Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Archives

For the page history of any text before this time stamp please see the Archives Philip Baird Shearer 00:08, 5 Mar 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)

As over the last day or so most people who contribute a support or oppose view, like to add a sentence explaining their position, I am going to add that into the the guide format. Philip Baird Shearer 14:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any need to include the page name in the title because, it will be included in the proposal copied from WP:R and it generates more work. Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New shortcut?

With the move to "Wikipedia:Requested Pelican Shit", shouldn't the shortcut be WP:RPS? Cburnett 04:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately they just don't seem to think of the little touches. :) violet/riga (t) 05:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When to close poll?

I proposed a move from Calcutta to Kolkata on March 3rd. The votes are evenly split, and it has raised a surprising amount of discussion. It is clear that no consensus will be achieved at this time, and five days have passed. I am unsure if I am to do anything to close the poll under the new Requested moves guidelines. Does an administrator handling RM close it, or should I? People are free to continue discussion, but I think it's time to take it off RM. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are no hard rules because each case should be treated individually. I'll take a look later, but I think that an even split should usually be seen as a choice to keep the current article name. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that such a close vote means we should not move the page now. I would like to bring this matter to a close for now, since it seems pretty clear no consensus will be reached and 6 days have already passed. Perhaps it can be brought up in the future, when Kolkata becomes more common. I will let you or another administrator close this proposal then. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A sort of naming conventions, sort of requested movesy kind of thing

I'm just posting this on the talk page because I think it's more of a clarifying naming conventions issue than a move issue, but I've posted on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions to propose that articles on flagship public universities in the United States should be titled simply University of Alabama, rather than at places like University of Maryland, College Park or University of Wisconsin-Madison. john k 20:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

proposed move of discussion about naming conventions

There is a discussion that has not long been underway at talk:British Rail Class 185 about an alteration to the naming scheme of locos and multiple units on railways in Britain. It is probable that it will be moved to somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). As this is likely to be of interest to contributors to all the articles about the various locos, DMUs, EMUs, etc. (see List of British Rail classes for a full list), is there a way of informing people about the discussion other than posting a note on the hundred or so talk pages? Thryduulf 22:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Formatting the request line

The new formatting rules for requests created too much clutter because of excessive article names, especially when they are unusually long. The current format, 

*[[Talk:page to be moved]] – [[page to be moved]] → [[new name]] – reason for move — ~~~~

is better updated so it's slightly less visually stressing in these cases.

The obvious suggestion is to shorten the link to the talk page by hiding it under alternative name, by using either 

*'''[[Talk:page to be moved|Talk]]''': [[page to be moved]]  → [[new name]] — reason for move  – ~~~~

or 

* [[page to be moved]] ('''[[Talk:page to be moved|Talk]]''')  → [[new name]]: reason for move  — ~~~~


I do prefer this format (having seen some people use similar ones already) but want to avoid complicating it. Would this make new users find it too difficult to use piped links? violet/riga (t) 19:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Inserting |Talk after the page name is as comlex as inserting Talk: before it ;), and it's the whole point of shortening the request line. But OK, here's a template with less formatting and capitalized placefolders for page names. It should be selected and copied-and-pasted over to the edit box, then edited into a correct request.
* [[Talk:OLD NAME|Talk]]: [[OLD NAME]] → [[NEW NAME]] — PROVIDE REASONS. – ~~~~
As an experienced mouse-driver, I prefer to copy-paste the page name, select the capitalized placeholder token by double-clicking the space between the words and paste fill the correct name over. But editing with the keyboard should be straightforward as well. Feel free to test, preferably with something long enough like the example above (mua-ha-ha-ha). DmitryKo 15:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are clear advantages to this proposal for long links. But I do not think for the small number of cases involved, it outways the disadvantage of potential perfidy. Some of the moves are very controversial and generate strong emotions. Some people may choose to place the talk onto a page which is not appropriate or obvious in the hope of reducing opposition to a move. If the talk page name it is hidden behind a pipe this may not be noticed unless one chooses to follow the link. So for transparency, I think the name of the talk page should be displayed in full. Philip Baird Shearer 09:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These cases are hypothetical but the uneasy visual layout prevents people from joining the talk of their interest, here, right now. If you really must see the talk link unalternated, it should be placed somewhere else. DmitryKo 11:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* [[OLD NAME]] → [[NEW NAME]] — PROVIDE REASONS. – ([[Talk:OLD NAME]]) — ~~~~

Why do you think it is an uneasy visual layout? I do not think that putting the talk page link at the end of a variable length reason is as clear as putting it first. It would definatly be less clear for multipage moves. It makes cutting and pasting the line onto the talk page slightly more difficult. Philip Baird Shearer 17:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Fixing cut & paste moves?

There is a good set of instructions at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves describing how to merge histories following a cut and paste move. However, admin privileges are required to carry out the merger.

I can't seem to find a place where requests to merge histories can be placed by non-admins. The Cut and paste move repair holding pen seems to be just for merges that can't go through because of the block compression problem. The Administrator's Noticeboard has been suggested, but to do that on a regular basis would (I fear) generate a lot of traffic on WP:AN that it doesn't really need.

Any ideas? I would suggest either adding a subsection to this page (Wikipedia:Requested moves) or to Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen, for admins to address at their leisure. A note for the benefit of non-admins in Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves would also be useful. Thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imho the repair holding pen should be expanded to cover this issue, with the current content beingcoming the second section of the page. Moves requested by non-admins that turn out to have block compression issues could then easily be moved to that section. A note at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves and Wikipedia:Requested moves directing people there would be useful. Thryduulf 14:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming (moving) Help needed

I created a page called Conspiracy of fools

I used a lowercase "f" in the word fools and want to capitalize it.

