout me . --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utopes

• Utopes (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)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I am a frequent new page reviewer and have found myself needing to draftify many articles due to a lack of sources or other problems that can be fixed over time. In the past, I've been doing so by the normal page moving function, and then cleaning up my work with a CSD R2, which is usually evident in my CSD log. However, I would like to both lighten the administrative workload, as well as clean up my page moves instantaneously. I also plan on using this function to perform round robin moves for AfC drafts whenever a redirect is preventing me from moving the article to the best location, or in the instance of fixing typos in disambiguation qualifiers of recently created redirects where the correctly spelled counterpart does not yet exist. I have used the WP:RM/TR venue many times to perform technical moves, and I try to avoid making moves that could potentially be controversial, and leave them at their current location. I have no intentions of making controversial moves with this tool without consulting WP:RM. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravenpuff

• Ravenpuff (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)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Being fairly active in maintaining and scheduling POTD, the page-mover permission would be useful when rescheduling pictures to appear on other days, as this entails moving pages to different titles without having to clean up undesirable redirects. This would otherwise be inefficient, as an admin would be required to remove them, adding to the backlog. I envisage that this permission will mostly be limited to this use. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anarchyte (talk | work) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amkgp

• Amkgp (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)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

While WP:NPP, I find many articles needs major restructuring and rewriting due to issues like WP:CV and WP:NOT etc. leading to WP:PROD,WP:AFD and WP:CSD. I therefore request Page mover permission so that I can exercise the option for new editors to move the page to WP:DRAFTS, as it will enable them to get help to create quality articles. Amkgp (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 1332 total edits. — MusikBot ^talk 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amkgp, you don't need page mover rights to move articles to drafts. See User:Evad37/MoveToDraft for a useful script. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, fails minimum editing criteria. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]