This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits. This page is for discussion of the File mover page itself. For other help, please go here: Get help at the Teahouse To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the File mover page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:FMR

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Help Mid‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp Mid This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

When working file move requests and a file is listed for discussion, should the move not take place and wait until the discussion is done or just move the file, leave a redirect, anyway ? - FlightTime (open channel) 17:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime, if the file is likely to get deleted I typically decline any move request. Sometimes I'll even decline a request because and list the file at FfD instead of moving it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Good, that's what logic told me. Thanx for your reply. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It currently has some weird Ombox at the top of the page that does not state it's a policy and isn't {{Procedural policy}}, but at the bottom of the page it's in Category:Wikipedia procedural policies. I propose that we decide in this talk page section if this is a policy or not, and then change the ombox and category to be in sync and agree with each other. The template and category should either be...

1. {{Procedural policy}}, which will automatically put it in Category:Wikipedia procedural policies
2. {{Information page}}, no policy category

I'm leaning towards #2. I don't think single editors are supposed to decide that something is a policy, and other user right pages such as WP:NPR are information pages, not policies.

Depending on how this goes, I will also propose the same thing on other out of sync pages such as WP:PMR, which also has the same custom Ombox and procedural policy category. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I don't personally see the issue here - I think it's fine for a single editor to promote these userright procedures as policy pages without objection. WP:PMR's designation came from the close and wasn't challenged then or after, although nobody aside from the closer asked for that to happen. So really, I just think the idea that procedural policies need a confirmatory, explicit vote doesn't line up with precedent and history.

But I also don't particularly see why they need to be policies. So I don't care too much either way, but we should probably be consistent across userrights.

Also, what is a "procedural policy" is just poorly defined IMO, verses what's a procedure with a high level of community acceptance but without the tag. This discussion might be better suited for WP:VPP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has {{subcat guideline|behavioral guideline}} been considered? Seems appropriate for this page. If not, having it as procedural would be fine. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dug into this a bit more and found an attempt to make this a guideline that failed. Wikipedia talk:File mover/Archive 1#RfC to adopt Wikipedia:File mover as an official guideline. I also dug into WP:PMR more, which was in a similar situation, but I found an RFC close that explicitly stated that that one is promoted to policy. With those findings, I am feeling more confident about how to fix this. I've tagged WP:PMR as a policy and I've tagged FMR (this page) as an information page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussion the policies/guidelines, but whatever is at WP:FILEREDIRECT (majorly the revision deletion things) - how are they relevant to file-moving? Redaction is completely different thing, and would often require redacting logs? In file-moving we don't redact logs, no? Unless obviously necessary. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 07:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That language was added in this edit in 2012. The Squirrel Conspiracy may have insight on what he meant by that. The way I've interpreted that is that a file redirect should generally be left even if it could be deleted, unless so problematic that it could be redacted. (Though note that WP:RD5 incorporates WP:CSD anyway, so I'm not sure the distinction makes much sense.) File redirects surely still can be deleted based just on WP:CSD, but you don't have to nominate a redirect for deletion just because it can be deleted. SilverLocust 💬 07:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's way too long ago for me to remember specifics, but your interpretation seems correct. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]