User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2011/April-June

Tel Abib

• Hi

  The quote on Tel Abib seems worng, in all four editions of my bibles they all say "Tel Abib". Is there a reason why you have used "Tel Aviv" ? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have corrected it and explained there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DataObscura and Blue Oasis (record labels)

• Two months ago you deleted an article with the above title, giving the reason Notability. Using a subpage, I have made a draft which cites third-party sources, and I would appreciate having your approval before I consider recreating the DataObscura article. Alcove (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• I have moved it to DataObscura and Blue Oasis (record labels) and AfD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataObscura and Blue Oasis (record labels). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Turquoise Jeep Records

• I have a similar concern to Alcove, you deleted the page with the above name yesterday citing notability. The article contained at least two third party references and several more in previous edits. Alexallright (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• At 22:03, 2 April 2011 User:E Wing speedy-delete-tagged it "non-notable corporation". I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turquoise Jeep Records. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Major Regression on Space Tether

• I appreciate the history merge of the tether propulsion page with the space tether page, and apologize for any trouble when I reverted to the "Space Tether" (my Wikipedia skills are still being established).

  However, your recent modifications on the page removed a great deal of organization, technical information enhancement and revisions. Throughout the recent modifications I have been coneversing with Rememberway. Please view our conversation:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rememberway#Space_Tether_Response

  We finally arrived at a consensus for the page before your changes. Please converse with us if you wish to change the technical content. Thank you. KPFuhrhop (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The text lost in this edit seems to be in page Space tether missions. Some matter may be in page Momentum exchange tether.

  User talk:Rememberway#Space Tether Response contains discussions between User:Rememberway and User:KPFuhrhop but not User:Anthony Appleyard.

  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• The histmerge request was "{{db-histmerge|tether propulsion}} Many thanks in advance.Rememberway (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)" which was in Talk:Space tether, before I moved Talk:Tether propulsion to Talk:Space tether and history-merged Tether propulsion to Space tether. The histmerge request as it stood was asking me to history-merge an article page Tether propulsion to a talk page Talk:Space tether; I thought that it was a wrongly-placed request to history-merge Tether propulsion to Space tether. I am sorry if I misunderstood it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You deleted EcoGem as G12 when the talk page had an OTRS tag on it and there was a comment left in the article history that OTRS permission was verified. Just a heads up for future reference. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature

• Anthony, between here and here you apparently added my signature to the RM name line. Move the content isn't a real issue to me (although, I don't think it was necessary or a good idea, I'm not going to argue about it at all), but I do have a problem with putting my signature places that I haven't put it. Please don't do that again.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry to have annoyed you. A discussed move request without a signature causes a malfunction in the bot User:RM bot which sets up the file Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Also, the move request must be in the talk page of the page which is to be moved, not elsewhere, else again the bot User:RM bot misunderstands. I checked in pages' history lists to see who had composed that move request text. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Anthony, I'm not "annoyed". You misrepresented yourself and me by adding my signature to a talk page where I hadn't. Your reply above makes the situation worse because it seems to indicate that this is some sort of a regular procedure you use. You can not be adding other people's signatures to talk pages. I can't believe that I have to say this to an admin... And please tell User:Harej to fix his damn bot already. These same issues were issues two years ago! Although, I will mention that placing the RM on a sub-page doesn't at all appear to be an issue, with a small bit of post-placement editing. I didn't see where that tripped up User:RM bot at all. Just because the template includes the sub-page name is no reason to assume that there's a problem (although the template itself is certainly in need of an update...).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• If the move request does not contain with a signature with a date in, User:RM bot cannot find which day to classify the move request under. I found by experience that that signature must end in the date and then "(UTC)", else User:RM bot does not identify it. Please, what changes do you want to be made to User:RM bot? (For a long time Wikipedia has had a bot User:SineBot that adds signatures to unsigned messages in discussion pages.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Securities Industry differs from Security Industry

• Greetings -- Securities (stocks, bonds and their derivatives) differ from Security (guards, surveillance equipment, etc.) The Securities Industry Association, which was widely known by the initials SIA, should never redirect to something called Security Industry A______ (Authority, etc.). May I have your blessing to re-create the page Securities Industry Association, with a redirect from the SIA disambiguation page? If so (I am new at this), what else do I have to do to avoid having the page re-deleted? Kirkpete (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• To clarify, even though the only change in the text string is one changed letter and two additional letters, "Securities" is unrelated to "Security". Applesauce and orange marmalade -- except the S words are spelled almost alike. Kirkpete (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• See this diff. I have made stubs at the two pages under question. The original long page Securities Industry Association was a copyvio of an external web site. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unclosed AFD

• Anthony, could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project)? It has been running for about 13 days now, and yet has not been closed. I'm trying to find out if there is a procedural error that needs to be corrected, or if it has just been skeipped, and I don't know where to go about this. Cany you give some advice? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• It's been closed now. If you or one of your lurkers looked into it, then thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• At 22:20, 10 April 2011 User:Kubigula closed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Request Page

• Anthony, I noticed you recently removed the "Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade" request on the Requested moves page, due to it being exactly the same as the old one but did you read the explanation I had about it being Italicized? Do you know how to fix this? AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Page Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade transcludes Template:Infobox television, which transcludes Template:Italic title, which sets the page title to display in italics. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• I do understand that but this isn't a television show; Post from another user on Discussion page...