The page should be called: Conspiracy of Fools

Thanks. This is my first page. --Utahredrock 03:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Uncontroversial (I trust), and no technical problems, so done. BTW, strictly speaking the requests go on the "project page", rather than the "talk" page, but not a worry. Alai 07:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

consensus

OPTION 1: Page moves requested on this page may be actioned if there is a rough consensus or majority supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
OPTION 2: Page moves requested on this page may be actioned if there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

My first thought is that "or majority" is not a good idea because it dependes on the size of the "vote". If only three people vote two for the move one against then not many people would seem to be interested in the choices given. But the majority would still be 2/3 in favour of moving the article. If only one person votes support then the percentage is 100%. If 40 odd people have voted 21 to 19 then I think we need to think this through. I think simple majority voting will encourage page move wars and no attempt to reach a consensus. I think it is better when the moving of pages is sticky. Perhapse the page should state what the consensus must be eg 60% or whatever rather than a "rough consensus". However these are only my initial thoughts and I am interested to see what others think. Philip Baird Shearer 18:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed it after many experiences of difficult move decisions. I think that having it say just "rough consensus" doesn't really cover the situations that have presented themselves. There's been some that have no support or oppose votes – should they be moved? I see WP:RM as a way to help people that cannot move the articles. This is basically because, in most of these cases, the user would move it if possible. Yes, that may lead to a heated debate, but the point is that they would initiate the move. If a vote is split then I give it more time. If it leans towards one way then I will rule in that direction (Nagasaki, for example, was 8 to 5 for the move). I don't agree with having fixed numbers (60% majority, for example) as it's too difficult in the situations where there isn't very many votes. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving a page is not nearly as "big a deal" as setting policy, deleting a page, or promoting an admin - things that do require "rough consensus". Even though the title is the most visible part of the page, changing it isn't much different from changing content - something anyone can do. In fact, most of the time, any logged in user who's not completely new can just move a page. So I don't think we need to require a high threshold for moving pages listed here. A majority of editors should do it (discounting socks and obvious trolls if there are any). In those cases where a move request is made and no one votes, it should be taken as "no objection" and left to an admin's discretion. After all, some one who disagrees could reopen the discussion, as in any content dispute. Jonathunder 22:57, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I don't think either of you are disagreeing with what I'm saying, but if one just does it with a majority vote then I think it will cause problems. The rough consensus seems to have worked reasonably well in most cases. In the case were there are only one or two votes then I think that it is easier than when there are lots of votes and it is split down he middle. In the case where it is just a few votes then it can be treated like an ordinary move because there is not much stakeholder interest in that page. But on pages like Zürich to Zurich the WP:RM serves another purpose and I think simple majority voting would not serve the wikipedia community as well consensus voting does by putting those types of debates to bed for a few months. So I think it is best to stay with rough consensus but if no votes are cast, or only one or two then treat it as a rough consensus to either make the move or not. So after 5 days do not extend the voting if only a few votes have been case. If there are less than half a dozen votes and read the rough consensus which because it is so few votes is basically majority voting:

  • Preposal not votes -- 100% -- move.
  • Proposal and one oppose -- 1/1 -- 50% -- don't move
  • Proposal, one support and one oppose --2/3 -- 66% --move
  • Proposal, two support and one oppose -- 3/4 -- 75% --move.
  • Proposal, two support and two oppose -- 3/5 -- 60% --move.
  • Proposal, one support and three oppose -- 2/5 -- 40% -- no move

--Philip Baird Shearer 00:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


Consensus: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

I'm not experienced with the whole requested move situation, but it seems like fixed guidelines need to be put in place. I just went through an ugly page move experience at talk:Nagasaki when an admin used the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law ... cutting and pasting other peoples votes, moving the page without a consensus (it was a 6 to 5 split until the admin added another person's vote from an earlier vote and added their own), etc. A consensus is not the same as a simple majority, and allowing page moves with a slight majority causes confusion. Above all, when it becomes easy and arbitrary to move a page, people focus more on what the title should be and less on the content in the article ... pages get moved back and forth between whatever is popular that week or month (or however a "consensus" is defined that week or month). I think that policy should be: when in doubt, don't move the article. Here are some proposals:

  • 2/3 majority a must for all page moves
  • A minimum of three votes (including the proposal)
  • Set a definite time-limit for the vote, and adhere by it. I personally think that 1 week is a good amount of time to allow interested people to find the vote and discuss it. All votes that happen a week or later from the "proposal" don't count. That way there's no late "ballot stuffing" as we had in Nagasaki.

Requiring a larger majority and a minimum number of votes will encourage more discussion before a vote, something that is lacking in a majority of cases. Discussion will often lead to a true consensus and help the parties arrive at a smooth resolution. By enforcing a time limit on voting there is a sense of fairness and finality.

I would also propose a few other items, but they are smaller concerns:

  • Only registered users' votes count (this could prevent the possibility of ballot stuffing)
  • No cutting-and-pasting of votes by other people from previous votes (this really left a sour taste in my mouth from the Nagasaki vote: let people vote for themselves!)

