Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 4

message: * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 1
* Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 2
* Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3
For the page history of any text before this time stamp please see the Archives Philip Baird Shearer 00:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: With the move to "Wikipedia:Requested Pelican Shit", shouldn't the shortcut be WP:RPS? Cburnett 04:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately they just don't seem to think of the little touches. :) violet/riga (t) 05:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New shortcut? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When to close poll? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A sort of naming conventions, sort of requested movesy kind of thing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  proposed move of discussion about naming conventions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fixing cut & paste moves? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Renaming (moving) Help needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:
#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.
# 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.
# 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 7 or 5 days

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: No votes

message: Taking a look at :Category:Requested moves there are loads of move requests that have the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not following the process 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trolls

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 'A guide ... talk page' with 'What to ... talk page' 

message: I have been bold and created a new template, , 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)
replies: text: What a fantastic idea. Please go ahead and do this! Talrias (t | e | c) 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category for requested moves 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CapitalMove 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Talk Pages

message: 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:
:#Option 1: move X to Y.
:#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:
:#Option 1: move X to Y.
:#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:
:#Option 1: move X to Y
:#Option 2: don't move X to Y and change the background color of page X to purple.
:#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:
:#Option 1: move X to Y
:#Option 2: don't move X to Y and change the background color of page X to purple.
:#Option 3: don't move X to Y and leave the background colors as they are.
:#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:
:#Option 1: move X to Y
:#Option 2: don't move X to Y and change the background color of page X to purple.
:#Option 3: don't move X to Y and leave the background colors as they are.
:#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.
:#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)
thread_title: Footnote regarding the correct implementation of approval voting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Polling for requested page move