  "This article's title should not be italicized; it is a simple proper noun, not the title of a television program (although there is a television program associated with it that often uses the same name, they are not the same thing)." AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Move request

Thanks! BusterD (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Histmerg of 3d Wing into 3rd Wing

• Hello, if you looked at the histories, you can see that the divergence occurred in July 2008. WP:Parallel histories does not really apply in this case. Ng.j (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Ng.j (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

South Tyrol

• Hello - Thanks for moving the South Tyrol page. It certainly was a long and heated discussion. I was wondering if you were planning to move the other articles with "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" in them: Comuni of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Valleys of the province of Bolzano-Bozen, List of castles in the province of Bolzano-Bozen, List of Presidents of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen, List of political parties in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen? They were adverted to in the move request by me and seconded by the nominator here. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comuni of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen
  • Valleys of the province of Bolzano-Bozen
  • List of castles in the province of Bolzano-Bozen already has been moved to List of castles in South Tyrol
  • List of Presidents of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen
  • List of political parties in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move close at Korolyov

• Thanks for closing this, I was wondering if you had any feedback on the policy based arguments made during the debate and whether you think relisting would be worthwhile? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• If this move was re-requested, the result would likely be more reams of inconclusive repetitive sidetracky arguing as before. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tornado move

• Is it okay If i put you, instead of me on the requested move at Talk:Mid-April 2011 Southern United States tornado outbreak seeing as that was not quite what i was referring too? Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 10:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• I copied your message verbatim from your entry in this revision of Wikipedia:Requested moves. What were you referring to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Originally I moved the page to the current title because just following what is standardisation for other disasters. With discussion with someone else, I put it up for an uncontroversial move so that i didn't have to go through an edit war. Therefore i wanted to set up a move request once it was moved back to its original title. I was not meaning this current move to be the move request and io feel now if i put in a second move request i might be appearing to contradict myself. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 22:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• As the first move of page Mid-April 2011 Southern United States tornado outbreak is still being discussed, I thought that suggesting alternate move destinations in it is easier than closing it and starting another move, or whatever. The month under discussion (April 2011) has not yet finished, and it seems that a third tornado outbreak (19–20 April 2011) has happened, to create need for disambiguation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not trying to close it, I was just trying to say that whilst this move was suggested it wasn't proposed by me although i did put it on RM. I originally moved it per above. And now please ignore my first request above. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

History merges

See User talk:Pichpich#New big wave of histmerge requests.

Cut-and-paste merges

Absolutely up for doing more. I will try to make it part of my routine again. Cool Hand Luke 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification re Carter IV

• The article about Tha Carter IV has edit history before May 18, 2010, but because the old edits got userfied under my space and then someone redirected the title, that's why they went their separate paths. I used the histmerge tag because I was wondering if it'd be possible to merge the edits before this one. And regarding the lack of continuity: I'll break down the sequence of events:
  • Last edit to the version under my user space: May 2, 2010 (as I linked)
  • The version under my user space was deleted after an AFD on May 10.
  • On May 18, the old edits of Tha Carter IV article were placed under my userspace, and a redirect was created in the title.

  I hope that clarifies the situation for you. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Between these 3 histories (Tha Carter IV, User:Andrewlp1991/Tha Carter IV, and some edits that I found deleted under Tha Carter IV but they are now at Tha Carter IV/version 2), there seems to be a quantity of WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I ended up using template copied in the Carter IV talk page. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol

• Hello again. Thanks for moving Trentino. Now that you've moved both that province and South Tyrol recently, I was wondering if you'd like to take a look at the region page, which is also under a current move request. In particular, I'd love your thoughts (either as a closer or a participant) on the issue of WP:COMMONNAME (and the other WP policies at issue). The provincial pages were moved largely on a common name rationale, but for whatever reason, the focus at Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol has been on official usage and previous compromises (both of which applied but were disregarded at the provincial moves). I think a consistent application of WP policy on these three pages would benefit the encyclopedia, but I'm looking for more thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Hello. Just thought I'd ask you about your closing rationale here. As I'm sure you noticed, there was a tremendous amount of overlap among the participants in this move request and the ones for Trentino and South Tyrol, which you also recently closed. A large number of people who supported the latter two explicitly referenced WP:COMMONNAME, and rejected earlier editorial consensus and "official" usage. In this discussion, however, many of the same people reversed themselves, citing earlier consensus and "official" usage as reasons to override WP:COMMONNAME. (I'll add that even the stats posted by one of the oppose !voters show just how much more common "Trentino-Alto Adige" is in English.) Did you take any of that inter-article inconsistency, or the common-name dominance of "Trentino-Alto Adige" into account in this move request? Does it bother you? Interested in your thoughts. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• As I wrote, there was no concensus after 3 weeks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• But don't you agree that there was consensus that "Trentino-Alto Adige" is the common name of the region? (Even the opposer's stats show it at 90% of English-language usage.) Which is why my question for you was whether, as the recent closer of the moves of South Tyrol and Trentino, you took notice that many of the same folks who relied on WP:COMMONNAME there rejected it here - even though it's a stronger common-name case? In other words, did you take into consideration the concerns I outlined above? I'm just trying to figure out why WP:COMMONNAME wasn't applied consistently to this third move. Sorry to bug you. Dohn joe (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• OK, OK, OK, I have reopened the discussion, at Talk:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol#Requested move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have again closed this move discussion: there was no concensus in 28 days, and no concensus was likely. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• The actual closing is not my main beef. I'm more trying to understand your evaluation of the discussion, and, I suppose, your view of the role of a closing admin. Here, the proposed name was clearly the common name, as acknowledged by essentially all of the participants. WP:COMMONNAME was then rejected. And seen in isolation, that can be fine - there are times when the pure common name can be overriden by other considerations. But read together with the two other page moves that you closed, it's odd that the same people who argued for common-name usage in the first two would argue against it in the third, when the naming backdrop for all three was so similar.

