Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Archives

If a consensus to move the page is reached

See previous discussions:

I came across this page when asking to move EF(WWII) to GPW which had unanimously agreed on the Talk:Eastern Front (WWII) before the request was made. I read the section in the RM article "Requesting a page move" which says:

It is suggested that an attempt to gain consensus for a move first be attempted on the talk page of the article. If there is disagreement, or if the page move cannot be technically performed, then it is appropriate to list it here. The following instructions will describe that process.

So I foolishly thought that the request here was just a matter of attracting the attention of an administrator to make the move. However the consensus on the talk page did not prevent uncle Tom Cobly and all voting on the issue on the RM page and in the end the EF(WWII) was not moved. On the request {{move}} template it says "If a consensus to move the page is reached" So I have two questions:

  • Should the section in the RM page which says "attempt to gain consensus..." be removed as people who read this this page seem to ignore it?
  • What does the word consensus mean in the template? Taking an extream position: if one person objects to the move does that mean there is no consensus?

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with the principle. A lot of proposals are getting shot down wrongly and some aren't even being raised on the relevant talk page.
What's consensus? No opposition noted, perhaps? I'm not sure - is there a Wiki definition anyware? Timrollpickering 11:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As one of the admins who regularly cleans up RM, I think WP:RM is not going well. It was intended to be a way to flag an available admin to get a page move to happen. As such, I take the guidelines of how long to wait very lightly. Recently I've been waiting a few days to take a measure of the climate. If there is significantly more support (what usually passes as concensus around here) I go ahead and do the move. Sometimes I even weigh in on the discussion. Othertimes, I'll see a move that is obvious and doesn't need any discussion and I'll do the move. - UtherSRG 12:32, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Discuss on talk page first?

I'm noticing that - contrary to the wording of this page - many moves are suggested here without first making any attempt at discussing them on an article's talk page. This seems (again, contrary to instructions) more prevalent for moves which the suggester thinks might be somewhat controversial, or at least unpopular with those editing the page. —Morven 19:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: voting takes place on Talk:Page of the page to be moved

I think that it would be better if no voting took place on the RM page but instead took place on the Talk:Page of the page to be moved. Only a request for a move would be placed on the RM page for the agreed length of time to advertise the request to move.

  1. This would preserve the history of the voting on the request.
  2. Involve the people who are actively watch the page to be moved for changes.
  3. It would integrate with the way other straw polls are run.

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Definitely Support. Timrollpickering 11:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current procedure (which is fairly similar to that on VfD) is more likely to attract a wider range of votes and is less disruptive to other discussions. The move discussions and history probably belong in Wikipedia: namespace. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose. I'd prefer that it not be done on the article's talk page. I don't want to have to browse several talks to see the discussions. If we are going to do something to preserve history, we should use the structures and procedures VfD uses: sub-pages for discussion and voting, templatedso they show on RM, and then archive them as sub-pages of the article's talk. But that's an awful lot of work and beaurocracy that I don't think is needed. - UtherSRG 12:32, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Another reason to leave at least the visibility to the discussion on RM is for when the move involves multiple pages (like the current discussion about US). - UtherSRG 12:50, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. For a collective of a few articles, pick one talk page and put a note on the rest linking to the appropriate discussion. I'm not sure we want the unreadable length of the VfD to creep into move discussions when it's not necessary. A category made for these move discussions might be plausible I guess.--Sketchee 13:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mixed. In many cases, especially for actively edited or high visibility pages, there SHOULD be discussion on the article's talk page first BEFORE it gets nominated here. Unless there is consensus, or at least a strong showing of support for the move on the article's talk page, I don't think it should get nominated here. For example, I very much doubt that the U.S. --> U.S.A. move would have garnered much support on the talk page had it been suggested there first. In fact, the move has been suggested there several times in the past and never got very far. And if the talk page discussion shows widespread support (not only among a small group of active contributors) and the move is in accord with naming conventions, then there may not even be a need to list it here. I see this page as primarily a place to request assistance with pages that non-admins can't move on their own and to discuss possibly controversial moves. So I suppose that all boils down to more of an Oppose to how the suggestion is currently formulated. older≠wiser 13:32, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - dicussion should take place on the Talk page first, as older≠wiser said, but should go before a broader audience too. Guettarda 14:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Larger issues require the attention of the community. Straw polls arn't, strictly speaking, binding anyhow. --Improv 13:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Comments on voting takes place on Talk:Page