CES 12:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the above post - there should be a presumption IN FAVOUR of moving, except in cases of clear vandalism or controversial cases which attract an unusually high number of votes. Generally, people can just move. If there's a move war, treat it as you would any edit/revert war. If you get no votes on a subject, chances are it's just a low-traffic page. - SoM 13:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying: my comment was directed more to controversial cases (frequent moves and lack of procedural clarity can only make such cases more controversial). I agree, if it's a low traffic page it should be able to be moved easy (granted that there are no objections to the move ... the key phrase is when in doubt). Having a minimum number of votes is probably unnecessary. CES 14:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I totally refute the accusations above, having done everything at Nagasaki the correct way. Sorry to say but CES seems to be just upset at being on the wrong end of the decision. I also strongly disagree with virtually everything that he proposes. I do, however, fully agree with the suggestions by Philip Baird Shearer. violet/riga (t) 20:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I am upset that the situation was, in my opinion, handled poorly, which will continue to happen if there are no guidelines (but I'm proud to see that you guys seem to be working on that). In the end, it really doesn't matter too much (thanks to redirect pages) and for that reason I'm going to go back to creating and editing articles and leave this page with a final request before "unwatching" it:
  • Please set a percentage cutoff for page moves. I personally don't care if it's 51%, 60%, or 100% ... but if you treat everything on a case-by-case basis (which ends up meaning admin-by-admin basis) then the whole point of this page is pretty much moot and everything comes down to individual interpretation. Please remember that poor guidelines are better than no guidelines. As a fellow (but slightly frustrated) Wikipedian, I wish you all the best. Good luck! CES 00:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • When you say "admin-by-admin" it basically means me, seeing as I'm the one that does them all. violet/riga (t) 08:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry for leaving the burden to you - I am still lurking, but I generally agree with your approach anyway... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't mind really, and have no problem with people coming along and asking me for more details about the decision (as some have done). violet/riga (t) 09:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason I added "majority" is also because there are situations whereby there are more than one possible choices of name. Would the "60% rule" still apply? violet/riga (t) 08:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the way you wrote it. You added an alternative means of justifying a move, based on a bare majority. You didn't add an additional restriction requiring more than just a plurality but an actual majority in the case of multiple options.
There is probably no fair way to handle multiple alternatives other than a runoff vote. Gene Nygaard 12:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
To me "rough consensus or majority" basically means what PBS said (60%) but is more generally worded to accept multiple options. Take the following example:
  • Name 1: 2 votes
  • Name 2: 5 votes
  • Name 3: 2 votes
In this instance I would rule in favour of name 2, having quite a majority over either of the other two. Remembering that votes are not necessarily mutually exclusive it is difficult to apply a 60% rule here, and a run-off wouldn't really make sense. I really would rather avoid instruction creep. violet/riga (t) 13:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand that your "or" was a major shift in policy. The word "or" can, of course, have several meanings. But if you are not clear in stating these rules, if it can be misinterpreted, you can gbet that it will be misinterpreted, and you will open up a can of worms of unnecessary argument about that point.
Now, let's look at the point about multiple options. So, what would you do with this?
  • Name 1 (no move): 2 votes
  • Name 2: 6 votes
  • Name 3: 2 votes
  • Name 4: 2 votes
This might mean that most people think it should be changed, but disagree about what it should be changed to.
Note, however, than none of the options has a majority. You'd have to consider the comments, and make a subjective judgment call, to say whether or not there is a rough consensus.
A runoff makes sense because those who prefer alternative B, if given a choice between no change and alternative A, might well choose no change. Add more alternatives, and that is even more likely. Of course, that is something that could probably be whittled down in the preliminary discussion stages, when you don't have fools bringing it to a vote before the discussion has started.
To reduce those multiple option possibilities, maybe what you need is a mechanism to say that calling for a vote is premature without preliminary discussion on the talk pages. Gene Nygaard 14:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If one put in the words "or majority" at the top of WP:RM, one will have cases with a high vote eg "Zurich" with a difference of one vote and people insisting on the move because it is the letter of what is written at the top of WP:RM. I think that will cause a lot more problems than it solves. As the "rough consensus" page does not put numbers on to the figure, perhaps we should specify what it is.

If Approval voting is used for multiple proposals then violet/riga's interpretation is fair. If the Date heading was changed to ==Day Date== and the length was moved out to 7 days then it is easier to see (and remember) when the time is up. As one proposed new page name is the norm and can be seen as a special case of Approval voting perhaps the wording could be simplified to.

OPTION 3: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be actioned if there is a rough consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after seven (7) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The wording "Approval voting" should also be added to the lines copied to the talk page eg: 

===Discussion===
::''[[Approval voting]] is encouraged for this page move.
::''Add any additional comments''

To clarify another point. In the section "Relevant policies and guidelines" add a sentence: "If the proposer of the move has only nominated one new page in the proposed move, the proposition is a vote in support of the move". Philip Baird Shearer 14:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

My use of "majority" was more akin to plurality, and was supposed also have the "rough" inference. I agree that approval voting is the best way for multiple votes but think that already happens – I don't want to overly-formalise WP:RM procedings. In the above example by Gene Nygaard I would generally go for the one with an obvious (and strongly favoured) plurality. I think that the current option 3 says it best so far, but would it confuse people that are simply going for a support/oppose move? violet/riga (t) 15:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How about sticking with "OPTION 3" and adding the following to the Discussion section: 

===Discussion===
::''[[Approval voting]] is encouraged when more than one new name is proposed for the move.
::''Add any additional comments''

Otherwise we are back at what I proposed in #What form should the discussion on the talk page take which at that time, (just after we moved to voting on the "Talk" page to be moved, it was agreed was "too much instruction creep still". Although experiance suggests that we may need some "instruction creep" to cover people quoting the page to justify a move or none move that they disagree with. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that noting that on the discussion page may be a little confusing to some and it should be down to the proposer of the vote (or someone adding to it thereafter) to note it as approval voting. With that in mind I would most like to see the WP:RM instructions updated rather than the talk pages of each new move. violet/riga (t) 10:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

7 or 5 days

Re 7 days versus 5 days. VfD only requires 5 days of discussion before consigning an article to Outer Darkness and it seems a bit anomalous that more time should be required for RM than for VfD. It may be that 7 days is better than 5 but if so the same change should be made to VfD. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think that WP:RM have to be the same length of discussion as VfD? Surely it is better for each process to take as longer or as shorter time as is needed? Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that because both involve a discussion period leading to a consensus before action can be taken and the process of discussion is basically the same in both cases. You haven't made clear why a longer time is required for discussion of RM than of VfD. It definitely is better for each process to take as long or as short a time as is needed but you've made no case for RM requiring a longer discussion period than VfD and that seems a little bizarre given that VfD decides whether or not to destroy an article whereas RM only decides whether to change its title. What's your reasoning ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think 7 days is fine (not too long), and better than 5 (more time for discussion). James F. (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not too worried about whether the discussion period is 5 or 7 days and the extra discussion time is probably a good thing but my point is that, if it's a good thing for RM, it's a good thing for VfD. I can't see why we should have 7 days for the one and 5 days for the other. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I do not monitor VfD, so I am not qualified to pass an opinion the times used on it. I think that 7 days is a better period for WP:RM three reasons:

  1. Quite a few pages over the last few weeks have had their voting times extended by a few days. This is a judgement made by an administrator and although these are not normally challenged, they are a potential source of conflict. This saves the need for that change to be made as often as it has been.
  2. Some people have complained that five days is not long enough for decisions which are going against them ;-) 5 days is an arbitrary number (as is a week) but a week like a month are perceived as being less arbitrary than a number of days.
  3. Seven days is a more natural number of days to remember. As we all tend to be creatures of habit and habits tend to be based around a weekly cycles not five days. Philip Baird Shearer 17:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's all worked perfectly well with five days and temporary extensions for those that need it. Most moves are not controversial and the discussion doesn't need to take so long, those that are are been given a short extension. I've put it back. violet/riga (t) 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

To further discuss the points above: 1) Those that have had voting time extended are usually those with a split vote and require more people to look at it, not because it's controversial. 2) 5 days is long enough for most decisions, especially considering that we are trying to help people move pages rather than gather opinions. 3) I see your point, but I don't want a huge backlog of pages. I try to move pages around the 3 or 4 day mark where possible, and for me to do that when the supposed discussion is 7 days makes it look even worse. violet/riga (t) 17:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to stay @ 5 days. (In fact, I'd prefer some sort of sliding system where, if there's no votes, or less than 20% of the votes are against/for after 3 days, move it/end the vote. After 5 days, if less than 40% are against/for, move it/end the vote. If after 7 days, the vote still has a less than 60/40 split, generally just end it and don't move. That'd get shouted down as instruction creep though.) - SoM 17:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No votes

Related to the above, but seperate, I think there should be wording to the effect that, if there are no (0) votes in the time period, provided the listing has been properly done on WP:RM and the talk page, then the page should be moved - SoM 02:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to spell it out explicitly. I think that we have been moving towards that way of thinking just by applying 60% to all votes no matter how few. Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

About {{voteaboutmove}}

transplanted from up the page

I've just created {{voteaboutmove}} to help inform users about a vote they may be interested in. Not sure whether to incorporate this into the instructions though, because I think it might be best if it's only used by people dealing with the moves. violet/riga (t) 19:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea ... it'll help increase awareness that a vote is even going on. CES 13:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Considering what discussion took place earlier on this page about voting and discussion, how would you feel about changing the name of the template from {{voteaboutmove}} to {{proposedmove}} (another that comes to mind is {{discussmove}} but that focuses on the discussion over the voting)? Courtland 22:44, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
I've backed away from using these a little, considering that some may see it as spam. Moreover, I tend not to have enough time! All three could be used anyway, with two of them being redirects. violet/riga (t) 23:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Not following the process

Taking a look at Category:Requested moves there are loads of move requests that have the {{move}} tag added to the talk but have not followed the correct process and added them to this page. Considering that these have not been listed for people to see should we just remove the request or actually do the move? I think we need to consider the current ones and then add a clear policy to the page. violet/riga (t) 13:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of those were resolved without having the tag removed (oops -- will fix mine shortly). As for the ones not listed on the page, just remove the request and let the petitioner try again, following policy this time. –Hajor 14:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Templatized listing entry

I've templatized the listing entry somewhat.

  • [[:{{{1}}}]] → [[:{{{2}}}]] —([[Talk:{{{1}}}#Requested move|Discuss]])— {{{3}}} —SoxBot (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


To use the template:

II.
Add a line to WP:RM.

  Add this line to the Requested Moves section of the day:

{{subst:WP:RM | page to move | new page name | reason for move}} ~~~~
  • Replace "page to move" with the pagename that is being renamed
  • Replace "new page name" with the pagename that will replace the old name
  • Replace "reason for move" with the reason that you think justifies the renaming

Trolls

This is prompted by several posts of which the two most recent are:

  • "Southern American English" → "Southern White Vernacular English" 205.188.117.5, 20:43, 31 May 2005 (UCT)
  • "Jesus" → "Jesus Christ" 152.163.100.139, 19:28, 31 May 2005 (UCT)

Even if others do not judge both of these particular postings to be troll postings, perhaps it would be a good idea to add to the page, a sentence warning that if no signature is added to a request, or an IP address is used to post the request, then the at the discretion of an administrator the requested move may be removed. What do others think? Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wack a Rat. I have just reverted to my changes to the two entries above because a user with an IP address of 152.163.100.139 reverted my edits at 15:54, 1 Jun 2005. One of those edits was to move a list of votes onto the Talk page of Jesus. The person had not delete them from that talk page, they just added them back into this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge 'A guide ... talk page' with 'What to ... talk page'

I would like to suggest that A guide for a Requested move section on a talk page should be merged with What to do on the talk page. I have seen many requested moves that do not include this information, which can be helpful not only to Administrators but also to normal users – such as myself – when requesting a page move, especially for the first time. – AxSkov (T) 10:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

New category for requested moves

I have been bold and created a new template, {{CapitalMove}}, and category, Category:Requested capitalization moves, for those cases where the old title and the new title only differ in capitalization; such moves are (usually, not always) uncontroversial but the "Move page" function won't allow a non-administrator to do them, because it considers the wrong box and The Wrong Box to be the same title. However, so as not to be too bold, I have not taken the step myself of adding the template and category to Wikipedia:Requested moves or making the category a sub-category of Category:Requested moves. I think these would both be good things but I realize the administrators who currently handle such moves are better-equipped than I to judge that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

What a fantastic idea. Please go ahead and do this! Talrias (t | e | c) 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