  And so I'm asking for your understanding of how an admin should evaluate these sorts of things. It was my understanding that an admin doesn't have to be just a !vote counter, and can take into consideration things like strength of argument - and, I'm suggesting, consistency of argument among a group of related pages. How do you see it? Dohn joe (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Any thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• The discussion has much to say for "accept", and much to say for "reject", and much to say for other possible names. It is a no concensus. I have seen many discussions get longer and longer and never reach a concensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Well, that still doesn't answer my question about whether you (as the closer of all three, and having been notified of the issue prior to closing) compared the participants and noted the difference in arguments some of them made here versus at South Tyrol and Trentino, but thanks anyhow. Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Odd move

• Hi there, in February, you made this move, which apparently moved User:WikiDan61's sandbox into mainspace (due to a typo, I assume). Anyway, it's still in the mainspace and an editor has started a requested move to get in back into userspace (non-admins can't do it as User:WikiDan61/Sandbox already exists, although it's blank). Just hoping you could please fix this up, rather than waiting for seven days at RM. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Which page should be moved to User WikiDan61/Sandbox? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I wasn't clear. Please move User WikiDan61/Sandbox out of article space and into userspace (as I'm writing this I'm realising I should also have asked WikiDan where he wanted it). I don't think any page needs to be moved to User WikiDan61/Sandbox, does it? Jenks24 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User WikiDan61/Sandbox

A tag has been placed on User WikiDan61/Sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Székely → Székelys

• Hello

  I saw that you closed the RfM discussion as "no concensus", but I honestly believe you did not deeply analyze the case. The score was 5-2 for the move and there was no single valid counterargument against the move. As it can be seen from Google Books results, the form including the plural desinence -s is widely used by the great majority of sources (including THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF THE HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES). The plural form Székelys is used by ~85% of Google Books sources, while the form Székely only by ~15% of them. I respectfully ask you to review your decision. Thanks in advance (79.117.159.76 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks a lot, but I'd have one more request: Can you please modify the verdict of the RfM discussion on the talk page? Someone may believe that the page was moved abusively, disregarding the RfM result. I.ve tried to do this by myself, but I was reverted on the motivation that is not allowed to edit others' comments(79.117.215.187 (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
• I also felt it wrong to edit an old message, even my own; but I added a postscript at the end of the discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have moved the page back to Székely, as I found later that the above two IPA users were banned. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• You moved the page back, in spite of clear and objective arguments for the title Székelys (~85% of Google Books results, including THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF THE HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES). It seems the priority is annihilation of different users, not the encyclopedic accuracy. It is not a coincidence that no one considers WP a highly reliable source! (79.117.214.83 (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

abortion moves

• To be blunt, I feel what you have done is a travesty, and I urge you to reverse both of your decisions and recuse yourself from any admin action on any of those articles in the future. It is not appropriate to start a move discussion, comment in it, hold an opinion, and then close it yourself. I don't see how you could see one of those as no consensus, and the other not. And again, commenting on discussions where you clearly have an opinion, then closing the discussion to favor your opinion is inappropriate. I said a little bit the first time around at pro-choice, but now that you have closed pro-life as well, I feel even more compelled to share my view. I intend to ask for an uninvolved admin to review BOTH of your closures. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• OK, OK, I have re-opened the move discussion at Talk:Pro-life movement#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijanis

• Is the page itself meant to have full protection? It wouldn't surprise me given the potential for edit-warring on it. A user has asked on my talk page what I think of it. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Raft of undiscussed moves - "Islamic" to "Saracenic"

• As far as I can see all these moves of articles to do with medieval Islam, replacing "Islamic" with "Saracenic", are completely undiscussed. Since the term has barely been used in the last century or so, they are most unsuitable, & will only fan the flames at these mostly very problemmatic articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Which of these pages still need to be moved back? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Saracenic Agricultural Revolution & Saracenic historiography seem to be only 2 now. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Done these 2 moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rules of chess

• Pending changes is still on, even though you've turned on semi-protection.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Now seen to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for performing 2 requested moves for me. Cheer! Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 06:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hatlink listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia Hatlink. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia Hatlink redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

