Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 1

message: === Who is in charge cleaning up all the resulting redirected links? ===
Cleaning up after a page move can be a laborious task. Several options I can think of, feel free to add your own ideas:
#It's always the responsibility of the admin who does the delete/move
#It's the responsibility of the requestor, though the admin is free to help out
#Make a second section on this page for listing redirect cleanups, which anyone (not just folks with delete privileges) is free to help out
Thoughts? • Benc • 19:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere between 2 and 4 (which is not too far from 2 anyway - it is a Wiki, there's nothing to stop somsone from helping, even with 2), but closer to 2. I'm worried that if we don't have a strong guidance, they will fall through the cracks. And yes, I know, they will get caught eventually - but for grins, try going to any disambig page and see how many content pages link to it... Noel 17:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Concur with trying to avoid formal rules. Formal rules always seem to be Procrustean anyway; there's always some case it fits poorly. And you can waste an immense amount of time arguing about them, trying to handle every conceivable contingency up front. This page is going to be little enough used that I don't see a problem in setting out some guidelines, and going from there. Noel 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: If this page takes off, we need to add it to MediaWiki:Articleexists in place of WP:VP which is already really overloaded. Noel 21:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some rough edges 

message: Cleaning up after a page move can be a laborious task. Several options I can think of, feel free to add your own ideas:
#It's always the responsibility of the admin who does the delete/move
#It's the responsibility of the requestor, though the admin is free to help out
#Make a second section on this page for listing redirect cleanups, which anyone (not just folks with delete privileges) is free to help out
Thoughts? • Benc • 19:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere between 2 and 4 (which is not too far from 2 anyway - it is a Wiki, there's nothing to stop somsone from helping, even with 2), but closer to 2. I'm worried that if we don't have a strong guidance, they will fall through the cracks. And yes, I know, they will get caught eventually - but for grins, try going to any disambig page and see how many content pages link to it... Noel 17:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is in charge cleaning up all the resulting redirected links? 

message: Not all page moves are good. Several options I can think of, feel free to add your own ideas:
#Handle everything on a case-by-case basis
#Have a loose set of guidelines in place, e.g.:
#*"Avoid requesting a controversial page move. If you are uncertain whether a page move will be controversial, please discuss it on the article's talk page before requesting the move."
#Have a strict set of guidelines in place; e.g.:
#*"If an article has more than one non-anon active contributor, the requested page move must be announced on the article talk page at least three days prior to the actual move, without any objections."
#*"If an article has more than one non-anon active contributor, the requested page move must be seconded by a majority of editors either here or on the article talk page."
Personally, I strongly favor options 1 and 2. I really don't want to see this page to become a "Votes for moves" if we can avoid it; the purpose of this page is closer to Wikipedia:Cleanup than *fD. If it ever becomes a problem the community will evolve stricter guidelines to keep things running smoothly. • Benc • 19:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with trying to avoid formal rules. Formal rules always seem to be Procrustean anyway; there's always some case it fits poorly. And you can waste an immense amount of time arguing about them, trying to handle every conceivable contingency up front. This page is going to be little enough used that I don't see a problem in setting out some guidelines, and going from there. Noel 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we handle controversial page moves? 

message: *Justify your existence. Add a brief, one or two sentence-long explanation of why this page is distinct from WP:RFD.
*Inevitable question: we have dozens of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, do we really need another?
*Be sure to refer admins to the proper policies:
**Deletion guidelines for admins
**History-only undeletion
• Benc • 19:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If this page takes off, we need to add it to MediaWiki:Articleexists in place of WP:VP which is already really overloaded. Noel 21:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other small things 

message: Since page moves are not the only thing that people need assistance from perhaps a new Wikipedia:Requests for assistance page could be made.  This could be used for:
*Page moves
*Image manipulation
*Table/template/infobox help
*Others?
What do you think? violet/riga (t) 10:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the village pump for general requests? If you want to do that, you probably ought to discuss it there.  As it is the VP has been split into sections. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that - perhaps a new section of the VP could be created: Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance).  The original idea of this, I believe, is that things get lost in the VP. violet/riga (t) 17:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: As it stands now, the post-split VP hasn't a good place for these requests.  I think Requests for assisatnce is a really good idea, but maybe Wikipedia:Requests for help since we already have a WP:RFA and WP:RFAr. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for assistance? 