CapitalMove and the introduction

Copied from User talk:Philip Baird Shearer and User talk:Talrias:

Heya, why did you revert my changes to Wikipedia:Requested moves? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that if you want to change the introcution to the WP:RM page you argue you position first on the Talk page. A lot of effort has gone into the page layout. As you will have seen I have moved your intoduction of a new template into the section dealing with what to do on the talk page of the page to be moved which is the more logical place to put it. If you can get a consensus on the talk page that it should go in the introductory paragraph I will be pleased to give way on this point. Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I dislike the fact you have removed my good faith edits (again) and ignored the Wikipedia:be bold principle, when I have clarified the introduction to ensure that incorrect listings are not made. You have simply removed my changes, saying I "need consensus", rather than taking them on their merits. Do you disagree with the wording, or do you disagree with me not finding consensus before changing it? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

To answer your questions: I have not simply removed your changes. As I said in the page history of the article [It is better to] 'group what to do on the "What to do on the talk page" in one place. Not part in the introduction and part in the "What to do on the talk page"'.

If you disagree with this please explain here why you think that the "CapitalMove" template should be before the TOC but the other two templates are mentioned in the "what to do on the talk page" sections.

As you have not got a consensus for the changes you are making I think it better that we talk about it here before getting into an edit war. That will allow others who have an interest in the layout of this page to either agree with you or with me. If you look back througth this talk page you will see that this has happened a number of times and that we have been able to agree to changes without edit wars. Philip Baird Shearer 17:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You have both contributed greatly to WP:RM and I think you both mean well with this. I'll take a look at the versions and come up with a suggestion at some point soon. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the guide lines at the top need to be a concise, clear and as brief as possible. The vast majority of people using this page do not want to wade through lots of what ifs before they get to the TOC and see where the list of proposed moves are. They fall into three categories:

  1. They have either used the page before so the header sections are of no interest.
  2. The are here for the first time or the first time in some time to look at a specific page they are interested in which has this strange template called move on the talk page directing them to this page.
  3. The want to move a page but are unable to, so the follow the link to here. In which case they want as concise, (monkey sees monkey does), set of instructions so they can ask for the page to be moved ASAP and get on with more interesting things on Wikipedia.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; and your category 3 shows precisely why Talrias's version is on the right track. It provides immediate, upfront triage so people on the wrong page don't get confused. I would add, just before his bulleted list, the sentence: "Not all moves, therefore, are to be handled by this page" and a colon; and just after his list, the sentence: "If none of these special cases applies, see below for procedures." or suchlike. In short, his/her proposed wording greatly adds to the upfront-ness and directness of the page. Doops | talk 23:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I was trying to get at with the bulletpoint list - to provide clear instructions as to where to go for the page moves, to help people who need moves done. I personally find block paragraphs of text more difficult to quickly digest than short bullet points. That's why I made the change in the first place. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What about adding just before to the two current bulletpoints?

Personally I think that providing the TOC remains near the top of the page this is not necessary. Older version of the introduction ended up with most of what is now in the "Additional notes" in the introduction and it became bloated with the TOC 60-100 lines down the page which made finding anything difficult.

I think that the paragraph "rough consensus" has to be in a prominent position near the top of the introduction because of the problems sore loosers have with accepting the result of a move they do not approve of. The 60% rule had to be added because of the problems raised over this issue.

Why the you both think that Talrias's bulletpoint which mentions {{CapitalMove}} should be in the introduction but does not mention the templates {{move}} and {{{moveoptions}}, when by placing {{CapitalMove}} in the section What to do on this Requested moves page they are grouped together? BTW I do not think that moving mention of the other two templates into the introduction is a good idea as like the {{CapitalMove}} it just duplicates information in the lower section and moves the TOC down the page.

The next three bulletpoints which he has included are already covered by the two current bullet points which also direct the reader to the WP:RM#Relevant policies and guidelines section which discusses what to do in those situations in more detail.

The paragraph introduced by Talrias "Please note that if you are unable to perform a move to a redlink..." should defiantly be moved because most people are not moving a page to a "redlink". They are using the move tab at the top of the page which does not include red links. That information should probably be on the Help:Renaming (moving) a page or somewhere near the bottom of this one. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The {{CapitalMove}} stuff should be at the top because the {{move}} and {{moveoptions}} is related to WP:RM. They should be at the top, so when someone comes to submit a requested move they go through the bullet point list to check they are in the right place!
No I am not {{CapitalMove}} ought to be listed under WP:RM like any other move. Many of the moves due to capital letters are contriversial. Philip Baird Shearer
With regards to the paragraph about redlinks, there are many requested moves to redlinks on this page. I suspect that they can't move because they are typing the new article name in the wrong box; thus this is a useful note to have. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It is more likely that the user does not have the move tab on their page or that the user thinks the move is contriversial. Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Revising the intro paragraph

In my opinion page intro definitely needs to be rewritten; right now it is too forbidding and text-dense. User:Talrias made some very sensible changes; but User: Philip Baird Shearer reverted them, since he apparently feels very strongly that edits to the page policy should only be made after talk page discussion. In my view he is being overly uptight (and implying misguidedly that there should be a presumption in favor of the current text); but I'm willing to play by his rules.

I would bring your attention to the {{guideline}} Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it is common that large changes to established "wikipedia:" pages are discussed before a substantial changes are made. Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

However, I don't think abstract discussions on the talk page are as likely to produce a genuine collaborative solution as the usual wiki process. I therefore suggest that we work together to write a new intro below. Doops | talk 23:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You are making an assumption that the new introduction (below) is needed. The only change to "the forbidding and text-dense" first paragraph is to break out the sentence "The move should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first, particularly where a page move may be controversial. For simple uncontroversial moves follow the advice at Help:Renaming (moving) a page instead." to a bulletpoint For moves which are uncontroversial and do not need administrator help, please follow the advice at Help:Renaming (moving) a page. -- Do you really think that this makes introduction less "forbidding and text-dense"? Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Treat this section as a living, freely editable sandbox. Please do not sign.

