Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2017

A bot to transclude monthly logs
I think a bot to transclude and remove monthly logs in the "Active discussions" section may be desired, if not needed. I can't be the only one doing this manually. Of course, anyone else can do it manually. It's that... Reading the history logs, delays to add a fresher month are (if not common) not uncommon. As for the monthly logs, what to do about one of the monthly logs if the discussions from that log are closed? --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not have a bot do it? Pinging editors who may be able to assist: and  are both active in this area and run bots. 's bot clerks DRV, which is a similar job to what would be required here. Jenks24 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * AnomieBOT 66 clerks deletion review. The configuration of move review was blatantly copied from deletion review, so it might be easy to leverage AnomieBOT 66 into a new AnomieBOT task that clerks here. I'd offer to do this if it was PHP, but I don't do Perl. can you take this one onboard? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * AnomieBOT 66 maintains Deletion review/Active, but we don't have Move review/Active.
 * Rather, we have Move review/Log/2017 February, and before that, Move review/Log/2017 January, so our configuration isn't identical. Seems like with our scheme, they are "pre-archived" on a monthly basis. So, I suppose I should look closer at exactly what specific edits and others are making to maintain the system. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Once a month, AnomieBOT 66 creates a new monthly archive file, e.g. Deletion review/Log/2017 February. This monthly archive simply transcludes 28–31 daily files (e.g. Deletion review/Log/2017 February 1 and Deletion review/Log/2017 February 6). Some of these daily files have no activity. The move review activity doesn't justify daily files, thus we only have a single monthly file that has all the reviews started that month. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We currently have 22 Category:Pages at move review, but only one active discussion. That means we have 21 move reviews that were not completely closed, as they should be in Category:Closed move reviews, but are not. The admins closing the reviews should be taking care to do this. wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also add a result to the template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g..
 * That's the step that wasn't done. Occasionally I drop by here to mop these up. It's been a long time since my last visit (maybe a couple of years), and I see 21 items waiting for attention. wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think switching to using Move review/Active is a good idea, especially if it makes it easier to reuse an existing bot. There were discussions a while back that leaned in that direction. Latest was Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2014. It would also make it easier for move review regulars to watch the pages instead of having the future log pages. I was actually going to be bold and create it for January 2015 but that page got created early and I never got around to it for the next month. PaleAqua  (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... an "Active" subpage is not a bad idea. Good thinking. :) George Ho (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've cleared out Category:Pages at move review. 154 closed move reviews now. This isn't exactly a high-volume maintenance area. There are a lot of higher-volume activities I do that aren't automated yet.
 * My understanding is that there are three manual-maintenance tasks.
 * (1) Once a month, create a new monthly-archive file. created January on 6 December 2015.  created February on 4 January 2017.  created March on 29 January 2017.
 * Move review/Next month helps to create these files?
 * (2) On the first day of a new month, transclude this file to Move review. added February on February 1.
 * (3) When all items in a given month's list are closed, remove the transclusion. removed January on February 13.
 * Sometimes there is only one month transcluded, sometimes the current month and previous month(s) are transcluded together.
 * AnomieBOT 66 performs all three tasks for deletion review. It appears that the source code has the intelligence to recognize when all discussions are closed.
 * AnomieBOT 66 performs the following tasks at WP:DRV:
 * Create the daily DRV subpage.
 * Create the monthly DRV subpage.
 * Fix the headers on the daily DRV subpages, if they get removed or damaged.
 * Maintain the lists at WP:DRV and WP:DRV.
 * Remove headers from closed non-current discussions.
 * We just have monthly subpages. So while Deletion review/Active transcludes 6 or 7 daily files, Move review/Active would transclude just one or two (maybe 3) monthly files.
 * I'm not sure this is worth the time to create a bot for, but if AnomieBOT 66 can easily be tweaked to handle our less-complex setup, then maybe it wouldn't be too much trouble to implement. the ball's in your court, if you want to accept the serve. wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something slightly different where the discussions would occur on an active page which would then get moved to a new monthly page once the month switches. The main move review page would always transclude Active and other other months that have active discussions. i.e.
 * Once a month
 * Move the current Active page to the previous month log page.
 * Add a transclusion at Move review to the moved subpage if there are any open discussions.
 * Create a new Active subpage from a template.
 * Regular maintenance
 * If all the discussions in a transcluded page has been closed ( save for active ), remove from Move review
 * Remove headers from closed non-current discussions.
 * PaleAqua (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that a bot can just add monthly logs. A log can be removed manually from then until someone can properly configure a bot to remove a log of closed discussions. Thoughts?--George Ho (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh... didn't notice Bot requests. Shall I repeat the request there? George Ho (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Expand scope to review challenged RfC closes

