Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Archives

For the page history of any text before this time stamp please see the Archives Philip Baird Shearer 17:27, 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)

Added something to the RM page

I think it is necessary to refer potential RM proposers to conventions, and have set up a section called "Policies and Guidelines to be considered" that so far lists a link to Naming conventions (as much as I disagree with a certain first one). If there is a better name y'all can think of for the subsection, or any other conventions that should be linked, feel free to add them. —68.207.207.127 18:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry. Wikipedia is playing with me...logging in problems. —ExplorerCDT 18:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

STRAW POLL on where votes for "Requested Moves" should be placed

This vote will be open for one week +24 hours 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
To help with navigation a link back from WP:RM to the talk:page of the article to be moved will be provided.
    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.
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

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 until 18:39 (UTC), 1 March 2005

Votes for all voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved

  1. Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. 119 18:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. john k 19:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 22:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. violet/riga (t) 22:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jonathunder 23:51, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  7. Timrollpickering 10:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. ALoan (Talk) 16:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) (with a link from WP:RM, of course)
  9. Oberiko 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  10. Alai 17:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) Assuming there's a link from this space. (I infer that's implied in the proposal, though it could have done with being made explicit.)
  11. And return this page to its original purpose - a place to ask for technical assistance in performing a simple page move. This should not be a page to debate naming conventions in general. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  12. Johan Magnus 18:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. Rje 17:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC).
  14. Fredrik | talk 21:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  15. --SqueakBox 00:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Linked from RM, naturally. A.D.H. (t&m) 00:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  17. --Pmeisel 00:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  18. Sounds better to me.--Sketchee 02:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  19. ral315 23:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Trödel|talk 14:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Votes for secondary voting if needed to take place on the Requested moves page

  1. ExplorerCDT 18:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Guettarda 19:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. --SPUI (talk) 19:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Improv 16:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Etaonish 15:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Wyss 22:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sean Curtin 23:43, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for retaining the current rules

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other votes (add an additional "Votes options" under the "Voting" 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)

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

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)

There are more arguments on this issue on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 2

The points in the ARGUMENTS section gathered together with counter points by violet/riga (t)

  • Discussion is in the appropriate place (discussions are moved there eventually, adding an extra job)
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.
The relevant talk page is the most appropriate place for discussions - RM is an appropriate page to link to those discussions.
  • Preserves the history of the discussions which are currently lost on the move
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.
I think you'll find that maintaining the edit history is not possible if the discussion takes place here.
  • Less chance of a copy error either deliberately or accidently when the votes are moved
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.
Yes, but that adds to the work when with the other system it wouldn't be necessary
  • Saves people who have already voted on the talk:page having to vote again on RM page
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.
It is extra work, and having links to those talk pages gives you the centralisation.
  • Increases the chances that people with that article on their watchlist will notice the vote as well as getting visitors from this page
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.
Discussion is in the appropriate place (discussions are moved there eventually, adding an extra job)
  • Prevents [RM]] page from becoming bloated
There is no worry about bloating [RM] 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.
But it does grow and become bloated when there are large discussions
"WARNING: This page is 160 kilobytes long." – I think that is proof enough of the problem
  • Lessening the chances of "naming convention disputers" from spamming every discussion with the same argument
Naming convention disputers do not spam the page any more than naming convention authoritarians.
Both are bad things.
  • Prevents instruction creep, allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case
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.
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.
  • Helps to stop a mass of petty nominations taking up lots of room
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.
If we have to deal with move requests in a beaurocratic way then we may end up with such problems.
Respectfully submitted, —ExplorerCDT 23:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
...and respectfully countered by violet/riga (t) 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explorer (I think) wrote "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)." This is exactly why this page, in its current form, is a bad idea. A move is not equivalent to a VfD, nor should it be. A page move is more like a content change than it is like a deletion - anyone can make a page move without discussion if they want to, and I know I've moved dozens of pages without ever bringing anyone else into it. This page was originally designed, as far as I am aware, so that non-sysops would have a central place to go to ask sysops to move pages for them that they couldn't move themselves. Now, potentially controversial moves should have discussion, and I think using this page as a place to list ongoing discussions (or incipient discussions) about controversial or potentially controversial page moves, is a good idea. But I don't see why the discussion shouldn't go on on the article's talk page. I agree with Violetriga that the best people to discuss whether to move a page are the people interested in that specific subject, not some general body of people who happen to watch this page.