Nomination of Ordering flowers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ordering flowers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordering flowers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Move back to pro-life movement please

• Dear Anthony,

  You're recent move of "Pro-life movement" to "Anti-abortion movement" is highly irregular and you should reverse it. You opened the discussion, and closed it. Then you re-opened it and moved the page a few days later after a handful of additional support votes. First of all you should not close a move request you have initiated yourself - certainly not as the result you desired. Besides this the closing and re-opening is also highly problematic. When you close a discussion like that people take the page off of their watch-lists because they think the matter is settled. Please undo this and leave it to an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Someone had to close the discussion, which has rhubarbed on repetitively for 7 weeks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not you. Also please note that you already closed it and reopened it. Why? Please undo this or else I will. I have also started a discussion here - Talk:Anti-abortion_movement#Irregular_close.Griswaldo (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• OK, OK, OK, I have reverted the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. In the future, please do not close moves you've requested yourself unless you are withdrawing your suggested move. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• By the way why did you reopen the discussion in the first place?Griswaldo (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• This discussion had run 49 days and it is time that someone closed it; but then you raised objection as hereinabove. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No I meant why did you reopen the discussion 7 days after you had closed it as "no move". Why did you reopen the discussion initially? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• That also was because someone raised objection to me closing it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Peter E. James's talk page.
Message added 21:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Petr Nedved

• I am confused about why your first moved “Petr Nedvěd” to “Petr Nedved” as an uncontroversial move; and then a few hours later you moved “Petr Nedved” to “Petr Nedvěd” as an uncontroversial move. The article should properly be titled “Petr Nedved”. This matter was discussed on the talk page where it was agreed that the article should be named Petr Nedved (without diacritics), however the page was later moved ( against consensus) to “Petr Nedvěd”. The request was made to have the article reverted back to “Petr Nedved”, which is an uncontroversial move because it has already been agreed to in the talk page discussion. Will you please now move it back to “Petr Nedved”? Dolovis (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Done. I had moved Petr Nedved again by obeying an uncontroversial-type move request in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

St Pancras

Dear Anthony

Thank you for the closing at St Pancras. Would you please consider respelling "concensus" to "consensus"? I don't want to sound snotty in any way about this and I apologize for bothering you - if you don't feel like it please feel free to ignore me. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!! :) DBaK (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

French frigate Egyptienne (1799)

Thanks for handling the move. It must be a relief to occasionally do an uncontroversial move. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Move request

• Will you please move Alexander Weiß‎ to Alexander Weiss. I created this article before I was aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and I need admin help to move over the redirect which I also created. Dolovis (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Petr Nedved (again)

• I would like to have your advice on this matter. The article Petr Nedved has again been moved back to Petr Nedvěd, this time by an administrator who I have a past history with. I have left a note for him here, and I would very much appreciate your thoughts as to which article name is the proper place for this article to sit until the WP:BRD cycle is complete. Thank you for taking a second look at this matter. Dolovis (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am tempted to suggest "leave it". How much need is there to get into an argument or an edit war over a hacek, when both spellings are legitimate in English ordinary usage? This is somewhat of a wiktionary:storm in a tea-kettle. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomas Kubalik

• The article Tomas Kubalik was recently moved to Tomáš Kubalík. This is a controversial move as all sources within the article verify that the commonly used form of name is “Tomas Kubalik”. Please move this article back to its original position so that I may invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, as is my right. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• I started a move discussion Talk:Tomáš Kubalík#Move? about this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your position of starting the discussion on my behalf, but pursuant to WP:BRD the proper procedure should be to 'Revert' the article to its original position, and then after that reversion, the editor who made the 'Bold' move may then start a discussion, if desired. Dolovis (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Glee characters / Characters of Glee

• Hi. Wrt this move, the user that requested it at WP:RM moved the page themselves yesterday. I then started a talk page discussion in opposition, as a result of which it was moved back to the original title due to a lack of consensus for moving. The user hasn't commented on the discussion, but instead requested the new move as being uncontroversial, when I believe it should have fallen under the remit of contested moves. Could you possibly revert the most recent move, pending a proper discussion taking place? Frickative 17:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• I second it...didn't see Frickative's post....Please move this back. The user that requested it, did it in bad faith. Talk:Characters_of_Glee#Page_move CTJF83 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Move of Llyr Huws Gruffydd

Really appreciate your speedy response to the move request on Llyr Huws Gruffydd. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Islam and Sikhism

• Hi Fellow Editor, I wonder whether you could assist. This, editor appears to be doing some very strange edits based on some per conceived notions he has put on his talk page. I think it borders on WP:POV. He she has been issued with 3 warnings, and before I issue a final warning I wanted your intervention as you have done some work on that article. Thanks --SH 07:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• The page in question is Islam and Sikhism. Judging by the amount of anonymous edits followed by usernamed reverts in its edit history, this looks like a more or less standard case of needing semiprotecting, which I have now done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --SH 09:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Julie Robinson (curator)

