This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MusikBot(talk | contribs) at 11:50, 4 April 2019(Bot clerking: archiving (1 approved) (2 open requests remaining)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:50, 4 April 2019 by MusikBot(talk | contribs)(Bot clerking: archiving (1 approved) (2 open requests remaining))
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
See Wikipedia:Page mover for the granting guidelines. Applicants should show some evidence that they generally meet the guidelines outlined there, and have a demonstrated need for the right.
It would be useful to aid me in reviewing articles for creation. I recently ran into an issue where an article I wanted to approve already existed as a redirect, and I had to G6 it and wait for an admin to delete it before I could approve the draft. Would be useful to have this right so I don't need to do that. Smartyllama (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From an initial review I don't see any deleted contributions that you tagged as G6 in the last few years. Maybe I am missing them. Can you point us to a case like the one you're referring to? Dekimasuよ!16:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FlightTime; it looks like the answer is that this was tagged but not deleted before I wrote my reply, so it hadn't yet shown up under deleted contributions. So as Smartyllama stated, he recently ran into such an issue. I'm not opposed to this request but it appears to be the only instance of such a case in the last ten years (there was one other G6 tag a few years ago, but to address a different issue), so it might be helpful to hear more about what other sorts of page moves might be performed and about other experience with moves. Dekimasuよ!17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: Yes, FlightTime is correct, the article had not yet been deleted when I posted this, and I presume when you did as well. I only recently started getting involved in AFC, and although I have reviewed a number of drafts since then, this is the first time I ran into this problem. I suspect it will not be the last, however. As for other moves, I have moved some other pages, mostly when the name of something changed, but until getting involved in AFC, never had reason to suppress a redirect. I've also proposed a number of page moves for discussion when either the situation wasn't obvious or it was an unusually complicated situation. One case of the latter involved an article originally titled Cameron Hall (basketball) which I proposed a move to Cameron Hall (basketball player) even though that goes against normal naming conventions for athletes due to the unusual circumstance of there being a basketball arena by that name as well, with the original title redirected to Cameron Hall as an incomplete disambiguation. Ultimately, the article was moved following discussion, in addition to the arena article being moved from Cameron Hall (Virginia) to Cameron Hall (arena). However, I do plan on using this right mostly if not entirely for AFC purposes, at least until I gain more experience with it. Smartyllama (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now. No WP:RM/TR requests, and other than this one G6 there doesn't seem to be much of a demonstrated need for the right. At AfC this sort of thing does happen occasionally, but as of right now it doesn't seem to be happening with enough frequency to grant the permission. You're welcome to re-apply if you find yourself encountering this situation often. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been closing discussions at WP:RM, however as many of the destinations are occupied, there are many discussions that I cannot close. The page mover right would allow me to close more of the discussions. Danski454 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now. No WP:RM/TR requests, and other than this one G6 there doesn't seem to be much of a demonstrated need for the right. At AfC this sort of thing does happen occasionally, but as of right now it doesn't seem to be happening with enough frequency to grant the permission. You're welcome to re-apply if you find yourself encountering this situation often. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: @Danski454: Is there any reason why you're not relisting some of the things you're closing? This and this had only one participant each. Usually we want to relist them in those situations. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
