Talk:Purum language

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Manipur Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manipur (assessed as Mid-importance).

move

Is there actually any objection to the move, or is this just another case of us not being able to make routine moves without three months of debate against no-one? I'm the one who made the original move so that we'd have the needed RD's. No-one else is involved. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to move

Instead of moving this page to Purum language (), Purum language/temp, Purum language (move me to "Purum language"), or similar nonsensical titles, use WP:RM. If it is uncontroversial, list it as a technical move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so some idiot there can demand that we spend a month debating it, and then extend it another month for more input because no-one has an objection? What's wrong with just moving the ***ing article? It's a lot less work. If there's actually any problem with an article I created and named, and which no-one else has edited, then we can always move it back.

And yes, this is tiresome. Two months of it would be even more tiresome. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you were content to leave it at Purum language () since October 7? There's one month gone right there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But not one month of attending non-debates. I knew if I tried to have it moved I'd likely have to deal with the kind of idiocy I'm having to deal with now. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted another malformed request. I've no desire to enforce bureaucracy, but moving it to these ridiculous titles is getting disruptive. To be clear, are you asking for Kharam language to be moved to Purum language? If so, and JHunterJ has no objection, so I will do it. But in future, please follow the established procedure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has no objections apart from wanting all the forms filled out for a move that no-one cares about.

I was told the established procedure was to use {{db-move}}. These things have a tendency to escalate into weeks or months of non-debate, and following proper procedure tends to make things worse, because it brings in more "bureaucrats" to debate non-objections. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the better of "Kharam language" and "Purum language". Feel free to use {{db-move}}, or make a technical move request, or have a full RM discussion. None of those require moving the article to a nonsensical title first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

moved, what a palaver. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami, if you had followed the instructions at {{db-move}} there would be no problem. For future information, you should have placed the following code on Purum language:

{{db-move|Kharam language|REASON FOR MOVE}}

It's not really that difficult! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]