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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
See previous discussions:
I came across this page when asking to move EF(WWII) to GPW which had unanimously agreed on the Talk:Eastern Front (WWII) before the request was made. I read the section in the RM article "Requesting a page move" which says:
So I foolishly thought that the request here was just a matter of attracting the attention of an administrator to make the move. However the consensus on the talk page did not prevent uncle Tom Cobly and all voting on the issue on the RM page and in the end the EF(WWII) was not moved. On the request {{move}} template it says "If a consensus to move the page is reached" So I have two questions:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As one of the admins who regularly cleans up RM, I think WP:RM is not going well. It was intended to be a way to flag an available admin to get a page move to happen. As such, I take the guidelines of how long to wait very lightly. Recently I've been waiting a few days to take a measure of the climate. If there is significantly more support (what usually passes as concensus around here) I go ahead and do the move. Sometimes I even weigh in on the discussion. Othertimes, I'll see a move that is obvious and doesn't need any discussion and I'll do the move. - UtherSRG 12:32, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm noticing that - contrary to the wording of this page - many moves are suggested here without first making any attempt at discussing them on an article's talk page. This seems (again, contrary to instructions) more prevalent for moves which the suggester thinks might be somewhat controversial, or at least unpopular with those editing the page. —Morven 19:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think that it would be better if no voting took place on the RM page but instead took place on the Talk:Page of the page to be moved. Only a request for a move would be placed on the RM page for the agreed length of time to advertise the request to move.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I've attempted to discuss earlier my proposal is this:
I feel that this would help a lot. United States is one of the best examples as there was no need for it to be brought here when there hadn't been any discussion on the article talk page. violet/riga (t) 19:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I posted an issue of moving the United States to United States of America. Someone added to the voting (without my agreement or consent) the case of moving United States (disambiguation) to United States, which probably made lots of people oppose the original idea.
What should I do now? Re-post the voting again? Or continue with the previous one and try to work around all the mistakes made by the user who changed the original idea? Halibu tt 19:25, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Once again I've removed the vote. It should not have been brought here until at least some discussion had happened at the article itself and it's virtually unanimous to oppose. The archived debate can be found at talk:United States. Also, Halibutt, when reverting someone please could you ensure that you do not revert more than you mean to - you reverted a second change to the page that was unrelated to the US discussion. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt, let's look at your contributions.
You edited both pages at the same time (19:08). You added {{move|United States}} to United States (disambiguation), so that page reads:
It has been proposed that page
United States (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to
United States. If a consensus to move the page is reached at Wikipedia:Requested moves, the page will be moved to the new location. |
So you are indeed proposing United States (disambiguation) → United States, and sending people to comment and vote on it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Yet on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page itself, the header reads only:
The header makes no mention of the second move at all, and your intro text mentions the second move only in a disguised and confusing way:
You seem to be trying to trick people into voting for something without realizing what they are voting for. This is extreme bad faith.
-- Curps 20:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A modified vote was started by
User:Cburnett at
Talk:United States. --
Curps 10:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Somehow, much of this page got duplicated sometime around 02:00 on the 28 Jan. I removed the duplication at 07:21 this morning, and restored one misplaced vote.
However, the page seems to be duplicated again. Worse, at least one vote, Suffolk, England -> Suffolk has disappeared. What gives? -- Solipsist 21:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Considering nobody is really sure about what is going on with the intro I've chopped and changed it. It seems that the majority of people here do not want discussions to take place on the talk page even when linked from here. I've therefore simplified the lead to better explain that this is actually a voting page rather then (as I personally would have preferred) just a place to request admin-assisted moves. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've added a few extra comments to the introduction that I think has represented the status quo for as long as I've been involved in Requested moves, and I have been so bold as to state my above-mentioned concerns through the final paragraph. No matter what you think about the request or discussion part of this page, it's still the page for achieving a move and all required to achieve it. Talk pages are just discussion on the article. Why all of a sudden people start using talkpages for votes that have been located here for months, I can't fathom. — ExplorerCDT 08:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think those two statements are contradictory, they give a guideline following certain steps:
Nothing contradictory about that at all. — ExplorerCDT 16:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we should have a straw poll, lasting about a week and widely advertised in the usual places, on the simple question should voting take place on this page or on the talk page to be moved. The the wording at the top can be agreed upon once that issue us setteld.