Requested moves allows editors to request an article move which is not straight-forward, is controversial, or which they find themselves unable to perform without the assistance of Wikipedia administrators (For example, the software does not allow unassisted users to move articles to a name which already exists, even if the article at the proposed new name is nothing but a simple redirect.)

Not all moves are handled by this page:

  • For moves which are uncontroversial and do not need administrator help, please follow the advice at Help:Renaming (moving) a page.
  • For moves which are a simple (and uncontroversial) capitalisation or accent fix, just add {{CapitalMove|NEWNAME}} to the top of the talk page for the article, where NEWNAME stands for the new capitalization/accented spelling you recommend.
  • For category moves, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.
  • For image moves, simply upload the image again with the correct title.
  • To merge two articles, please see Wikipedia:Duplicate articles.

If none of these special cases apply, use this page. Please follow the procedures outlined further down this page.

Please note that the user interface used for moves has recently changed. If you have had trouble making one of these straightforward moves, please be certain that you are entering your proposed new name into the field labelled "To new title" and not the field labelled "Reason". If you receive the error message "Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself.", chances are you have probably entered the title into the wrong box.

then comes the TOC

then, somewhere in the instructions section which follows, we put the following:

Requested moves are usually actioned if there is a rough consensus (at least 60%) in favour if the move on the talk page of the article to be moved. Administrators typically allow five (5) days for discussion; the time may be shortened if the situation is straightforward; likewise the time is may be extended if a consensus has not emerged. Please remember to support votes with reasoning.

Discussion on the above; please sign.

I've expanded {{CapitalMove}}'s 'jurisdiction' to accent fixes also. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Talrias, capitalmove appears to be your baby. How precisely is it supposed to work? Doops | talk 23:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The intended idea was to handle some of the backlog of moves, by separating the moves involving discussion due to disagreement, and moves which aren't going to need discussion because they are following MoS guidelines or suchlike. These are generally capitalisation fixes or pages with/without accents when they shouldn't/should have them (spelling mistakes moves are normally redlinks). Talrias (t | e | c) 23:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry; I was unclear. I certainly understand the purpose. It was the procedure I was confused about. Doops | talk 23:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I thought it would be simple enough if the template was added to the talk page. An admin could then go through the category listing (since articles would be automatically added if the template was added), and then perform the moves. The template says (or if it doesn't; should say) "remove this if you disagree and use {{move}}". The general idea and principle was based around the speedy deletion system - have a fast track system for straight forward stuff, and a slower system for discussion. I can't take credit for the original idea, however (see above: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#New category for requested moves). Talrias (t | e | c) 23:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. My main question was actually about how to use the system properly to make the proposed new name clear; but I've figured it out — you just use the pipe trick in the template tag. I'll add it to the instructions. Doops | talk 07:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I had in mind. Sorry for misinterpreting you not once but twice! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that moving the TOC down the page (from about 12 lines to about 20 lines) is a retrograde step because things which are in the TOC then have to be repeated in the introduction placing yet more text before the TOC. What do others think?

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you clarify? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
TOC is the Table of Contents. The longer the introduction the further down the page the TOC and the greater the tendency to add information to introduction which the TOC describes, this pushes the TOC further down the page so encouraging more information to be placed in the introduction... as so on. Philip Baird Shearer 14:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
What, specifically, has been added to the introduction in the version above which you think is better handled by the TOC? Doops | talk 20:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Take out the CaptialMoves (as it should be in the appropriate section). I think that the current 2 bulletpoint description for "merge" and "images or categories" is more elegant (as used in computer science) than the 3 in the suggested amendment. The redlink paragraph "Please note that the user interface.." which, if it is needed for idiots, should be moved down into the "Additional notes" section, because as I have pointed out before "It is more likely that the user does not have the move tab on their page or that the user thinks the move is contriversial". This just leaves the "Help:Renaming (moving) a page" sentence to which I have no strong opinions on whether it is a bulletpoint or included in a paragraph as now. Philip Baird Shearer 11:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"CaptialMoves" are often controversial. Many changes which involves an "accent fix" (I suspect you mean changing diacritics) are very controversial. See Talk:Zurich as an example. Therefore I think "CaptialMoves" should be treated like any other WP:RM move. Although an additional template for this is no bad idea. But if pages to be moved using the "CapitalMove" template are not listed here then at which central point should the be listed? What are the rules for capital changes if not those of WP:RM? Why not keep the explanation of the "CapitalMove" template in the "What to do on the talk page" section with the other templates?

responses to this point have been moved down to Wikipedia Talk:Requested moves#CapitalMove

Why is it clear to have two lines in the introduction:

* For category moves, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.
* For image moves, simply upload the image again with the correct title.

Than the current line This is not the proper place to request the "moving" of images or categories. See below for more information. Which directs users to a section with much more detail? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The basic reply to PBS first and third objections, as outlined above, is that people are impatient. Many people don't want to read a whole page of info looking for what they want — or even a paragraph. If we daunt them, they might give up. Hence it is important to have a triage system at the top of the page; and ideally there would be one unified triage system in a bulleted list since that is the clearest. People who don't need this page don't need to read the TOC.

As it is at the moment new visitors to the page do not have to read the whole page all they have to do is read the TOC for the sections:
  1. Instructions
    • What to do on the talk page
    • What to do on this Requested moves page
  2. Current notices
...
-Philip Baird Shearer
Again, you are not addressing people who don't need to be on this page at all. Doops | talk 20:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I suppose that the bulleted list, rather than giving instructions on what to do with the special cases, could include a link to further down this page, saying "if X applies, please consult these guidelines." This might have the merit of shortening the opening § slightly. (Only by a line or two.) But I think it would be a sort of duplication of effort; why put off to later what you can do now? Why make people who don't need this page stick around any longer than they have to?