That said, there have been many times when I have suggested page moves on talk pages, and then never gotten a response. Normally, I forget about the suggestion for about a year in such instances, and finally remember and just move it, without anybody having said anything. This page is a useful corrective to that, and at least provides some input into potentially controversial moves. So I think that listing articles here is a good idea. As I sit and write I'm feeling a bit torn about this. This page is very useful as a way of, uh, managing newish users who come on and decide they want to move dozens of pages at once. Telling them to go here, and then have people shoot them down, is a useful function. But if this is handled correctly, the talk pages are a only a click away. That is to say, I think this page should be more like Requests for Comment, and less like Votes for Deletion, ultimately. Although I'm a bit torn... john k 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think john has hit the nail on the head. The difference in models is that of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (VfD) and Wikipedia:Requests for comments (RfC). As the page will not be deleted, whatever the outcome of a debate, it makes sense to treat a RM discussion like a RfC and place the comments on the talk page of the page under discussion to be moved. It makes handling RMs much more like an RfC than the more complicated VfD. Philip Baird Shearer 13:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IDEA! - how about including the discussion on the move of X → Y in the page Talk:X/Requested move and then transcluding it into WP:RM under the appropriate header, thusly {{Talk:X/Requested move}}. Similarly, transclusion could be used to display the discussion at the same time on the relevant talk page.

Would that work? Would that achieve both results at the same time - i.e. keeping the talk on the relevant article's talk page and displaying it on WP:RM? (The transclusion teqchnique is used on other high-traffic pages, like WP:FAC, WP:VfD, WP:PR, mainly to avoid edit conflicts, but there is no reason it could not be used here to keep the talk in the "right" place).

Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea. Guettarda 17:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Works for me too. It seems technically a better model, and who knows, it might have the side-effect of getting us closer to a basis of page-naming related more to established naming conventions, and topic-related discussion. Alai 23:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If it can be done, I'd support that. —ExplorerCDT 23:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While a step in the right direction I don't think it's the correct solution. Page moves are not the same as deletion votes or FAC discussions because they can be done by anybody and usually are - there's nothing stopping somebody renaming an article without any discussion. The cowhand article is a good example here - it was decided that it should be moved to cowboy and was done without coming anywhere near RM. Discussion was held on the talk page (though with few contributors, which would be different if it was advertised here) and I moved it myself. RM, in its current form, is looking like it's an optional bureaucracy which is usually avoided by simple page moves. violet/riga (t) 23:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Another option is to have RM as its original purpose (move assistance) and links to the discussions on wikipedia:current surveys - it might be nice to have a centralised page for large ongoing discussions. violet/riga (t) 00:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re transcluding: How would you intergrate a straw poll which has already started on a talk page so that people did not have to vote two times? This idea although a neat technical two window solution, does not encourage people who monitor RM to read what has already been written on the talk page of the page up for moving. It also does not address the issues of Lessening the chances of "naming convention disputers" from spamming every discussion with the same argument, or preventing instruction creep, allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved Alai 17:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) Assuming there's a link from this space. (I infer that's implied in the proposal, though it could have done with being made explicit.)
I thought that it was implicit. I've added it to make it explicit. If anyone who has already voted for this option objects then please remove it. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved And return this page to its original purpose - a place to ask for technical assistance in performing a simple page move. This should not be a page to debate naming conventions in general. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
I would view this as the first step in returning the page to its original purpose. But I think it has to be one step at a time. That should be discussed once this vote is over. But without voting taking place on the article talk page, I don't think that a move back to just being a page for technical assistance will be possible. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edits to WP:RM

'''PLEASE NOTE:''' Requested Moves is '''not''' the proper place to request renaming image files, or categories. Those are two actions which a registered user can accomplish on his or her own. Further, Requested Moves is not the place to promote a political or personal agenda or illustrate a point (whether that point has merit or not).

==Policies and Guidelines to be considered==
* [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]
* [[Wikipedia:Proper names]]
* [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]

ExplorerCDT added the above content to the notices of the page (18:51, 21 Feb 2005, 18:47, 21 Feb 2005, 18:41, 21 Feb 2005, 18:33, 21 Feb 2005). While I do not object adding the content, I believe modifications to the notices portion of the page should have been discussed before adding, except for minor ones. — Instantnood 20:29 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