I asked for an A7 speedy tag on this page and on the talk page (in the move discussion) you state "That speedy delete was challenged, so I changed it into an AfD". However it was challenged by the page creator and that's no reason not to speedy delete - if we allowed a page creator to stop a speedy delete the whole speedy delete system would grind to a halt. If you don't think it was a speedy delete candidate that's fine but the wording you used doesn't suggest that. Dpmuk (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Animals known of from Malagasy native tradition

Hi Anthony, I added this section to Fauna of Madagascar, where I think it fits in better, being a more general article that also discusses birds. If you think it is appropriate there, we should probably delete it from List of mammals of Madagascar, to avoid duplication. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy

You could have dropped me a note after doing this, you know. :(
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

iPhone 5

• How does an article being under deletion nullify basic naming conventions? Just because an admin is squatting on iPhone 5 doesn't make it his to own. I talked to the creator of Chrystal ball and it was not ever intended to discriminate against sourced speculation. Marcus Qwertyus 05:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• I suspect that moving a page while it is under AFD is unwelcome. If it survives AfD, then move it. I have noted the move request in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iphone 5. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't you move it now. It couldn't possibly cause disruption. You are just moving it from one capitalization to another. Marcus Qwertyus 05:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Appreciated very much! Marcus Qwertyus 06:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Pain and The Great One

• Hi! Could I enlist your help in this matter (since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about phrasal capitalization in titles)? The Judy Blume book The Pain and the Great One should be The Pain and The Great One, should it not? This from the article: "The girl refers to herself as The Great One, while calling her brother The Pain." Since this is the case, "The Great One" should have a capital "T", because it's the start of a separate phrase, correct? (Also, see the cover - the separation is apparent.) User:memphisto refuses to see my reasoning and has reversed me twice now, blindly citing WP:CAPS which does not really speak to this matter in specific.

  Ah, since I've written this paragraph, User:memphisto has written on my talk page comparing this title to "The Owl and the Pussycat" and "The Cat and the Canary" - which are not the same thing because they are not called "The Owl" and "The Pussycat", etc. I think your status as Administrator and your experience with phrasal caps. would help to arbitrate in this matter. Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have started a move discussion at Talk:The Pain and the Great One#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly Stoopid (album)/old revert war listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slightly Stoopid (album)/old revert war. Since you had some involvement with the Slightly Stoopid (album)/old revert war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert van Kerckhoven RM

• Hi there, you rejected my speedy RM of this page back to its original title, even though the page has been moved twice, to two different spellings, during an ongoing RM, which I view as extremely poor form on those editor's parts. Any chance you'd please reconsider? Regards, GiantSnowman 20:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• I did not reject the move: due to the controversy I decided that the move better be discussed; then I found that a move was already being discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• It's not an unreasonable request though is it? I mean, the original RM was about moving X to Y. Now it's about moving X to Y, but the page is now located at Z... GiantSnowman 21:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• If I moved the page again now during discussion I would likely be shouted at by other participants in this dispute. It is said that: "It is impossible to please everybody all the time.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• It's not a controversial move, it's moving it back to its original location, which it should NEVER have been moved out of during the RM process - am I right? GiantSnowman 21:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks very much, much obliged! GiantSnowman 21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

• Would you mind restoring this redirection to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. Seemed to be moved by c&p. And sorry about my way of splitting. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• And you wouldn't mind me putting back Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) as a disambiguation page of those two films again, right. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done & its talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• If page X is split into pages Y and Z, then the history of page X must be left under page Y, by moving X to Y, and some of the text of page X must be cut-and-pasted to page Z. That is regrettable but inevitable when a page is split. Put a note in Z's talk page explaining where the text of the first edit of Z came from. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• I understand but the redirection I am talking about was page Z. Then page Z was c&p to a different page without the move log. I would think an administrator can fix that. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• The instruction is to histmerge Harry Potter and the Deathy Hallows: Part two to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, but page Harry Potter and the Deathy Hallows: Part two has never existed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• I got it wrong on the article twice, what you are seeing on the section header is the right redirection. Sorry for the confusion. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for the tutor of how the the moves are done. I need to know this stuff if I want to be a administrator in the LONG future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent history merge at Ol class tanker (1965)

Hi A.Appleyard. With regard to your recent history merge at Ol class tanker (1965) may I refer you to the discussion at User_talk:Antarctic-adventurer#History_merges (specifically my last comment) in case you have any input since you are experienced in these moves. Thanks. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. You have new messages at Antarctic-adventurer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

History merge at Lincoln Barnett

• I see that you did some kind of history merge between my sandbox and the article Lincoln Barnett. However, that sandbox has traces of three projects in it, so the history of Lincoln Barnett has some extraneous stuff in it now. Cardamon (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done: see the earliest entry in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Completed requests June 2011 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. But I think that next time I'm moved to write an article I may not use the sandbox. Cardamon (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For Ophelia S. Lewis Move

Thanks for moving my stub article on Ophelia S. Lewis! I recently placed it in feedback to be reviewed in order to have the "unreviewed article" tag removed. If you could be of any assistance with that matter, I would GREATLY Appreciate it. Thanks again. (BellaBeau (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

