Dispute Resolution ( inactive) | ||||
|
I have moved this page back to it's original title per WP:BRD as I feel that this is the proper title for this proposal. Feel free to state your arguments for moving before moving again. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 03:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a thought. This proposal might be more acceptable if it was limited to disputes over article titles. Unlike the rest of the content in an article, there is only one article title no matter how many redirects there are. In most other parts of an article is is possible to finesse disagreements and work towards consensus. Titling disputes often come down to two choices with good justifications for each. That is the situation this proposal was created to address. Extending the proposal to cover general content disputes complicates it vastly. Keep it simple. Perhaps it could be rebranded as "binding page moves"? Will Beback talk 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that there must be some consistency in Wikipedia, but when all is said and done, we are a community of volunteers, and give our time freely. Entire projects are being harassed by the MoS warriors, and contributors driven away from Wikipedia by the capitals-endash-hyphen fanatics (behaviour which has been referred to Arbcom). This seems yet another half-hidden attempt to make Wikipedia less friendly and more dictatorial. Pay me, and I'll do as I'm told. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This proposal was kicked around for more than a year. It was created by User:Steven Zhang in December 2011, and at that time it was intended for disputes generally, not just article titles. For part of the time it was at the present title, and for part of the time it was called Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. An RFC that was found to be binding would presumably be intended to do more than decide article titles. The idea of renaming this page would better be addressed to the original supporters. They no longer seem to be following it up. If this proposal is ever revived, a rename might be considered. If any of the original proponents see this discussion, please come to the talk page and offer your ideas. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Binding content discussions → Wikipedia:Binding article title discussions – Contradicts it's own wording: "Binding content discussions are for content naming disputes about the title of the article, not about the information or content within the article itself." Even if it isn't revived as a proposal, it's surely "bound" for moving to Wikipedia:Binding article title discussions, since by it's own wording it is explicitly not about article content. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution ( inactive) | ||||
|
I have moved this page back to it's original title per WP:BRD as I feel that this is the proper title for this proposal. Feel free to state your arguments for moving before moving again. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 03:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a thought. This proposal might be more acceptable if it was limited to disputes over article titles. Unlike the rest of the content in an article, there is only one article title no matter how many redirects there are. In most other parts of an article is is possible to finesse disagreements and work towards consensus. Titling disputes often come down to two choices with good justifications for each. That is the situation this proposal was created to address. Extending the proposal to cover general content disputes complicates it vastly. Keep it simple. Perhaps it could be rebranded as "binding page moves"? Will Beback talk 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that there must be some consistency in Wikipedia, but when all is said and done, we are a community of volunteers, and give our time freely. Entire projects are being harassed by the MoS warriors, and contributors driven away from Wikipedia by the capitals-endash-hyphen fanatics (behaviour which has been referred to Arbcom). This seems yet another half-hidden attempt to make Wikipedia less friendly and more dictatorial. Pay me, and I'll do as I'm told. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This proposal was kicked around for more than a year. It was created by User:Steven Zhang in December 2011, and at that time it was intended for disputes generally, not just article titles. For part of the time it was at the present title, and for part of the time it was called Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. An RFC that was found to be binding would presumably be intended to do more than decide article titles. The idea of renaming this page would better be addressed to the original supporters. They no longer seem to be following it up. If this proposal is ever revived, a rename might be considered. If any of the original proponents see this discussion, please come to the talk page and offer your ideas. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Binding content discussions → Wikipedia:Binding article title discussions – Contradicts it's own wording: "Binding content discussions are for content naming disputes about the title of the article, not about the information or content within the article itself." Even if it isn't revived as a proposal, it's surely "bound" for moving to Wikipedia:Binding article title discussions, since by it's own wording it is explicitly not about article content. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)