  • It was, read the f*****g archive you annoying little gnat. —ExplorerCDT 20:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT has made more modifications to the page. These modifications are not discussed before hand, and are obviously not consensus of any kind. (to compare) — Instantnood 21:50 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you have a problem with my elucidating the procedures, explaining how to vote, or adding more links under "policies to be considered"? Or are you saying something to hear your own voice? —ExplorerCDT 21:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it is important to keep the lead section and instructions as short as possible: regulars will know what happens in practice, and these parts are there mainly there so first-time visitors know what the rest of the page (which is where the real action takes place) is all about and how they should use it. Inevitably, there is a tendancy for these sorts of sections to expand until no-one reads them. I've shortened the first few sections considerably, and I've also moved the TOC up higher to address the problem mentioned below.
I trust that this is not too controversial, but please feel free to throw bricks here. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I actually approve of that. Good job. —ExplorerCDT 16:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocks of Page Moves

I am growing more and more concerned about the trend in recommending large blocks of pages to be moved, as is the case with recent requests such as XXX of Macao → XXX of Macau and the entire series regarding PRC → China/Taiwan → ROC (and vice versa). The idea and precedent of moving blocks of pages raises the question of bulk movements in policy, or convention, using wikipedia as tool to gain a political or societal legitimacy through emphasizing a certain spelling, or phrase, or whathaveyou.

Another concern that I have been grappling with is that in many circumstances pages are named accordingly with regard to a unique historical circumstance (like the particular contemporaneous spelling of a battle as opposed to a modern spelling of the site), local custom vs. internationalized reference, or nuance, Tto force through a whole block of page move requests might push such individual page concerns by the wayside in a manner that would be dangerous to Wikipedia as a whole.

I think we should start to rein in the potential to abuse the precedent that is rapidly coming into being. Perhaps it may be essential to limit page move requests to one at a time, or to specifically/explicitly enumerate the pages instead of a general block (i.e. in the current XXX in Macao → XXX in Macau) debate?

Considerations - if the extreme of enumerating each requested move in a general block of pages as a separate vote could cause bloating...something this page have never experienced before. However, not separating individual pages in a general block could promote increased confusion in the event people vote supporting one, two or a few of the block, but oppose one, two or a few of the rest of the block. Also, if in the event consensus leads to voting on individual article's discussion pages, this concern would grow wildly uncontrollable.

I look forward to your comments, whether or not you share my concern, and if necessary what solutions may be posed to this issue. (except you, Instantnood, you're just an annoying non-constructive gnat at I time I cannot find a big enough swatter).—ExplorerCDT 21:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with moving pages in a block, if that is according to the naming policy. For instance, our naming policy is that peers who are known by their peerage title should have that title in the article, and that peers who are not should not. As such, when I see a page that doesn't fit these criteria, I move them, without bringing it to W:RM. The place to discuss such issues, however, is not here, but on naming policy pages. If a consensus is arrived at at the naming policy page that the articles should be moved, they should be moved. If it goes the other way, they shouldn't be moved. But it shouldn't come here, since this is a page which is (or should be) for individual moves. john k 04:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it's possibly a good thing to do block page moving -- if block moves are to take place, then handling it this way helps maintain consistancy between several pages that share the same name for something. --Improv 03:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I can understand your concerns with regards to XXX moves, but since I was the one who initiated the one with regards to Macau, may I take this opportunity to illustrate the very reason why it can be a feasible move as some has already theorised here. Indeed, the Macau spelling controversy was supposedly "solved" in a voting which took place in its talk page. It put an end to someone's insistance on renaming Macau to Macao, and since then, there has been a general consistency in the naming of Macau, until other member, which curiously comes from the same location as the earlier pro-macao member, insisted on spelling it as Macao in all his edits to this site, creating several new pages with his form of spelling. It seems like a previous voting exercise was ignored. This is the main reason why I decided to just do a second round of mass voting for all related pages in that controversy here. Perhaps the above episode also illustrates the pros and cons of having votes on each talk page, or in a centralised location like this one?--Huaiwei 20:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the mass voting, I just think it's prone to abuse if the proposer doesn't do full disclosure. I agree with your points, and I remember our Macau vs. Macao fight. —ExplorerCDT 20:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you two John K and Improv approve of the paragraph commenced with "Lastly" in the introduction of the RM page? I agree that it can be used to maintain consistency, but the people who request the moves should bear the brunt of listing the articles effected. Full disclosure, so we don't wrongly hoodwink voters and make admin work easier (they're overburdened as it is) —ExplorerCDT 04:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it's generally a good thing if X is used, so that we less often have one move succeed and another one fail because of quirks in how diligent the voters are. This helps with consistancy. --Improv 14:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't mind using "XXX" just as long as the person promoting the move lists what he wants moved. Sure, it is does help with consistency, but at the same time, not all pages fit into the same mold. There may be historical or other reasons for why a certain page is named differently than the rest in a series, and they shouldn't be forced into a mold where they don't fit. Now, the quirks of voters aside, I wish circumstances merited a cookie-cutter solution, but often they don't. A perfect example being the "The Gambia" and "The Netherlands" et al. debate going on now...historically it was "The Netherlands" for a reason...and the naming issue here should be excluded from being painted with a broad brushstroke. —ExplorerCDT 15:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • As I said, I don't think moves of this sort ought to be on this page at all. They should be in naming conventions, or what not. In the case of Macau/Macao, the fact that a consensus at the Macau page had already been worked out suggests that you would have been in the right to simply move all the pages without listing them anywhere. IMO. john k 22:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Table of contents