  • Normal controversial page moves are discussed on the talk page and do not come here. Why should page moves which arrive here, often for a minor technical reason, be treated any differently from any other move as regards a straw poll for moving? If the straw poll was done on the Talk page instead of here, then if a poll already exists any additional votes could be added to it and it one does not exist then one can be created. It must be usual that people only come to this page once a consensus has been reached for a move which has been attempted and there is a technical problem with the move. If they are coming to RM because they know that they will not get an agreement on the talk:page then there are already dispute mechanisms to deal with this eg Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, without RM becoming a way to weasel around the dispute mechanisms.
  • If a page is to be moved to a new name I can not think of anyone who would consider that it was a good thing for it to be "less disruptive to other discussions" that a vote occure on another page. Page names are very important and most people who monitor a page would usully exepct to discuss a move on the talk page. Further, as it stands at the moment the text will be moved at the end of the voting on this page to the talk page of the RM, so the other discussions on that talk page will be disrupted.
  • If a request to move was discussed on the local talk page it would be available to a broader audience because the link would be on the RM page would alert people who read this page and it would be available to people who monitor the page which is to be moved. Generally the people who monitor a page for changes are those Wikipedians who have the most knowledge on the subject on that page and hence are often in a better position, than the general community, to know if the proposed move is for the best. If anyone who is interested in page moves in general by monitoring RM and is too lazy to go to a link to a Talk:Page for a specific move, then they are not very interested in the specific subject and so perhaps should not be voting on that page move. Making it easy for people who monitor RM to put in their tuppence worth should not be the top priority, it should be how to include as many people as possible who are interested in the specific page to be moved. Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Voting on talk pages and linked from here

As I've attempted to discuss earlier my proposal is this:

WP:RM is used for listing votes currently active on talk pages. When a consensus is made either a request is put in for the move to be performed (if an admin is needed) or the link is removed. This would therefore mean WP:RM is in two sections: active discussions and move assistance.

I feel that this would help a lot. United States is one of the best examples as there was no need for it to be brought here when there hadn't been any discussion on the article talk page. violet/riga (t) 19:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think two stages are needed and it makes it overtly complicated. A request only comes to RM if there is a technical problem with a move. If a request is put here and any additional voting, generated by those who monitor this page, takes place under a straw poll on the the articles talk page, then after a number of days, if there is a consensus on that page an administrator can move it and remove the request from RM. I do not see that listing list of votes from another page on this page brings enough additional clarity to the issue to justify the effort. In addition the lists would be open copy errors either intentionaly or accidentally and then to allegations of abuse. Philip Baird Shearer 22:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've been looking it in the way that some articles are very poorly monitored and have often seen a question (such as "should this be renamed?") go for months without a response. However, I guess if nobody else becomes involved in the discussion then I guess nobody else cares! Whatever happens I'm not a fan of the current wp:rm system and think that all such moves could be done by someone posting a request at wikipedia:village pump (assistance). Or maybe a formalisation of the "admin required" system be put into place rather than just having the current noticeboard. violet/riga (t) 22:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need help

I posted an issue of moving the United States to United States of America. Someone added to the voting (without my agreement or consent) the case of moving United States (disambiguation) to United States, which probably made lots of people oppose the original idea.

What should I do now? Re-post the voting again? Or continue with the previous one and try to work around all the mistakes made by the user who changed the original idea? Halibutt 19:25, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