The Game of Love move

• I understand it had been sitting around for 2 months, but your move at The Game of Love was definitely a violation of WP:INVOLVED. The same thing happened at Pro-life. If it was unanimous or close, I could understand, but it was 2 to 2 here, and there is a definite real or perceived conflict of interest. It would have been simple to request an uninvolved admin if you really wanted it closed. Please be more careful in the future. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit histories

• Thank you for repairing a number page edit histories yesterday. White-winged Widowbird is another that was expanded by the same editor and may need a edit history repair. The expansion was at this point, but unfortunately the edit summary does not include a wikilink to the source page. Were all relevant edits on the sandbox by the same author making a page edit history unification unnecessary or do all the edits need to be unified anyway? Snowman (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done. The missing history was in User:BarkingMoon/sandbox2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Never on Tuesday

• Doing NPP I noted that someone had created Never on Tuesdsay. When I tried to move it to Never on Tuesday I found that page to be protected by you as a redirect to the director of that film. Just FYI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Move  Done as history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple cut-and paste moves

I see you're active at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Would you be able to have a look at User talk:Andrewa#Cut-and-paste page moves? It seems a valid and possibly urgent request, and I'm probably not the best one to handle it. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Kabachan

Come on. The only people who responded to it were two IPs who did not raise good enough reasons as to why the page should not be moved. Please move the page as there is a standing consensus that individuals can format their name however they please so long as it is not a non-language entity as is apparently the case at Kesha.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Head over Heels

• Thank you for tending to the page moves I requested, but there's a small problem: Head over Heels now redirects to itself and I can't find the edit history of the dab page, either at Head over Heels or Head Over Heels. Can this be fixed?--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see you must have been on top of it before I mentioned it. Thanks!--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Brics Move Discussion

Thanks for that link. If you look at BRIC's talk page, an editor discussed how it was improperly moved. After it was moved, it didn't seem to have corrected the page history. But I did try to get an administrator to move it/fix it, but you can see he said consensus needed to be moved.Curb Chain (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Late-2000s financial crisis → Financial crisis (2007–present)

I noticed you undid the move.

Do you want me to remove the new section at the talk page I made?

Because there was already consensus here: Talk:Late-2000s_financial_crisis/Archive_2#Requested_move.

As I mentioned over there, there needs to be the word 2007 in the title. Otherwise it seems like the crisis started in 2000. Which makes the current title is very confusing.

--Obsolete.fax (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Late-2000s financial crisis Financial crisis (2007–present) Talk:Late-2000s financial crisis/Archive 2#Requested move : links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I moved Late-2000s financial crisis to Financial crisis (2007–present); then I saw that that move was being discussed in Talk:Late-2000s financial crisis#Requested move, so I reverted the move, as I have been told off before for moving a page during discussion before the discussion had run its term. OK, OK, I have re-reverted and closed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Move of Late-2000s financial crisis --> Financial crisis (2007–present)

• I'm afraid that was a bad move. If you see the discussion at Talk:Financial crisis (2007–present)#It's_official shows that consensus had changed, and supercedes the discussion that you refered to in Talk:Financial crisis (2007–present)/Archive_2#Requested_move. In fact it was you who originally fulfilled the move request when consensus changed due to the new official dating.Talk:Financial crisis (2007–present)#Request move to Late-2000s financial crisis. Could you move it back please? Thanks. LK (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Making WP:Mediation meaningful

Please consider how you might assist Feezo, who you will know is the mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.

As context, please scan "Hands off" mediation plan.

Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario Party 9

• I request a history undeletion of Mario Party 9 & it's talk page. SNS (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii Territory

Maybe you can help with:

• Hawaii Territory oldest edit from 19:12, 19 April 2003, which is a redirect to the following since 18:13, 22 May 2004,
• Territory of Hawaii oldest edit from 16:38, 22 May 2004.

There is no overlapping edit except for the redirect creation and the 2003 article has no talk page, therefore a merge should be easy.

Merging Territory of Hawaii into Hawaii Territory would properly documented that a Hawaii Territory article already existed in 2003 and also credit would be given to the original creator. HawaiiLibre (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry,  Not done. These 2 pages have separate histories, and there has been no cut-and-paste between them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Then it would be correct:

• Hawaii Territory --move--> Hawaii Territory/version 2 (calling the original article "2" because it is the now unused one.)
• Territory of Hawaii --move--> Hawaii Territory (using the original name, and common naming format in Category:Former organized territories of the United States) ? HawaiiLibre (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• I did the first part (creating Hawaii Territory/version 2), could you do the second? HawaiiLibre (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What the heck? Are you telling me the official name of a government was moved to a name that doesn't exist in reality because of a naming convention? I can't believe this. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Territory of Hawaii move

• Why was the Territory of Hawaii moved to Hawaii Territory? There's no such thing. The entity is called "Territory of Hawaii". That's the official name. And what does the edit summary "asked", mean? I've seen an increasing number of page moves that make no sense whatsoever. For example, the move of Cuisine of Hawaii to Hawaiian cuisine. "Hawaiian cuisine" only refers to the food of Native Hawaiians, which is not what the article is about. The article is about the "Cuisine of Hawaii, which is the appropriate name. I don't know why these pages are being moved, but they are entirely incorrect. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Er, Anthony? Are you aware that the editor who requested this strange move created their account on June 8? Please revert the move request. There is no such thing as "Hawaii Territory". Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii: continued discussion