In preposed straw poll, to stop the vote section getting too bloated with pople commenting on comments (as we have seen on the RM page with subjects like Middlesex) I suggest that in the voting section, users only place user tag and date and all discussion goes into a comment section. Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So we are agreed on a straw poll. If the format below is acceptable. Then edit any parts you are not happy with and put your signature directly below mine, after you have signed your changes, I will co-edit the SKELETON into a section and the voting can begin.
SKELETON for a Proposed STRAW POLL on where votes for moving should be placed
ARGUMENTS for the voting options
VOTING options
DISCUSSION (comments, other suggestions and arguments)
-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Violetriga offered these commentaries (that I have placed below verbatim) interspersed within my argument above. The way Philip and I usually do these things (and Philip will attest we've had some experience with this), is Argument A is his, Argument B is mine, and you people who want to comment, do so below. That way, things remain nice and orderly, and people can vote on the arguments as presented without having to sort through a mess. — ExplorerCDT 03:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Where should we advertise this straw poll to involve as many people as possible?
Apologies for the current messy layout but it was hard to counter ExplorerCDT's counters while keeping it pretty (perhaps he should create a simple bulleted list of the pros of his prefered way). violet/riga (t) 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
ExplorerCDT can we move you first section into the comments section as the first comment, because it is rather large and just go with the second section in the "arguments for". If you wish to add a few additional brief bulleted points to the top or the bottom of the second list if there are any specific points you need to make, then I think that the lay out would be clearer. If you know how to contact the "head shed" then I would not compalin if you did. How long do you both think the poll should be open for? Philip Baird Shearer 00:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At what point did the question of moving a page become analogous to deleting a page? I seem to recall that this page was initially just a page where non-admins could request that admins move pages that they couldn't move themselves because of the existence of histories at the move-to location. The idea of voting on page moves as though these are requests for deletion, and requiring super majorities before pages can be moved, seems absurd to me. I have moved dozens of pages over the course of my time at wikipedia without ever using this page. So, I think, have many other people. Sometime, if I think there will be controversy, I'll leave a note on the talk page and wait a while. Sometimes I won't. But I don't see why we need a page like this. A move is more like a content change than it is like a deletion, and it should be dealt with more like a content change than a deletion. I object to the entire apparatus that has been developed at this page. john k 02:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The procedure for matters where there is contention should be a vote on that page's talk page. This page should simply be for administrative requests to move a page, either where it is not controversial, or where some sort of consensus has been arrived at in favor of a move on the page's talk page. This could also function, in some sort of compromise, as a place where interested users can go to be pointed to ongoing discussions of page moves. But it shouldn't be a VfD like place. john k 05:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm - what is this error message about? Does anyone know when the problem is likely to be resolved? (When does the "month or two" start?)
It appears when you try to delete, say, Airbus or Coptic Language or De Lorean Motor Company. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've just created {{Moved}}
and {{Notmoved}}
for use when the discussion is archived to the talk page. These could be placed underneath the header to make it clear what happened at RM. It's only very basic at the moment but I can't see much room for expansion. Thoughts?