How is it that the two parts aren't related? Do you mean to leave United States as a redirect? Personally, based on the strong opposes so far, this is never going to reach consensus. I'd say, withdraw the entire request (both parts) and leave it be. -- Netoholic @ 19:31, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
Let the vote here die as it has. Start a new discussion on the talk page for what you want. Cburnett 19:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Starting a new proposal is likely to get a lot of "not again!" responses. If you have lots of time and energy, revert & clarify the original proposal. Canvass all of the voters on their talk pages, and ask them to reconsider their vote. Otherwise, consider starting the discussion again, but if it gets nowhere then just chalk it up as something to revisit in a few months.
For the record, I would vote for the page move, but I'm against replacing it with a disambiguation page. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
Thanks for the proposal, Michael. Seems reasonable. As to the disambiguation - I would support such a move, but I realise barely anyone would and I'm perfectly concious that the English-speaking world uses the term "United States" as a synonym to the US of A, so I did not intend it to be moved anywhere. Apparently my English is getting worse with every month I spend in Wikipedia...
In other words: my proposal was as follows:
# United States -> United States of America
# USA, US of A, United States, The States and whatever else - a redirect to United States of America
# United States (disambiguation) to where it is now (no move at all)
-- Halibutt 20:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Once again I've removed the vote. It should not have been brought here until at least some discussion had happened at the article itself and it's virtually unanimous to oppose. The archived debate can be found at talk:United States. Also, Halibutt, when reverting someone please could you ensure that you do not revert more than you mean to - you reverted a second change to the page that was unrelated to the US discussion. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith

Halibutt, let's look at your contributions.

You edited both pages at the same time (19:08). You added {{move|United States}} to United States (disambiguation), so that page reads:

So you are indeed proposing United States (disambiguation) → United States, and sending people to comment and vote on it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Yet on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page itself, the header reads only:

The header makes no mention of the second move at all, and your intro text mentions the second move only in a disguised and confusing way:

I believe that… in this context the term United States is highly ambiguous. I believe it would be better to move all of the United States to their respective official names and list them on top of the disambiguation page at United States (after it is moved from United States (disambiguation).

You seem to be trying to trick people into voting for something without realizing what they are voting for. This is extreme bad faith.

-- Curps 20:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way I read it, Halibutt was hoping to do both, but didn't assume that the vote on the first would render the second fait accompli. Over a couple of months I've always seen Halibutt display straightforwardness and integrity in even heated discussions and votes on Wikipedia. You shouldn't assume bad faith here. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
Well, he added the "requested move" header to United States (disambiguation) at the exact same minute (19:08) as it was added to the other page. So I think his intent was clearly to do both moves simultaneously, and therefore this needed to be stated unambiguously at Wikipedia:Requested moves and not merely mentioned ambiguously in his intro text. Perhaps the entire intent of doing the first move was to clear the way for the second move — at least, I will have this suspicion if the proposal is revived.
Suspicion of bad faith was increased by the fact that the second proposed move seems entirely contrary to established practice, namely that when one meaning greatly predominates in public usage, then Wikipedia does not detour through a disambiguation page. For instance, Boston goes to Boston, Massachusetts and not Boston (disambiguation), despite all the other Bostons.
You are right that Halibutt has made good contributions to Wikipedia, but I guess he botched this particular proposal. I have no objections if the vote is revived in a clear way in the future. -- Curps 21:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the second idea prompted Halibutt's proposal for the first. Perhaps he was going to put forward a second proposal which seems contrary to WP conventions. Neither of these means that he was trying to sneak the second proposal in with the first, in bad faith. There's obviously some level of misunderstanding here, as well the moving target of a proposal that was edited by another user.
Anyway, let's write about the facts and proposals, not about to people's supposed intentions. Thanks for ending this particular line of discussion. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z


A modified vote was started by User:Cburnett at Talk:United States. -- Curps 10:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duplications

Somehow, much of this page got duplicated sometime around 02:00 on the 28 Jan. I removed the duplication at 07:21 this morning, and restored one misplaced vote.

However, the page seems to be duplicated again. Worse, at least one vote, Suffolk, England -> Suffolk has disappeared. What gives? -- Solipsist 21:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the duplication again. Carrp withdrew the Suffolk request:
"Withdrew request Suffolk → Suffolk, England====, discussion archived at Talk:Suffolk/Archive1"
violet/riga (t) 21:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro changes

