Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title: Footnote regarding the correct implementation of approval voting

message: Please see what sort of voting table has been introduced into use at Talk:William I, Prince of Orange. I am quite certain that it is not from here, as RM page proposes much simpler things. I have understood that "instruction creepism" has been deemed bad by you, and you have desired to keep pollings simple. Particularly wrt what participants need to do in order to participate in the polling. 
That table itself seems a too complicated thing to me. It presumably drives from taking part in discussion to mechanical voting. (Actually, several Dutch voters in the table have not uttered anything to the discussion, so their reasons remain unclear and are not helpful to build any sort of consensus).
Complications are a bad thing. What next: is someone entitled to demand that participants stood on their heads in order to be eligible to participate in a poll?
I cannot avoid an impression that someone has too much technical interests (perhaps too little interest in actual substance contents), has built an elaborate table, and that results in all others being forced to be guinea pigs to use that tool. I do not oppose if someone wants to maintain an extra table to show polling situation, but tob demand participants themselves to use such goes too far. Arrigo 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:RM request for that page was done by user:Francis Schonken while a change in the WP:RM guidelines was in place for a day or so (see above: #Polling for requested page move) when the new format made it difficult to see who was supporting what, Francis  introduced his own polling table. Since the WP:RM page guidlines reverted back to the previouse guidlines, something made possible to do with little argument thanks to the mess on Talk:William I, Prince of Orange page, Francis has continued to use the guidlines as layed out eg the more recent Talk:William I of England. Philip Baird Shearer 16:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  too complicated polling tools 

message: Nitpicking alert: I note that the description of moves in the page history has changed from "PageName moved to NewPageName" to "PageName has been moved to NewPageName." Is this an improvement? I think it reads worse - the previous version was more grammatically neutral, so it made equal sense when viewed in user contributions, recent changes, and page histories; also, the full stop at the end is just wrong. It's in MediaWiki:1movedto2 if anyone feels like looking at it. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have reverted it.  violet/riga (t) 19:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. sjorford #£@%&$?! 20:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History description 

message: I misunderstood part of the instructions under "copying the following is suggested".  Instead of putting this text in:
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
I did what it said: that is, I added Support, and signed my vote.  SoM kindly informed me that you can't vote for your own move request, which I suppose makes sense; only, it doesn't say that anywhere in the instructions.  Perhaps someone could reword the instructions slightly so that other folks don't make the mistake I did? —Josiah Rowe 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just template the thing, with instructions to type  with a couple of variants for multiple page moves or a move with multiple options? - SoM 18:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible clarification of instructions? 

message: Dear Wikipedians: Please note, that a similar question arose for NBC, as arose for Public Broadcasting Service. At NBC, it was suggested that it be moved to National Broadcasting Company. At Public Broadcasting Service, it was suggested that it be moved to PBS. IN EACH CASE, THE SAME JUSTIFICATION WAS GIVEN FOR COMPLETELY OPPOSITE DECISION. Namely, with PBS, because "Public Broadcasting Service" is "clearly predominant", that most people "know what it stands for", this is used as justification that it STAY at Public Broadcasting Service, and that PBS redirect to the full name. Yet, at the discussion at NBC, the article title "NBC" is kept because "about 99,999 people out of 100,000 will be looking for the National Broadcasting Company, not the Newfoundland Barbering Commission or the National Bowling Congress.", and "it will be the name most people are likely looking for". I believe this is evidence of one of 2 things:
*The redirect and renaming policies are unclear or confusing.
*The policies are clear, but people ignore them and just invoke them to support whatever they think is best.
Which is it? Revolver 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lots of confusion over redirect policies 

message: I've gotten a number of requests recently to help repair cut-and-paste moves, something I have some experience with. Since cut-and-paste moves (a big no-no, they separate the Wikipedia:Page history from the content, which we want to avoid for copyright reasons) seems to be something that happens a fair amount, I'm going to try and rejuventate the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen to deal with them; I have signed up on Wikipedia:Cleaning department to maintain it. I'm going to add a brief note to WP:RM mentioning it; hope that's OK. Noel (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Repairing cut-and-paste moves