 * At Administrators%27_noticeboard, I raised the idea of expanding the scope of WP:MR to include reviews of challenged RfC closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer having a central location to review all closures of consensus-finding discussions, which would essentially mean a combination of DRV + MRV + RfC closures (currently handled at AN). Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I second . That would be a much better system than having several processes that don't really work.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Combing WP:DRV with MRV would be a disaster. DRV is already filled with so many contested closures of deletion discussions (and other informal deletions). I created WP:discussion review, but that failed (but would be revived someday). George Ho (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As when move review was first proposed at WT:DRV, I would oppose merging any other reviews into DRV. Deletion review is head and shoulders more important than any MR or RfC review I have ever seen. Bad deletions risk far more long term negative consequences, noting WP:CSD#G4, SALTing and BLOCKing for repeated recreations. Two review processes is a reasonable idea, but not one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Monthly logs 2017
Following on from Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2014. I still agree with User:Jenks24 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC). User:PaleAqua's 13:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC) pre-watchlisting workaround was good, but not long enough. Here are some more:


 * Add the following to your raw watchlist to watch the next few years. You can just paste them in even if you already are watching some of them, and it will adds only the ones that you don't have. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2027 December

Move Review tag
I thought we had agreed, January 2013, at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2013, that articles should not be tagged as subject to a formal Move Review. Only two of us participated. I think there reasons then were as good as they are now. A move review is a backroom review process of a backroom process, the closing of a RM discussion. The article should not be disrupted. The MR discussion is likely to carry on for a long time, and the debate will be esoteric or completely irrelevant to article readers.

Accordingly, I will modify Move_review, where the instructions actually instruct to do what was decided to not do. Done --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging used listed at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard:

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My recollection of the rationale is that the idea was that since we did not give notice of RMs to article readers, as this was a "back room discussion", that under most circumstances was fairly routine and uncontroversial, in the relatively small percentage of RMs where the close was contested, only at that time would we put a notice on the article, to give wider attention to the review. But, now that we do give notice of nearly all RMs, then perhaps the notice of the review is redundant. Certainly worth reconsideration. wbm1058 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My reading of the linked Jan 2013 discussion (Me & Apteva) was that there was absurdity in giving no notice of the RM, and then giving notice of the MR. The template merge discussion, although on a different focus, I read as implying broad agreement.  I find no other discussion directly speaking to this matter. The new practice of giving article page notice of an RM is a good idea, because the title is important content, and often speak s to article scope, and content interested potential editors may well be interested in the article title discussion.  The MR should not be of interest to non-editor readers, as it is supposedly strictly about reviewing the process.  I note that non-editors rarely appear at MR, and when they do they do not contribute to it meaningfully.  Very few participate at MR who are not RM regulars.  I think it is quite uncontroversial to confirm that article tag Move review should be deprecated in favour of Move review talk.  Should there ever be a concern at MR that content-interested potential editors should be notified of a title change outcome from MR, then the MR outcome should be a fresh RM?  Are all those Rs and Ms in the right order?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, as a "RM regular", I agree with your proposed deprecation. No such user (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also agree. There's little merit in advertising an MRV on the article page, for the reasons stated above.
 * Personally I'm probably neutral even on the topic of advertising RMs and AfDs on the article page. There is an argument that we should only include on the article page content directly related to a reader's experience of the article at the time they are reading it (e.g. disambiguation hatnotes, concerns about verifiability etc.), not Wikipedia internal processes. However, there is also the argument that some editors may not be monitoring talk pages fully and that RMs could be a mechanism for drawing in new editors from the reader corps (most of us were in that position once, and hooks are good to draw people into full editing), so on balance there's no real problem with that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply - If move review should not be placed on any articles, then it needs to be reworded or deleted. It now says "do [not] remove this notice from the page". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Following this discussion it has already been marked as deprecated, and removed from the instructions, so probably that's good enough. We can retain it for historical record. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to say I agree with all of the above and am happy to see it deprecated in favour of the talk page notice. I think at the time (c. 2013?) I was originally OK with the notification being at the top of the article because MRV was such a low-traffic process that I felt any extra outside involvement was beneficial. Having now had time to look back on that, I don't think the notices at the top of the article actually bring in any new editors to comment at MRV who have enough of a grasp of our practices. Ironically, probably the only time they have a chance of doing so is at really high-traffic articles such as the recent NYC attack, which is almost the last place they should be used because they're a big visual stain to our readers who would see these discussions as irrelevant. Jenks24 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)