Considering nobody is really sure about what is going on with the intro I've chopped and changed it. It seems that the majority of people here do not want discussions to take place on the talk page even when linked from here. I've therefore simplified the lead to better explain that this is actually a voting page rather then (as I personally would have preferred) just a place to request admin-assisted moves. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree with this. I don't mind such discussions being linked here—in fact, I'd prefer knowing when significant, often precedent-setting moves took place—but RM was created, as you say, as a place to request admin assistance. We're rapidly moving toward a status commensurate with VFD, and rather than having to move to a subpage setup I'd prefer to link to an article's talk page, where other considerations can be observed. ADH (t&m) 07:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with you. Discussions regarding moves should be in one place, like VfD, instead of having admins and potential voters going all over the place to try to keep track of such discussions. Someone considering a Requested Moves vote should (and most often do) check the talk pages in question before voting, but the vote and the discussion regarding the moving vote should be at the Requested Moves page. It does have a status akin to VfD, RM always had the feel of VfD in the days when VfD was smaller (yes, there was such a time). However, I agree with violetriga's intention to clarify the instructions, as many people have been proposing RMs that are clearly a waste of time. —ExplorerCDT 08:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. I hardly think WP:VFD should be a model for discussion & voting. As it stands right now it's over 280 KB in size. That's a huge page with a ton of DB accesses and potential edit conflicts. I actually try to stay away from that page and participate less because it's slow and rather annoying dealing with edit conflicts. This page, by it's name, is not a discussion page. It's a page for REQUESTING moves to admins. Cburnett 08:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few extra comments to the introduction that I think has represented the status quo for as long as I've been involved in Requested moves, and I have been so bold as to state my above-mentioned concerns through the final paragraph. No matter what you think about the request or discussion part of this page, it's still the page for achieving a move and all required to achieve it. Talk pages are just discussion on the article. Why all of a sudden people start using talkpages for votes that have been located here for months, I can't fathom. —ExplorerCDT 08:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of my objections about the previous wording was the contradictory information. Currently we have both:
  • "It is advised that a discussion regarding a proposed move be initiated on the talk page..."
and
  • "It is important, for the ease of navigation from request to request and simply because of the chaos posed by jumping from talkpage to talkpage in order to observe discussions all over Wikipedia that discussions regarding a requested move and voting on that proposal take place here on this page."
If we are wanting to have the discussions here then the first of these paragraphs should be removed. Conversely if the discussions should be at the talk page then the latter should be removed. violet/riga (t) 11:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think those two statements are contradictory, they give a guideline following certain steps:

  1. Discuss on the talk page with people who are frequent contributors
  2. If a consensus is reached, then perhaps an admin will move it. If not or if an admin says otherwise, come here.
  3. Come here, raise the proposal, discuss with a wider audience and vote.

Nothing contradictory about that at all. —ExplorerCDT 16:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now you're confusing me as to your preferred method. You say that you don't want to visit talk pages about moves but you're asking for the discussions to be held there! I can still see the arguments of "it's been passed as OK at the talk page but now somebody has objected" when it's placed here. Anyway, as mentioned below the straw poll seems a good idea and this has already been talked about for quite a while. violet/riga (t) 22:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Initial discussion. It was once with the Requested Moves process that the initial discussions should not be "started" on the requested move page, but that it was preferrable (especially from the admins point of view) to sample and discuss it on an article's talkpage before it came here, just to show some due diligence effort had been made, the frequent contributors knew what was going on and that the move wasn't coming out of the blue. Remember, discussions on a talk page don't really amount to much other than mere discussion. Often, they're limited as to scope and audience, and frequently many people don't know certain articles even exist until they are recommended for some form of official action. It is here, on pages like RM, VfD, etc. that the real work happens. The fringe benefit is that I've learned stuff that I never would have had reason to search for only because they came to RM or VfD. —ExplorerCDT 23:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But the suggestion from some people here, including myself, is that such discussions are linked to from here as an active move debate. That has the benefit of:
  1. Being in the appropriate place (discussions are moved there eventually)
  2. Preserves the history of the discussions which are currently lost on the move.
  3. Less chance of a copy error either deliberately or accidently when the votes are moved.
  4. Saves people who have already voted on the talk:page having to vote again on RM page Philip Baird Shearer
  5. Being seen by people with that article on their watchlist
  6. Being seen by regular RM attendees
  7. Stopping RM becoming bloated
  8. Lessening the chances of "naming convention disputers" from spamming every discussion with the same argument
But, as I say, straw poll... violet/riga (t) 09:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have a straw poll, lasting about a week and widely advertised in the usual places, on the simple question should voting take place on this page or on the talk page to be moved. The the wording at the top can be agreed upon once that issue us setteld.