violet/riga
(t) 19:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To move "Neal Donald Walsch" to "Neale Donald Walsch". Thanks!-- Febus 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why was this article moved after 4 days. More importantly, why did User:ALoan decide there was no consensus to move this article when there were 4 people in favour and one against? -- SqueakBox 16:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
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)
WARNING THIS IS AN ARCHIVE SEE Wikipedia talk:Requested moves FOR LIVE TALK PAGE 00:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
See previous discussions:
I came across this page when asking to move EF(WWII) to GPW which had unanimously agreed on the Talk:Eastern Front (WWII) before the request was made. I read the section in the RM article "Requesting a page move" which says:
So I foolishly thought that the request here was just a matter of attracting the attention of an administrator to make the move. However the consensus on the talk page did not prevent uncle Tom Cobly and all voting on the issue on the RM page and in the end the EF(WWII) was not moved. On the request {{move}} template it says "If a consensus to move the page is reached" So I have two questions:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As one of the admins who regularly cleans up RM, I think WP:RM is not going well. It was intended to be a way to flag an available admin to get a page move to happen. As such, I take the guidelines of how long to wait very lightly. Recently I've been waiting a few days to take a measure of the climate. If there is significantly more support (what usually passes as concensus around here) I go ahead and do the move. Sometimes I even weigh in on the discussion. Othertimes, I'll see a move that is obvious and doesn't need any discussion and I'll do the move. - UtherSRG 12:32, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm noticing that - contrary to the wording of this page - many moves are suggested here without first making any attempt at discussing them on an article's talk page. This seems (again, contrary to instructions) more prevalent for moves which the suggester thinks might be somewhat controversial, or at least unpopular with those editing the page. —Morven 19:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think that it would be better if no voting took place on the RM page but instead took place on the Talk:Page of the page to be moved. Only a request for a move would be placed on the RM page for the agreed length of time to advertise the request to move.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I've attempted to discuss earlier my proposal is this:
I feel that this would help a lot. United States is one of the best examples as there was no need for it to be brought here when there hadn't been any discussion on the article talk page. violet/riga (t) 19:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I posted an issue of moving the United States to United States of America. Someone added to the voting (without my agreement or consent) the case of moving United States (disambiguation) to United States, which probably made lots of people oppose the original idea.
What should I do now? Re-post the voting again? Or continue with the previous one and try to work around all the mistakes made by the user who changed the original idea? Halibu tt 19:25, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Once again I've removed the vote. It should not have been brought here until at least some discussion had happened at the article itself and it's virtually unanimous to oppose. The archived debate can be found at talk:United States. Also, Halibutt, when reverting someone please could you ensure that you do not revert more than you mean to - you reverted a second change to the page that was unrelated to the US discussion. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt, let's look at your contributions.
You edited both pages at the same time (19:08). You added {{move|United States}} to United States (disambiguation), so that page reads:
It has been proposed that page
United States (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to
United States. If a consensus to move the page is reached at Wikipedia:Requested moves, the page will be moved to the new location. |
So you are indeed proposing United States (disambiguation) → United States, and sending people to comment and vote on it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Yet on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page itself, the header reads only:
The header makes no mention of the second move at all, and your intro text mentions the second move only in a disguised and confusing way:
You seem to be trying to trick people into voting for something without realizing what they are voting for. This is extreme bad faith.
-- Curps 20:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A modified vote was started by
User:Cburnett at
Talk:United States. --
Curps 10:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Somehow, much of this page got duplicated sometime around 02:00 on the 28 Jan. I removed the duplication at 07:21 this morning, and restored one misplaced vote.
However, the page seems to be duplicated again. Worse, at least one vote, Suffolk, England -> Suffolk has disappeared. What gives? -- Solipsist 21:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Considering nobody is really sure about what is going on with the intro I've chopped and changed it. It seems that the majority of people here do not want discussions to take place on the talk page even when linked from here. I've therefore simplified the lead to better explain that this is actually a voting page rather then (as I personally would have preferred) just a place to request admin-assisted moves. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've added a few extra comments to the introduction that I think has represented the status quo for as long as I've been involved in Requested moves, and I have been so bold as to state my above-mentioned concerns through the final paragraph. No matter what you think about the request or discussion part of this page, it's still the page for achieving a move and all required to achieve it. Talk pages are just discussion on the article. Why all of a sudden people start using talkpages for votes that have been located here for months, I can't fathom. — ExplorerCDT 08:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think those two statements are contradictory, they give a guideline following certain steps:
Nothing contradictory about that at all. — ExplorerCDT 16:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think we should have a straw poll, lasting about a week and widely advertised in the usual places, on the simple question should voting take place on this page or on the talk page to be moved. The the wording at the top can be agreed upon once that issue us setteld.