message: I am in strong favour of the system of keeping sub-sections of pages like this in sub-pages (see VFD): should we start as we mean to go on and get this up and running here? --Phil | Talk 15:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
: I don't think we need it; the page (so far) doesn't really get enough traffic (nothing like as much as WP:VP or WP:VfD) to need it. WP:RfD isn't using sub-pages, and we have no problems at all, with roughly the same amount of traffic. Noel 15:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping it tidy 

message: When moving a page is proposed, after the request is granted or denied, is the discussion erased or does it get saved for future reference? Nathanlarson32767 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I transfer any material discussion to the article's talk page (whether I move it or not); if the discussion is just a series of "support"s or "oppose"s, it is not really worth saving specifically somewhere else: it is in the edit history here in any event. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Saving page move discussion for future reference?

message: How does one go about getting a category moved?  Recently, a request I made to move rhythm video game to music video game took effect, leaving an unfortunate inconsistency with Category:Rhythm computer games.  This page should be moved to Category:Music video games.  Should this request be made at WP:RM?  --LostLeviathan 02:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to edit all of the pages in that category to change the category: ultimately, that should make the category disappear (I didn't have time).  If not, WP:CFD may be able to help. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes sense... thankfully, there are few articles in the category.  Thank you!  --LostLeviathan 22:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving categories? 

message: There seem to be dozens of people on this page voting to move pages to their "official names". Wikipedia policy is to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), and it seems nonsensical and absurd to be allowing such moves when they are so clearly in violation of policy, especially a policy that is one of the most central tenets of the entire naming conventions. If people disagree with the common names policy, they should attempt to change it (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) would seem to be the obvious place to start), rather than attempting to subvert community consensus on this relatively low-traffic page. Proteus (Talk) 12:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree - except that Requested Moves clearly has higher traffic than the relevant talk page (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)). People who are aware of this talk page should mention it on RM whenever the issue arises, to help direct people's attention to it and reduce duplication of discussion. Rd232 13:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't there a case that that page is misnamed (or perhaps prejudiciously named)? Shouldn't it be "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (proper names)" instead? (Compare dictionary.com definition of "proper name" v "common name", especially the proper name (grammar) meaning.) Rd232 13:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Common names

message: When considering moving a page, we need to remember that we can only currently see the first 500 'what links here' entries. I just happened to stumble onto a broken/double redir that was created by the recent move of Washington, DC to Washington, D.C. (why it got moved is a separate question--8 to 5 hardly seems like sufficient consensus to move such a heavily linked page), that (hopefully) wasn't fixed because it doesn't show up on 'what links here'. Niteowlneils 04:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think we need to be more cautious about moving heavily linked pages

message: :"Sometimes you want to move a page, but cannot do so because a page of that name already exists. This page allows you to request action by a admin to perform such moves".
That is the lead of Requested moves, not "Should this article be moved".  I've noted in earlier discussions (above) that I believe the focus of RM should change, or at least the wording should be altered.  This system is supposed to be about moves that cannot be done because of existing article history but now it's become a voting ground.  While voting is important and should be encouraged I think that RM should either change focus or move requests to the talk page if somebody opposes it.  That therefore leads me to believe that there is no need for support votes. violet/riga (t) 20:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way I have to agree. Not so long ago, a page move wasn't a big deal - except occaisionally you wouldn't be able to move a page because of a history conflict and you would have to ask an admin for help. The problem was, there was no easy way to locate an admin who was around to help - hence WP:RM was created. Now, in a short pace of time, it has blossomed into a whole set of policies, procedures and argument to and fro. You have to stop and think 'what happened?'. Perhaps it really indicates that moving is page is more of a deal than it is made out to be. Certainly quite a lot of people seem to care what the proper page title should be, and the argument often looses sight of the original guiding principle, that a page should be at its most 'natural' name so that if someone guesses a link in another article they will probably get it right. -- Solipsist 21:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer '''support'''ing RM