In preposed straw poll, to stop the vote section getting too bloated with pople commenting on comments (as we have seen on the RM page with subjects like Middlesex) I suggest that in the voting section, users only place user tag and date and all discussion goes into a comment section. Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll agree to that. I do feel strongly that the votes and discussion should happen here and cannot see myself supporting votes on talk pages. RM needs more structure, just like VfD needs structure. When I recommend articles for VfD, I usually just organize it by starting off with a section I entitle (in bold text) Reasons I recommended this article for VfD, followed by Votes to Delete, Votes to Keep, Other Votes and Comments. Since I started doing that, a few other people have used something similar when recommending pages for VfD. Perhaps we should have a template set up here that forces people to organize it as Reasons for, Votes Supporting a Move, Votes Opposing a Move, Other Votes and Discussion. It's just chaos right now (admittedly, part of that is my doing), but it can be fixed, the alternative of having to jump from talk page to talk page to contribute to RM discussions would be worse, and I fear unmanageable. However, I would support a straw poll. —ExplorerCDT 16:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SKELETON for a Proposed STRAW POLL

So we are agreed on a straw poll. If the format below is acceptable. Then edit any parts you are not happy with and put your signature directly below mine, after you have signed your changes, I will co-edit the SKELETON into a section and the voting can begin.

I have had a reasonable request to delay this poll for just over a week, so there will be a short intermission. Please do not adjust your set. Philip Baird Shearer 19:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SKELETON for a Proposed STRAW POLL on where votes for moving should be placed

Please sign with only #~~~~
Feel free to add more voting options
Please add comments in the Discussion section not in the Votes or Arguments sections.
This vote will be open for one week after the first vote is cast.

ARGUMENTS for the voting options

  • Arguments for all voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved
    1. Discussion is in the appropriate place (discussions are moved there eventually, adding an extra job)
    2. Preserves the history of the discussions which are currently lost on the move
    3. Less chance of a copy error either deliberately or accidently when the votes are moved
    4. Saves people who have already voted on the talk:page having to vote again on RM page
    5. Increases the chances that people with that article on their watchlist will notice the vote as well as getting visitors from this page
    6. Prevents this page from becoming bloated
    7. Lessening the chances of "naming convention disputers" from spamming every discussion with the same argument
    8. Prevents instruction creep, allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case
    9. Helps to stop a mass of petty nominations taking up lots of room
  • Arguments for secondary voting to take place on the Requested moves page.
I suggest that ExplorerCDT (and UtherSRG if he wishes) puts the reasons.
First: A Statement of Principles
Wikipedia:Requested moves (hereafter referred to as "RM") is a highly visible page with considerable traffic, including visited by Wikipedians versed across the spectrum of humanities, sciences, and the arts willing to contribute their knowledge, talents and worldviews to any discussion they desire. However, RM offers the finality and officiality in making decisions about the fate of articles on Wikipedia on par with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (a.k.a. VfD). I believe that the proposal to move discussion and voting to individual talk pages will be disasterous, becoming unmanagable, and could open the door to further parochialize official Wikipedia functions that are currently centralized (like the VfD discussions). People, both psychologically and sociologically, like buying or getting what they want in one place...this is seen throughout history by the creation of towns and urban centers, to the agoras (central markets) of Ancient Greece, the Bazaars of the Middle East, and culminating today with the one-stop-shopping offered at places like Wal-Mart. This is the same with Wikipedia's official pages (like RM and VfD), where the fate of many articles are decided, offer the variety of Wikipedia users to participate over many discussions all located in one place. Because of the centrality of these pages, they are heavily trafficked by the wide variety of Wikipedians. If discussions were held on talk pages, those who constitute the traffic of RM and VfD would most likely not jump from talk page to talk page to engage in articles at the frequency they would if the discussions were held in once centralized location. If a Wikipedian started to jump from talk page to talk page in the hopes of keeping up with RM discussions, the time-consuming nature of this navigation would gradually breed frustration that would inevitably lead to a Wikipedian who previously took part in RM discussions fervently to start spend his or her time elsewhere more wisely, perhaps lessening his/her RM participation to the point where he/she would be an infrequent contributor or simply cease contributing to RM in total. By hosting the final discussions and voting concerning a requested move on an article's talk page, instead of one centralized location (as is the status quo), I believe that this will promote isolationism, a lack of inclusivity, and foster the growth of Wikipedia into something other than the friendly collaborative community it was intended to be. I sincerely feel that by implementing a change to talk page voting is not in the spirit of Wikipedia — where many people of many nations and many talents come together to create a collective collection of civilization's progress and success.
Second: Point/Counterpoint (addressing the points enumerated above in order).
    1. Wikipedia:Requested moves is an appropriate page that many people have on their watchlist, and visit often for interesting debate and to learn new things.
    2. The history of the discussions after a decision has been reached and implemented should be archived, histories of talk pages should be merged and organized. This I do agree. However, previous problems resulting in the loss of histories &c. have mostly been due to lazy admins who didn't do the full job. This can be alleviated by better instructing admins that archiving and merging histories is very important.
    3. Human error in copying can be fixed easily when an error is discovered because the history keeps a record every action on an article or page.
    4. A few minutes to vote again on the official page will not kill someone. Besides, talk pages are usually not visited by those outside a talk page discussion just simply because there are nearly 500,000 articles and corresponding talk pages on Wikipedia. It is simply more efficient and user-friendly to have the discussions centralized in one place.
    5. The template placed on the talk page notifying people of a proposal for a move satisfies that concern. The addition of the template, and the discussion leading up to the "requested move" should suffice in directing talk page participants as both are passed along to participants via the watchlist function. If interested parties don't see the template or relevant discussion, it is their loss.
    6. There is no worry about bloating this page, as only a few requested moves are proposed at any time. Unlike the Votes for Deletion proposals that often number in the hundreds, Requested moves has only had (at most) 30 simultaneous proposals.
    7. Naming convention disputers do not spam the page any more than naming convention authoritarians.
    8. I do not know what "instruction creep" is. If I'm reading this correctly, I do not think talk page discussions offer the finality of decision, as the discussion could become endless given the doggedness of participants. Time limits are just a fact of life...discussions and voting end when they are scheduled to end. Much to the chagrin of Democrats in the 2000 U.S. presidential race...you can't keep voting forever just because you don't win. Official pages add more authority in dictating and enforcing time limits.
    9. No nomination (or question) is petty if made (or asked) in good faith. If bad faith is shown, admins can easily put a stop to a discussion if abuse becomes a problem.
Respectfully submitted, —ExplorerCDT 23:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Arguments for any other options
to be added by any other person who adds an additional voting option.