Because the introduction becomes bloated over time if most of the if the detailed instructions are not put into sections. compare: 13 November 2004 with 1 January 2004 with 27 February 2005 and this comment Talk Archive 3:Table of contents. Philip Baird Shearer
You're right, the February 2005 text was bloated and confusing; the earlier, simpler ways were much clearer. However, let me suggest again that it's not just absolute length which matters, it's also density of text. A bulleted list is very clear and immediate. Doops | talk 20:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

His second objection addresses the "CapitalMove." I take it that, if that new way of moving articles catches on and becomes permanent, I take it he'd have no objection to including it in the triage list. His objection is to that whole procedure itself.

No your interpretation of my position is wrong. please read what I wrote above. Philip Baird Shearer
Let me try to clarify. IF a version of CapitalMove is agreed upon which does not involve WP:RM but is its own self-contained system; and IF we adopt a bulleted triage list of some sort (after your input, of course), you'd still have further objections to including CapitalMove in that bulleted triage list? I know, that's a purely theoretical question; but I just want to see if I understand you properly. Thanks. Doops | talk 20:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
As you will see from my additions in the next section that I think that CapitalMove should be part of WP:RM. As such it should be were it now, an option in What to do on the talk page section. But let us assume for the moment there was another action which should not be on this page, then yes it could become a third bulletpoint along with the two current bulletpoint of what this page does not cover. Philip Baird Shearer 08:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

So what are the weaknesses of that procedure? There is a time for interested parties to comment — if they object, they can change the notice and start a talk page debate. There is a way for the paranoids to check impending moves — they can just monitor the capital move category. These aren't problems. As I see it, though, there is a potential problem: categories don't have an edit history. Talrias, do you think that maybe doing it via a category (not a project page) is a problem for this reason?

That said, however, maybe a new section on this talk page should begin where people can work out their views on CapitalMove. Strictly speaking, it really has nothing to do with the proposal for a new opening ¶. It is a policy debate, not a wording one. Doops | talk 18:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But please reply to my specific points close to where I write them instead of writing what you think I wrote and replying to that. Philip Baird Shearer 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I just thought the discussion was getting rather hard to follow. I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. Doops | talk 20:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Whenever there is a dispute over a move, if there is one paragraph in the introduction which is quoted more than any other paragraph on the entire page, it is the paragraph starting "Approval voting is encourage" this definatly should stay in the introduction. Philip Baird Shearer 21:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

But why does it need to be in the intro? Moving it down makes the opening shorter and keeps all the instructions/policy about WP:RM together — I would have thought that this would have your full approval! Indeed, I did it because I thought it would make you happy. Doops | talk 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You two have made the case for having it in both places: in the intro for those who want to cite it quickly, and in the main-text for those who are just trying to find instructions. Septentrionalis 14:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It needs to be in the introduction because it can be so contriversial and the last thing that is needed is a accusation that it is not easy to find on the WP:RM page. Just have a look at arguments like Talk:Nagasaki, Nagasaki, Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, Talk:Gasoline/archive2#Article name and Talk:Tsushima_Island/Archive 4 to see how contiversial a page move can be. Philip Baird Shearer 12:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

CapitalMove

Hi. Being a busybody buttinsky incapable of minding my own business, I've created this section so that people can discuss the proposed {{CapitalMove}} procedures with User:Talrias, the principal advocate of the scheme. Doops | talk 19:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My own question to him is: are there dangers in creating a system which relies entirely on a category system, since that category has no edit history? Don't we want a permanent record of what articles have gone through the CapitalMove process? Doops | talk 19:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's no specific record of listing for deleted pages through speedy deletion, and since this is a kind of "speedy move", for uncontroversial moves, I'm not convinced one is needed. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a debate we had on this page some time ago. The advantage of WP:RM is that unlike VfD, the record of the discussion can be kept on the talk page of the page for which a preposed move has been suggested. See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for a very hard worked WP:RM talk page! Philip Baird Shearer 20:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The following thread moved down from where it previously appeared further up this page

"CaptialMoves" are often controversial. Many changes which involves an "accent fix" (I suspect you mean changing diacritics) are very controversial. See Talk:Zurich as an example. Therefore I think "CaptialMoves" should be treated like any other WP:RM move. Although an additional template for this is no bad idea. But if pages to be moved using the "CapitalMove" template are not listed here then at which central point should the be listed? What are the rules for capital changes if not those of WP:RM? Why not keep the explanation of the "CapitalMove" template in the "What to do on the talk page" section with the other templates?

The instruction reads "capitalisation fixes/accent fixes which are not controversial". I do not understand the statement about listing. Could you clarify this too please? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
One can not assume that everyone is as as honest as you are. You wrote in the category page "suspect this move may be controversial", but if someone is duplicitous this is precisely why they might use it, if pages under CapitalMove is not listed on the WP:RM page, particularly if it includes the use of diacritics. I think that all "capitalisation fixes" should be listed on WP:RM, if they are not controversial then they will not be contested and after 5 days they can be moved or sooner at the discretion of an administrator. Philip Baird Shearer 14:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Keeping it under WP:RM solves lots of problems including one place for monitoring for controversial moves and for administrators only having to monitor one "Requested Moves" page which has the requests on cronlogical order. When violet/riga was recently unable to perform her magic on this page it largly ground to a halt. I think that unless she wants more than one page to monitor for mvoes, then all the "Requested Moves" should be listed here and follow the same rules --Philip Baird Shearer 20:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Recently a lot of requests have been made on WP:RM which do not include the talk page listing and do not complete the steps required on the talk page.

If a requested move is made under WP:RM and no entry of any sort is made on the Talk page then I do not think that the move should be made as there is no consensus in favour of the move on the talk page. This is to stop people listing a move on WP:RM but not making the request known to the editors who watch the page to be moved.