• I have moved Hawaii Territory back to Territory of Hawaii. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. For future reference, see the United States Government Printing Office or a history book or encyclopedia, such as this. Viriditas (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • FYI... the exact wording of the treaty declaring the Territory of Hawaii can be found here. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • ""...the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii." (p. 255) Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii Territory move

Both names are valid, "Territory of Hawaii" is more official and Hawaii Territory is more colloquial. This is similar to counties:

• Los Angeles County, California: Los Angeles County (incorporated as the County of Los Angeles)
• San Diego County, California: sdcounty.ca.gov : "County of San Diego"
• New York County: http://www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh/county_clerk_operations.htm "County Clerk of New York County", "The County Clerk of the County of New York"

Officially it is "Commonwealth of Massachusetts", but the article is named Massachusetts. On http://www.nyc.gov one finds "Copyright 2011 The City of New York" and "New York City", the article is called New York City.

Hawaii is part of the United States of America and the article should use the common name instead of the legally more correct name. Wikipedia is not written for lawyers alone. HawaiiLibre (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, the common name is "Territory of Hawaii" not Hawaii Territory. Creating a new account to engage in controversial page moves tells me that this might require an SPI. I've seen this kind of disruption before. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Michigan State Historic Sites

• Hi, Anthony. You were involved in a move discussion at User talk:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox on whether or not to move it to List of Michigan State Historic Sites. No one has commented there in a few days, and I'm pretty sure no one will care if the page is moved now. I think the existing list article can be moved to the /version2 subpage that you suggest, and then I will open a deletion discussion there. I would move it, but I feel like it might be a COI or something.. I think it's better if someone else does haha. Would you mind taking another look at the discussion or just moving the page out? Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess making the /version2 subpage a redirect serves the same purpose.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New Super Mario Bros. Mii

• Super Mario Bros. Mii was moved to New Super Mario Bros. Mii by cut & paste. [1] [2]. SNS (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done histmerged them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I know you already received one of these a year ago, but I think you deserve another one for your tireless and efficient work on merging histories and fixing cut-and-paste moves. It's much appreciated! Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

History merge

Thanks for letting me know about parallel revisions. I didn't know about that. I'll do as you said. Thanks again. Novice7 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

East or West?

Hi Anthony, thank you for reading and mulling over the Battle of Valmy article. I was indeed trying to say that Dumouriez reversed his march on the Austrian Netherlands, thus moving west – in the same direction as Brunswick, and arriving behind his lines. It's a somewhat confusing scenario: can you help clear it up? SteveStrummer (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I reworded that part slightly: hopefully this new version is less confusing to readers. Thanks for pointing it out! SteveStrummer (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Move question

• Hi Anthony, after the comments from you and few others at Talk:Lying down game#Requested move, I've come to agree that "planking" (the fad) is not the primary topic of "planking" and I was going to alter the move request (or close the current one and start a new one), so the move is to Planking (fad) and the dab stays the primary topic. However, Planking (fad) already has a sizeable history and it's history is used as attribution, due to a merge of Planking (fad) to Lying down game. So basically I'm asking if there was a consensus to move the article to Planking (fad) would the history that is currently at Planking (fad) have to be moved to something like Planking (fad)/old so that the history is preserved and the move doesn't cause it to be sitting over a deleted history? Or would it all be simpler or I just made the request to moved to Planking (game)? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have noted your concerns in Talk:Lying down game#Requested move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Theatrology and Theatre studies

• There has been some to-ing and fro-ing between these two - see talk on the latter, where you will see all editors are now content that the status quo is correct. But I'm not sure the last move has been done correctly. could you kindly check? Thanks, as ever, Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'll second that. The histories of both articles need merging. Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And from me too! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing the move, again

Two comments:

1. While it's difficult to find a consensus for one set of titles over the other, there's a strong consensus that the titles need to be parallel. The close should reflect this, either by moving one article or by laying out a next step where a firm consensus for one set of titles over another can be determined. (Probably by doing something like what's going on at Talk:Santorum (neologism), where there's a section for one option, a section for the other, and a separate section for discussion so it doesn't get cluttered.)
2. Given your history of problematic closes at these two articles, which always lead to more chaos, I suggest re-opening and letting another admin close before anything silly happens.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please, which move request are you referring to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry, that was really stupid of me. The proposal, discussed at Talk:Abortion-rights movement#Requested move, again, to make the titles parallel either by moving that article to "Pro-choice movement" or by moving "Pro-life" to "Anti-abortion movement." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• This request seems to be complicated by a discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movement#Merger of Pro-Life and Abortion-rights movement articles into into Abortion debate article and a very long discussion at Talk:Pro-life movement#This discussion is too chaotic, and will accomplish nothing in its current state over a possible text-merge between these pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the merge proposal failed (at least there was no consensus for it, while there may not have been consensus against it). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Do you think it would be best if I asked at AN or ANI for another admin to reopen (and close) it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• The two move discussion attempts Talk:Abortion-rights movement#Requested move, again (to Pro-choice) and Talk:Pro-life movement#Move? (to Anti-abortion movement) both became long and argumentative and inconclusive, and any future similar move discussion attempt would likely end the same. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. I asked if I should get another admin to open and re-close the discussion, both because your close does not reflect the consensus that arose from the discussion, and because your previous involvement has been both, well, existing (ie. involved) and contentious. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK, OK, I have started a new discussion for these two moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added some stuff which should help. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, would you mind just putting a support vote under the one you prefer, rather than an oppose under than the one you do not? It'll make it easier to close later on if things are neatly arranged. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, and sorry. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• This new discussion is at Talk:Abortion-rights movement#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gough