VOTING options

  • Votes for all voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved.
  • Votes for secondary voting if needed to take palace on the Requested moves page.
  • Other votes (add an additional "Votes options" under the "Votes" subsections above)

DISCUSSION (comments, other suggestions and arguments)

If there are more than two options then Approval voting may be used.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Violetriga offered these commentaries (that I have placed below verbatim) interspersed within my argument above. The way Philip and I usually do these things (and Philip will attest we've had some experience with this), is Argument A is his, Argument B is mine, and you people who want to comment, do so below. That way, things remain nice and orderly, and people can vote on the arguments as presented without having to sort through a mess. —ExplorerCDT 03:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good grief! No offense but you do like to flower up your arguments! I'll respond to the points below rather than this lot ("where many people of many nations and many talents come together to create a collective collection of civilization's progress and success" - what?!). violet/riga (t) 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. The relevant talk page is the most appropriate place for discussions - RM is an appropriate page to link to those discussions.
  2. I think you'll find that maintaining the edit history is not possible if the discussion takes place here.
  3. Yes, but that adds to the work when with the other system it wouldn't be necessary
  4. It is extra work, and having links to those talk pages gives you the centralisation.
  5. I don't think that is a good counter to the point.
  6. But it could grow and become bloated when there are large discussions (as there is a tendency to do, looking at the page in its current state).
  7. Both are bad things.
  8. They add no further authority as this is just another page, not something run by people with higher powers. In fact, it could be argued that the people that want to just discuss moves may not be the best people to do it - it should be the "experts" that are editing the article.
  9. If we have to deal with move requests in a beaurocratic way then we may end up with such problems.
...and respectfully countered by violet/riga (t) 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where should we advertise this straw poll to involve as many people as possible?