If others agree, I think this should be added to the WP:RM under "Relevant policies and guidelines" that one of the move templates must be added to the talk page at the same time that the request is made on the WP:RM page, and that a if a section discussing the move does not already exist on the talk page of the article to be moved, then one must be created. The wording in the "What to do on the talk page" should also be changed to reflect this. Philip Baird Shearer 17:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. We already allow any registered used to carry out moves, but in the last two weeks I have had to list two pages on two completely different subjects on RM, both of which were uncontroversial. They only required admin intervention because the target page's history had several entries, all redirects to old names of the source. There is no reason to gather consensus for these trivial moves, which any user would be able to carry out himself if there hadn't been so much renaming in the history of the page involved. – Smyth\talk 08:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be governed by phrase "do the least harm". If the are uncontroversial then no harm is done in placing the information on the talk page. How can one be sure that it is uncontroversial if the people who edit the page are not asked if the move is OK? Usually a move of a page is discussed on a talk page even if the move is possible without WP:RM. Look at things like Talk:Yoghurt#Page move where a move was considered non-controversial and became so (see Talk:Yoghurt#Requested move). In this case it was useful for Derek Ross to be able to turn to the earlier example on the talk page to support the current contested move. Philip Baird Shearer 11:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC).

Come on, you know perfectly well that US/UK spelling differences are the most controversial moves of all. :) – Smyth\talk 17:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is becoming overused. A glance at the listing show lots of uncontroversial moves. Come on people, be bold and avoid pointless centralization. Pcb21| Pete 07:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Footnote regarding the correct implementation of approval voting

I copied this addition by user:Francis Schonken(08:46, 25 August 2005) from the article page so that it can be discussed further:

1. ^ In an approval vote all possible options should be mentioned, typically 2 options:
  1. Option 1: move X to Y.
  2. Option 2: don't move X to Y.
If adding conditions to one of the options there might be a problem of covering all the options:
  1. Option 1: move X to Y.
  2. Option 2: don't move X to Y and change the background color of page X to purple.
...leaves out the option that people might want to keep the situation "as is", without changing background colors. Even:
  1. Option 1: move X to Y
  2. Option 2: don't move X to Y and change the background color of page X to purple.
  3. Option 3: don't move X to Y and leave the background colors as they are.
...doesn't solve the problem, while the person preffering the background of X to be green, while that of Y status quo can not "approve" of any of the options, so is excluded from the vote. In order to be complete, if wanting to mention "purple for page X" and "status quo" as separate choices in the options:
  1. Option 1: move X to Y
  2. Option 2: don't move X to Y and change the background color of page X to purple.
  3. Option 3: don't move X to Y and leave the background colors as they are.
  4. Option 4: don't move X to Y and don't change the background color of page X to purple, neither leave all background colors as they are.
Now the person preferring green for X and status quo for Y can vote for option 4!
But hey, maybe simpler to just allow for the options "move" and "don't move" as in the first example above, and decide about colors in a second step!
Further, don't forget that for an approval voting system to work correctly when calculating the percentages (in this case checking the 60% treshold) blank votes should be possible and should be counted separately from "agree to all" votes (see: Approval_voting#Expressing_the_vote_result_as_a_percentage).
If there's only two choices ("move" and "don't move") that's fairly easily done: voters can express their opinion regarding the "move" proposition as follows: "agree", "oppose" (= "don't move"), "whatever" (="agree to all") and "not voting" (= "blank vote").
Here also the voting becomes much more complicated if additional conditions are mentioned with the options. In the last example a fifth option has to be added:
  1. Option 1: move X to Y
  2. Option 2: don't move X to Y and change the background color of page X to purple.
  3. Option 3: don't move X to Y and leave the background colors as they are.
  4. Option 4: don't move X to Y and don't change the background color of page X to purple, neither leave all background colors as they are.
  5. Option 5: blank vote.
But there's more complication: the usual instruction for an approval vote reads: "Vote for as many options as you like". For the vote allowing blank votes as "5th option" the instruction becomes something like: "Vote for as many options as you like, except when voting for option 5, which can't be combined with any of the other choices".
For the calculation of the percentage, "blank voters" are added to the number of voters and all other voters (including those that indicated more than one choice) are counted only once for number of voters. Then the ratio is calculated of the number of votes for the "move" option (option No. 1 in the complicated example) to the number of voters: only if that ratio is "60% or more" the "move" operation is effectuated.
Further, in the "complicated example" one will have learned near to nothing about the options 2, 3 and 4 if the treshold of 60% is not attained: since the voters for option 1 might have voted strategically in order to heighten the chances of the move operation going through, they might still want to review their options if the vote doesn't result in a move operation. In other words: the chances of getting mess all over the place are fairly high: this is another reason to refrain from adding "extra conditions" to the options in an approval vote.

I do not think it is necessary.

  • Because if there are only two options by far the most common then the 60% rule is enough.
  • I think the wording above is very confusing. This idea that a bank proposal should be added does not make sense to me.
  • Details of how approval voting is done is coverd by the link to that page. It does not have to be duplicated possibly incorrectly on this page Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Of course the footnote is necessary, while preventing people to try and steer votes like you did on Talk:William of Orange. No offense intended, I can perfectly see this happened in good faith. Why I'm nonetheless defending correct application of the procedure as it was fixed after long, and not always easy, debate above, is that a wishy-washy application of the procedure will probably (as usual) not be able to come nearer to a solution accepted by many parties over a longer period of time. And is that not what we want most? Or is this really about trying to prove right whatever the cost? I'd really think sorry you'd lose your taste for wikipedia over that in the end, while, indeed, I'd think that the consequence of not trying to solve issues by a consensus type of approach. --Francis Schonken 12:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Polling for requested page move

Ohkay, if you have to, but people had added a poll that wasn't according to polling guidelines. Actually are you sure you want to normally have a poll there by default? That's kinda broken. Kim Bruning 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

WARNING THIS IS AN ARCHIVE SEE Wikipedia talk:Requested moves FOR LIVE TALK PAGE AFTER 16:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_4&oldid=1137436376"