Hi, as you moved it and there is a thread at BLP noticeboard , would you please comment,Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian Gough - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM for Stick Style

• What happened? You removed my request, but Stick Style is still there. Is one of us confused? Chris the speller ^yack 00:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Now  Done. This request was added while I was obeying WP:RM requests and it got deleted accidentally along with requests that I had obeyed. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. Chris the speller ^yack 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

• Morning Anthony, you well?

  I've never done a meetup before, but fancy this Manchester one becauses a) it's close, b) it's payday weekend, c) it's another thing ticked off the list of ideas I've always wanted to follow up. Dare I ask how I identify other Wikipedians? Do I wear a red carnation or is there a handshake? doktorb _words^deeds 09:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I made up a badge from a safety pin and a piece of white cardboard with "[[User:Anthony Appleyard]]" written on it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, superb. I might "embrace the geek" and do something similiar :) doktorb _words^deeds 10:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I can recommend the Wikipedia T-shirts! Not that I'm anywhere near Manchester. Andrewa (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Transformers Universe

• At Talk:Transformers Online you said There also was a Transformers book called Transformers Universe that described all the Transformers that were known of then (and thanks for that lead, it was what prodded me to do the homework that I probably should have done anyway). Might this be Transformers Universe (comic book), or should I look for another? Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• It was one of the versions of Transformers Universe (comic book). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, I was guessing that (shame in some ways though) (;-> Andrewa (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Histmerge question

Hi Anthony, at Talk:Lying down game#Requested move, Herostratus has suggested that Planking (fad) and Lying down game should be histmerged. As far as I'm aware, they shouldn't be histmerged due to parallel histories (and I've commented saying as much at the RM), so I was wondering if you could please weigh in to say which one of us is correct (or if neither of us are!). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heathrow articles

• Hi, saw your tweaks at Heathrow (hamlet), also now some welcome edits to Heathrow. After I created Great West Aerodrome and it was bedded down, I planned to do a proper summary per WP:SS in Heathrow (hamlet), but another editor was busy adding lots of duplicated stuff there for DYK exercises. Similarly, perhaps Heathrow should have a MAIN template to Great West Aerodrome and another to Heathrow (hamlet), and chop out lots of duplicated stuff. I suggested also splitting Heathrow airport history from modern Heathrow, but that was also stillborn. I'm usually quite busy elsewhere, but if you've got any spare time and inclination, suggestions welcome. PeterWD (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Gosh, I seem to have shot myself in the foot there. My view is that Heathrow airport did not exist until 1946, so the hamlet and the 1930 airfield were not the same place, they just happened to have been demolished and overwhelmed, and there was no continuous aircraft operation, so separate airfields should appear as such. IMHO the loss of decent standalone articles is regrettable, especially as Heathrow page is already way too big and cumbersome to read or edit. Discussion might be nice.PeterWD (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have started a discussion at Talk:London Heathrow Airport#Text-merging with page Great West Aerodrome. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• As your realise I believe the recent edits to the history section have resulted in a serious drop in the quality of the article. I think that some of the text that was moved from the Great West Aerodrome article should really have been attributed. I will not change the article again and I have raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports#Heathrow Airport for others to comment. Perhaps the content could be moved into a History of London Heathrow Airport article but the dated list format does not really work and any article would not climb the quality ladder in that state, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion continued at Talk:London Heathrow Airport#History section. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

• I request a history undeletion of History of video game consoles (eighth generation) & it's talk page. SNS (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• I was looking through the edit history & noticed that at one point it was moved to Future of video game consoles (eighth generation), then deleted by the second AFD without being moved back. I request then that the edit history for that is merged back into the article (as well as the talk page of that into the archive). SNS (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to thank

Pardon the pun, but thanks for these moves and the other sterling work that you do round here that goes largely unnoticed and unappreciated! – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

• Galleries are totally unnescessary to the Heterochromia Iridum page. There are plenty images visible on the page and easily accesible in the commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaRhoPhi (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Accessible, but not easily: the reader has to know that Commons exists and how to ferret about in Commons looking for the images. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wii Series & Wii 2

I request history undeletions of Wii Series & Wii 2 as well as their talk pages. SNS (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks

for the Tanner move. now, I have to put more content in there. Work, work!  ;) TCO (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)