message: I did my best to delete those requests from the list which had already been fulfilled, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that there's still a backlog of moves to be done.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: There's still a horrendous backlog here. Can I propose a couple of mechanisms that might help cut it down?
#Make improper formulation of a request (current examples: Bast and Styria, Slovenia, which are lacking the talk-page boilerplate) grounds for flagging {notmoved} after a week or so (combined with a polite note on the talk page inviting its correct relisting). 
#Place the onus on fixing "what links here" redirects, etc. on the person proposing the move, rather than on the poor overworked admin who makes the move. There are a couple of current listings with clear consensuses in favour, but a daunting amount of incoming links and redirects. Plus, the requester should be better acquainted with the subject matter and better qualified to make correct decisions on what goes where. 
Comments? –Hajor 02:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog redux

message: OK - I took care of quite a few days, but I ran into some distintly difficult cases:
#There was no notice/template on the talk page but there was in entry here. In this case I turned down the request
#:did you leave a comment explaining why?
#*There was another one like the above only this time with more approval on talk page - in this case I moved
#:Yep I guess.
#Another one where there was notification on the talk page, but the only comment/vote was from an anon not to move. In this case I didn't move it.
#:I think you should have moved it. But as the administrator who delt with it I support your decision.
#One where an anon nominated but a logged in user with a comment from several months ago disagreed
#:I would not have moved it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  guidence requested 

message: The reason I removed that is because its in the admin instructions... right now it doesn't point to anything. Maybe that part needs to be here someplace (maybe it's not admin-specific?)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I fixed that link to point to the admin page. A little clumsy, but it works. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: #History merges

message: Csn we get some stats here?
#What percentage of pages listed on this page are moved, total?
#What percentage attract few (<5) or no votes at all. At present, do any admins not move these as inquorate even when >60% are in favour of moving?
#What percentage are for stuff like spelling (exc. US/non-US spelling issues), capitalisation, etc
#What percentage are to move page X to, from, or to make way for X (disambiguation)?
#What percentage are to move over a redirect-with-history? How many of these are not moved?
#What percentage are moves that any registered user with more than 100 (or whatever the number is) edits could perform, but the requester is either a newbie or simply hasn't noticed they can? Again, what % of these are denied?
I think answers to these, and perhaps a couple more that escape me just now, are essential. - SoM 14:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no restriction on the number of edits (though some of us argue vigorously that there should be).  The current restriction is that the newest 1% of accounts registered can not move pages.  In terms of Wikipedia's actual growth, this means that an account has to be about 5 days old before it can move pages.  Dragons flight 17:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: As an intermediate step, how about simply splitting the page into a couple of additional sections (by which I mean ==headings==), and seeing how that goes. This can be done (and undone) immediately. Suggested structure and blurb:
:Where to list proposed moves:
:* Wikipedia namespace - proposed moves regarding Wikipedia namespace pages (like this page itself)
:* Speedy moves - proposed moves that are likely to be non-contested because
:** they relate to obvious misspelling (this does NOT include variations in spelling like British/American or diacritics)
:** they relate to usage where naming conventions are clear and unambiguous - in which case the specific naming convention(s) should be cited and linked. Note that naming conventions may contradict each other, in which case do not list here, but under Naming policy.
:* Naming policy - proposed moves that may raise wider issues in regard to naming policy; i.e. moves which imply a logic that would require changes to a significant number of other articles, or where naming conventions contradict each other. (Consider instead suggesting revisions to naming policy at Wikipedia talk:naming conventions.)
:* Other - proposed moves that don't clearly fall elsewhere 
:Moving entries:
:*A speedy move that is contested should generally be moved to another section. Editors may move entries to speedy move if they feel it is appropriate.
Rd232 15:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy. Similar criteria and approach could work here. Thoughts, anyone? Rd232 talk 14:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins' discretion on whether to speedy moves remains as at present and should be employed judiciously, as at present. They should still check Talk pages for instance to ensure that there is no ongoing discussion on the matter (and add notice of move made), as well as use judgement on whether it meets agreed speedy move criteria.  Self-classification would be only initial - subsequently, anyone who disagrees can move the nomination to another section. And as speedy move would be the second section on the page (after Wikipedia namespace, usually very short or empty), people would see them. Abuse of speedy move classification would be treated by the Wikipedia community as they treat abuse of any other community mechanism. Selecting out probable speedy moves benefits both those pages (swift correction) and the others (less distraction, more discussion). It's really not that different from WP:CSD or Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy renaming. Rd232 talk 23:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intermediate step suggestion