Apologies for the current messy layout but it was hard to counter ExplorerCDT's counters while keeping it pretty (perhaps he should create a simple bulleted list of the pros of his prefered way). violet/riga (t) 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT can we move you first section into the comments section as the first comment, because it is rather large and just go with the second section in the "arguments for". If you wish to add a few additional brief bulleted points to the top or the bottom of the second list if there are any specific points you need to make, then I think that the lay out would be clearer. If you know how to contact the "head shed" then I would not compalin if you did. How long do you both think the poll should be open for? Philip Baird Shearer 00:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the straw poll should be for 7 days, like a VfD. I don't want to split up my argument, and I think you should write an introductory statement to compliment your bullet points. Personally, I think we should have done the full forensic style like we were talking about for the Rutgers rugby debate. I'll ask around about contacting Jimbo and his minions. —ExplorerCDT 03:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cumbersome bureaucracy

At what point did the question of moving a page become analogous to deleting a page? I seem to recall that this page was initially just a page where non-admins could request that admins move pages that they couldn't move themselves because of the existence of histories at the move-to location. The idea of voting on page moves as though these are requests for deletion, and requiring super majorities before pages can be moved, seems absurd to me. I have moved dozens of pages over the course of my time at wikipedia without ever using this page. So, I think, have many other people. Sometime, if I think there will be controversy, I'll leave a note on the talk page and wait a while. Sometimes I won't. But I don't see why we need a page like this. A move is more like a content change than it is like a deletion, and it should be dealt with more like a content change than a deletion. I object to the entire apparatus that has been developed at this page. john k 02:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. If people post on my talk that a page needs moving, I generally move it. But once the community has voted against such I move, I generally won't. However, and I admit I haven't read most of the discussion above, I think the following is in order:
  1. Users should first attempt to move the page.
  2. If they can't move the page, they should find an admin to do the move (via WP:RM).
    1. If, while an admin has yet to do the move, an objection is raised, the objector should remove the request and take the request to the page's talk.
    2. Once concensus has been reached, the request comes back to WP:RM.
  3. An admin does the move.
  4. If someone objects to the move at this point, they will be able to move it themselves, the move will probably be noticed by the original requestor, and discussion should ensue on the page's talk, possibly resulting in another request on WP:RM.
Also, anons should be more strongly reminded at the top of WP:RM that they should get their own user id and move the page themselves.
I'm very much disinclined to search through various talks to find concensus. I'm very much disinclined to peruse the contents of a category to find moves ready to happen. WP:RM either has all the discussion and voting (so an admin can make the judgement call as to what is needed to be done), or it has the summary of the voting as a request with explicit moves needed to be done. - UtherSRG 02:38, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree (I wrote something similar a few days ago but it was eaten by my computer).
A bit of egg-sucking for the WP:RM regulars:
  • In principle, anyone can move a page, as anyone can edit a page.
  • For technical reasons (where the target is more than a redlink or a redirect to the page being moved with no history), a move cannot be done without admins intervening to temporarily delete the target.
  • Those requests used to go on the village pump, but this page was created to provide a single point of contact to ask for admin assistance.
  • Admins still have a discretion to move a page (where temporary deletion is necessary) if they think it is uncontentious.
  • Where a page move is potentially contentious, this page centralises the discussion, but there also needs to be discussion (or a cross reference to the discussion here) on the article's talk page - the {{move}} template does that, provided it is added to the relevant talk page (people often forget).
Now, I think the articles talk page is the right place to start the discussion. Listing a page move here draws the discussion to a wider audience, but where the potential move clearly becomes contentious, the discussion needs to move back to the article's talk page until a consensus is thrashed out. This is not the place to do that, IMHO.
Two ideas:
  1. Perhaps the discussion on WP:RM should be terminated automatically after, say, 5 days, and non-consensus requests should be moved back to the talk page (as should be the case for non-trivial discussion of moves that are actually executed).
  2. Perhaps the standard format for requesting a page move should be amended to include a link to the talk page of the page that is requested to be moved?
Just my twopennyworth. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I happen to agree however where a page move is likely to raise contention (as in the one I moved to "Ongoing discussions") I think a more formal approach should be taken, just so that there are less arguments. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The procedure for matters where there is contention should be a vote on that page's talk page. This page should simply be for administrative requests to move a page, either where it is not controversial, or where some sort of consensus has been arrived at in favor of a move on the page's talk page. This could also function, in some sort of compromise, as a place where interested users can go to be pointed to ongoing discussions of page moves. But it shouldn't be a VfD like place. john k 05:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is the point we have been debating on this talk page. As there are two diffrent points of view we are going to hold a staw poll on the issue. Should any addtional voting take place here or on talk page (see #SKELETON for a Proposed STRAW POLL). It will take place some time in the coming week. Philip Baird Shearer 21:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Internal error