The project page would be easier to use if the table of contents were higher. Maurreen 18:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very true. In fact, the whole intro is way too long, but it's probably best to wait for the result of the poll before changing it around. violet/riga (t) 23:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New WP:RM system

I've created Wikipedia:Requested moves/temp as an example of how the new style of RM could be organised. The vote is 20 to 9 for changing over to the new system but I'd like for those people that opposed the decision to look at the proposal. If the changeover is implemented the current discussions would be moved to the relevant talk pages (hence there currently being some red links). violet/riga (t) 19:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The design is fine. However, beacuse I don't have any time or patience to waste darting from talk page to talk page as the masses have stated emphatically they want, I'm going to refrain from participating in RMs for the foreseeable future. Back to VfD where there is one-stop shopping, I suppose. —ExplorerCDT 21:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not title the section on the talk page == Straw Poll on Move == then instruct the proposed mover to bold the next line which would include the new location and then add [[Talk:{Sourcepage}#Straw Poll on Move]] to the Requested moves page - that way one reviewing them could quickly jump to the location of the poll and discussion in one click Trödel|talk 17:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm - if you have time, could you try one with the discussion transcluded, as I suggested above. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I too would love to see what a transcluded RM would look like. If it would work, I'd agree to dedicate time to a transcluded system if it is what I seem to think it is. However, with the masses saying take it to the talk pages, I already know I have no time for that navigational imbroglio. —ExplorerCDT 22:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A transcluded one would basically appear just as the present one does, just using a different (and better) system. While I agree that it would improve the state of RM as it is at the moment I don't think it goes quite far enough, though I've not looked into the idea in detail yet...
Positives:
  • In line with VfD, FAC and some others
  • Would allow for a good system of directing people to previous (perhaps similar) discussions rather than just at a talk page
  • Discussion can be linked from both here and the article talk page (and thus preserves the edit history too)
  • Less tidying work than the present system, but slightly harder than the link system?
Negatives:
  • Still creates a large page at WP:RM
  • Discussion is taken away from the talk page where previous discussions (about the same thing) may have taken place
  • Moving pages is not like VfD or FAC as they are usually done without any form of discussion - others are done with some mention on the talk page, bypassing WP:RM completely
  • Does not encourage people with the article on their watchlist to contribute - the discussion is almost hidden away, though that is true for VfD and the like
  • Doesn't prevent instruction creep, thus not allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case
  • Can still lead to this page being bloated (see how it is at the moment, nearing 200kb)
I'd still favour the way I have suggested, though obviously I'm biased and would be keen to hear peoples views on transclusion. violet/riga (t) 22:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  • No "discussion transcluded". For all the reasons that violet/riga gave but also because it could have been added to to the voting proposals it was not.
  • Leave the current discussions in the old format, they will be gone in a week and impose the new method from a date and time specified in the introduction.
  • There should be a time limit for the link to remaining on this page before it has to be accepted or rejected. One week seems a popular choice for these things.
  • I think the layout should be specified in the introduction and should be:
    • Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved → target page - Brief description. ~~~~
  • I have other things to do at the moment, so other than the odd comment I am going to lurk.

--Philip Baird Shearer 23:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My views on some of those thoughts:
Time limit: some discussions can seem to go on and on (ie. Taiwan/RoC) and an enforced time limit may not work out
Layout: the reason I did the layout as it is was because not all moves are straight forward - sometimes numerous destinations are suggested
There is, of course, the argument between a too-rigid structure and a too-flexible one. violet/riga (t) 23:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If a consensus is reached after more than a week, then it can always be resubmitted or perhapse a guide line should be suggested. eg "the discussion should be open for at least 3 days and not longer than one week". Time limits tends to foster compromises and decisions. I think you have to insist on a layout. Or more than one option for the target page or If there are multiple pages to be moved then they must be a specific layout. (What you have suggested so far I think leads to confusion). The standard move:

  • Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved to target page – Brief discription. – ~~~~

move to more than one option:

  • Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved to target page or target page two etc – Brief discription. – ~~~~

and for block moves:

  • Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved 1 to target page 1
    • ...
    • page to be moved n to target page n
    • Brief discription. – ~~~~

However in principle I think this should become a technical page for simple moves involving no more than a few pages eg

It should not be used for things like the ROC Taiwan dispute, There has to be a better page for such disputes. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where do I request picture moves?