In preposed straw poll, to stop the vote section getting too bloated with pople commenting on comments (as we have seen on the RM page with subjects like Middlesex) I suggest that in the voting section, users only place user tag and date and all discussion goes into a comment section. Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So we are agreed on a straw poll. If the format below is acceptable. Then edit any parts you are not happy with and put your signature directly below mine, after you have signed your changes, I will co-edit the SKELETON into a section and the voting can begin.
SKELETON for a Proposed STRAW POLL on where votes for moving should be placed
ARGUMENTS for the voting options
VOTING options
DISCUSSION (comments, other suggestions and arguments)
-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Violetriga offered these commentaries (that I have placed below verbatim) interspersed within my argument above. The way Philip and I usually do these things (and Philip will attest we've had some experience with this), is Argument A is his, Argument B is mine, and you people who want to comment, do so below. That way, things remain nice and orderly, and people can vote on the arguments as presented without having to sort through a mess. — ExplorerCDT 03:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Where should we advertise this straw poll to involve as many people as possible?
Apologies for the current messy layout but it was hard to counter ExplorerCDT's counters while keeping it pretty (perhaps he should create a simple bulleted list of the pros of his prefered way). violet/riga (t) 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
ExplorerCDT can we move you first section into the comments section as the first comment, because it is rather large and just go with the second section in the "arguments for". If you wish to add a few additional brief bulleted points to the top or the bottom of the second list if there are any specific points you need to make, then I think that the lay out would be clearer. If you know how to contact the "head shed" then I would not compalin if you did. How long do you both think the poll should be open for? Philip Baird Shearer 00:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At what point did the question of moving a page become analogous to deleting a page? I seem to recall that this page was initially just a page where non-admins could request that admins move pages that they couldn't move themselves because of the existence of histories at the move-to location. The idea of voting on page moves as though these are requests for deletion, and requiring super majorities before pages can be moved, seems absurd to me. I have moved dozens of pages over the course of my time at wikipedia without ever using this page. So, I think, have many other people. Sometime, if I think there will be controversy, I'll leave a note on the talk page and wait a while. Sometimes I won't. But I don't see why we need a page like this. A move is more like a content change than it is like a deletion, and it should be dealt with more like a content change than a deletion. I object to the entire apparatus that has been developed at this page. john k 02:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The procedure for matters where there is contention should be a vote on that page's talk page. This page should simply be for administrative requests to move a page, either where it is not controversial, or where some sort of consensus has been arrived at in favor of a move on the page's talk page. This could also function, in some sort of compromise, as a place where interested users can go to be pointed to ongoing discussions of page moves. But it shouldn't be a VfD like place. john k 05:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm - what is this error message about? Does anyone know when the problem is likely to be resolved? (When does the "month or two" start?)
It appears when you try to delete, say, Airbus or Coptic Language or De Lorean Motor Company. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've just created {{Moved}}
and {{Notmoved}}
for use when the discussion is archived to the talk page. These could be placed underneath the header to make it clear what happened at RM. It's only very basic at the moment but I can't see much room for expansion. Thoughts?
violet/riga
(t) 19:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To move "Neal Donald Walsch" to "Neale Donald Walsch". Thanks!-- Febus 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why was this article moved after 4 days. More importantly, why did User:ALoan decide there was no consensus to move this article when there were 4 people in favour and one against? -- SqueakBox 16:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
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)
WARNING THIS IS AN ARCHIVE SEE Wikipedia talk:Requested moves FOR LIVE TALK PAGE 00:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)