Hmm - what is this error message about? Does anyone know when the problem is likely to be resolved? (When does the "month or two" start?)

Can't delete this article because it contains new block-compressed revisions, which are not supported by the new selective undelete feature and could result in data loss if deletion and undeletion happened. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the page for deletion, protect the page and wait for a software update to allow normal deletion. If there is an actual complaint from a copyright holder or other suitable legal complaint and they are unwilling to accept page blanking and protection as a temporary measure, please ask a developer for assistance.

It appears when you try to delete, say, Airbus or Coptic Language or De Lorean Motor Company. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mark the page with Template:Pending deletion, or move the listing to a holding section like WP:TFD has done. It'll have to be taken care of later. -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
Right-ho. Any idea of how long it'll take? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I suppose the other option is to do a messy "triangular" page move (via a temp page, to swap the pages over) rather than doing the "proper thing" of deleting the target, moving, and undeleting to merge edit histories. By this method, Airbus could be swapped with Airbus Industrie and De Lorean Motor Company with Delorean. Coptic Language is only a redirect, so the only reason to do anything would be to merge page histories. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moved & Notmoved templates

I've just created {{Moved}} and {{Notmoved}} for use when the discussion is archived to the talk page. These could be placed underneath the header to make it clear what happened at RM. It's only very basic at the moment but I can't see much room for expansion. Thoughts? violet/riga (t) 19:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a little too much instruction creep, but harmless I guess. -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
Not exactly instruction creep, just making it more obvious what this random discussion inserted into the talk page is. It's just something that could be added (subst'd?) rather than a firm instruction. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. I generally add a header along the following lines
==Page move==
(from [[WP:RM]])
but the templates could replace that. If you add a "==Page move==" header to the templates, it would make it easier to subst. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Help me, please!

To move "Neal Donald Walsch" to "Neale Donald Walsch". Thanks!--Febus 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Since there is nothing of substance on either article (both are one-line wonders) and the edit history of "Neal..." is inconsequential, and since I couldn't substantiate the "Automatic Writing" claim, I just set it up as a redirect. —ExplorerCDT 15:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari

Why was this article moved after 4 days. More importantly, why did User:ALoan decide there was no consensus to move this article when there were 4 people in favour and one against? --SqueakBox 16:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I also question some of the motives of ALoan in his policing of this page. Some of his decisions I have the hard time rationalizing. —ExplorerCDT 17:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It would help if people listed items added on February 14 under a heading that says February 14, rather than February 13. But I will apologise for the fourth time if it makes anyone feel better. My mistake. I am human.
I have no motive other than trying to be helpful. If you "question some of the motives" for the moves that I have done, please provide a list of the ones you don't like and tell me what motives you think I have, and we can talk about it. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Rather ironically, I see that User:SqueakBox has asked an admin to deal with the Rastafari/Rastafarianism move - I agree that there is "probably no consensus on the proposed move". However, given my undertaking on Talk:Rastafarianism, I am not going to move the discussion unless specifically asked. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Require minimum number of edits for page move permission

In response to frequent page move vandalism (willy on wheels), i would like to turn on the Wikimedia software feature to require a minimum number of edits before an user can make page moves. This should greatly reduce the page move vandalism. I took the liberty of making a proposal Wikipedia:Requested moves/Min edit count, which can be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Min edit count. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go on the metapedia, or list as an improvement in the bugzilla? WP:VP (tech) would be helpful too. Dunc|☺ 16:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If i understand correctly, the feature is already included. The only thing to do is to change the limit from 0 to 100 or so. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

WARNING THIS IS AN ARCHIVE SEE Wikipedia talk:Requested moves FOR LIVE TALK PAGE 00:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_2&oldid=1083654744"