This page anounces that it is the wrong place to ask for pictures to be moved. Fine, but where is the right place?

I'd like to move Image:Hedgehog.jpg aside (to Image:Hedgehog.777life.jpg) to allow commons:Image:Hedgehog.jpg to display, but I can't (and it would leave behind a redirect anyway). The local version has worse (but not actually unacceptable) copyright status, but is still a worthwhile picture. --Andrew 09:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • You do it yourself. Re-upload the image with the name you want, change the links on the relevant pages. To delete the old one, ask an admin. Simple. —ExplorerCDT 17:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. If the image had multiple old versions, I suppose I should upload them all in the same order, with explanatory comments? (I'm thinking, for example, of some of the pictures on Wikipedia:Featured Pictures Candidates which go through several iterations of minor tweaks.) Thanks. --Andrew 01:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

What form should the discussion on the talk page take

I copied these two comments from my talk page. Philip Baird Shearer

Your straw poll format is too formal and cumbersome. It discourages discussion in favor of voting. While that may be helpful in cut and dry yes/no decisions, for something like Requested moves, other solutions could present themselves. Remember, don't vote on everything. -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
Well, with that article, I'm not concerned that the straw poll is too formal; it's just that there may or may not be anyone watching, who would vote on it. In cases where there appears to be only one user involved in the article, I think the user should be able to ask if there are any objections to moving the article, and if no one objects after a week, then an admin should be able to move the article. Rad Racer 17:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are pretty well understood. Someone suggests something, others make their comments, and a consensus may develop. I agree that we should not adopt a straw poll format here; I concur with Netoholic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I think that it is a good idea to break out the voting from the discussion was in the section on the WP:RM page which Netoholic has removed:

To make it easy for the administrator to see if there is a consensus for a move...

I think that users choices and their comments should be separated, because it allows an administrator to be able to assess what the consensus is on a subject without having to read through pages of verbiage in which people may not clearly have expressed what their position is. I am sure that most admins would prefer a format which makes it clear and unambiguous for them. From watching this page for a number of months the most controversial page moves are precisely those were the administrators would benefit from a clear separation of position from opinion.

I think the format which in the section netoholic has removed was not as good as it could be. This is after all only 24 hours into the new way of doing things. The format which was there can not for example handle multiple options. But I do think that there is a need to specify a format. I think that the format should be something like this:

==Requested Move == [This could link in with Trödel|talk idea above}]
  • proposal move to abc
  • (proposal move to xyz or whatever if multiple options)
  • proposal page should not move
  • ---Add more preposals above this lines.---
  • You are encouraged to use Approval voting. Please sign a proposal with only *#~~~~
  • ---Add any discussions on the proposed Move below this line ---

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Too much instruction creep still. Let the Talk page discussions be as casual or as formal as necessary. Some only require a few sentences, while some require much more work. You can't cover all bases on the instructions of this page (which still need to be massively re-worked for simplicity). -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Now that 24 hours have gone by, I think we can see how this is panning out. For subjects like Talk:Alternative information centre then a list of Support and Oppose is adequate and easy to read. But if the move is contentious like the current Talk:Calcutta#Straw poll on the move of Calcutta to Kolkata then separating choice from commentary is clearly much easier for an admin who has to decide on whether there is a clear consensus at the end of the discussion. The trouble is that there will be contention is not necessarily obvious before the first few opinions are expressed. Perhaps a compromise would be to use this format:

==Requested move==
  • proposal copied from WP:RM.
Add just * Support or * Oppose under the proposal followed by your signature:"~~~~"
---Add any discussion on the proposed move below this line ---

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above also covers the situation where someone preposes a new proposal as in Talk:November 17 (resistance movement). So unless anyone has strong objections, I'm going to put the format, immediately above, into the article as a second attempt to replace the first attempt which was deleted by Netoholic. Philip Baird Shearer 23:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WARNING THIS IS AN ARCHIVE SEE Wikipedia talk:Requested moves FOR LIVE TALK PAGE AFTER 23:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)