message: ===talk:Laozi#Requested Move===
* This is no longer listed, but the discussion hasn't been closed... 132.205.45.148 17:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclosed discussions 

message: * This is no longer listed, but the discussion hasn't been closed... 132.205.45.148 17:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[talk:Laozi#Requested Move]]

message: Recently a separate admin page was created to move the administration sections off this page. I think that was an improvement. What do others think? Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general yes, but there's still a section addressed to admins (near the bottom), and I can't find the page you refer to. Did I miss something? Rd232 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think RN has deleted it but  Revision as of 00:23, 19 October 2005 shows how it was done for a short time. I did not read the page I assume it was the sections from this page which covers administration. Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin page

message: I have noticed that instead of moving a page, in some cases the admin has just removed the history on the target page which prevents any user moving a page. I think that for many uncontriversial moves, or moves where it would create a lot of double redirects that this is a good idea as it reduces the admin's work load. What do others think and should it be added to the admin's section as a technique to be encouraged? Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin removal of history on the target page

message: Why is there only a notice on the talk page of articles? It's not very visible, and on less popular pages no one will vote. -- Kjkolb 19:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page notice 

message: I am a little confused. On the one hand this page serves to organise and promote discussion about possible article moves (a bit like AfD), and on the other hand there is the unrelated organisation of admins to make make moves. It would make sense to seperate out these two processes. That way, a page (or category) like "Admin assisted page moves" could be created which listed: 
*moves that already had consensus 
*obvious moves that are blocked by an existing redirect 
So why the two processes combined on this page?--Commander Keane 17:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above #Admin page... But there should not be two different lists for moves as it is not possible to know in all cases which moves will be controversial before they are listed here. So any page can be listed here and then moved after five days if there is a consensus to do so. If the moves are simply "obvious [none controversial ] moves that are blocked by an existing redirect" then either an admin at his or her discretion will move them  before the five days are up or more likely wait the five days and then move it.--Philip Baird Shearer 19:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an admin dealing with disambiguation, I'll often work with cases where (after gaining consensus on the talk pages) a non controversial move needs to be made (that involves deleting a redirect first). So I go ahead and do it on the spot. I was hoping to afford the same ease (speed, no need to list on WP:RM for five days, less clutter on WP:RM) to non-admins, possibly with something like :Category:Candidates for speedy move. The problem you alude to is a page move may be listed on the category inappropriately and then need to be formally put on WP:RM. Is the idea workable?--Commander Keane 03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the page 

message: Step 3 for requesting a move says to place a discussion area (including a voting area) into the talk page that the request involves. Unlike AfD nominations though, once a requested move has been processed there's not always an easy way to determine (as a 3rd party) if the time to vote has elapsed or if the discussion is over. I'd like to suggest that the following two templates be used to "close" a requested move discussion/debate/vote:  and . You can see an example of this template in use at Talk:James E. West. They should, like the AfD close templates, be subst'd when used. Instructions for use are at each templates talk page (the instructions are identical). These templates should make it clearer that discussion has ceased and the requested move was already voted up/down. (I know the talk page template that indicates a move is requested is removed by the closing admin, but newbies may not even know of the template). Thoughts? —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 09:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent idea.—jiy (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. =) If enough people agree that it's a good idea, I propose it be added to the admin instructions. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an excellent idea, and well implemented. Some people are already using it, and I intend to start myself. I think the suggestion has been here long enough, let's add it to the instructions. Andrewa 20:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page discussion closure

message: Any opinions on proposing a new sub-project of this that involves changing titles from primary to equal dis-ambiguation?? Please explain with whatever opinions you have. Georgia guy 22:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to do a lot of this for WP:DPL. You still need to get consensus and wait for five days or so, so what's the benefit of a sub-project?--Commander Keane 04:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary to Equal dis-ambiguation