Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3

message: * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 1
* Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 2
For the page history of any text before this time stamp please see the Archives Philip Baird Shearer 17:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I think it is necessary to refer potential RM proposers to conventions, and have set up a section called "Policies and Guidelines to be considered" that so far lists a link to Naming conventions (as much as I disagree with a certain first one).  If there is a better name y'all can think of for the subsection, or any other conventions that should be linked, feel free to add them.  —68.207.207.127 18:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added something to the RM page

message: ====Votes for all voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved====
#Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTING

message: #Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for all voting to take place on the ''talk:page of the article to be moved''

message: # ExplorerCDT 18:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for secondary voting if needed to take place on the ''Requested moves'' page

message: #Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for retaining the current rules

message: I am growing more and more concerned about the trend in recommending large blocks of pages to be moved, as is the case with recent requests such as XXX of Macao → XXX of Macau and the entire series regarding PRC → China/Taiwan → ROC (and vice versa).  The idea and precedent of moving blocks of pages raises the question of bulk movements in policy, or convention, using wikipedia as tool to gain a political or societal legitimacy through emphasizing a certain spelling, or phrase, or whathaveyou.
Another concern that I have been grappling with is that in many circumstances pages are named accordingly with regard to a unique historical circumstance (like the particular contemporaneous spelling of a battle as opposed to a modern spelling of the site), local custom vs. internationalized reference, or nuance, Tto force through a whole block of page move requests might push such individual page concerns by the wayside in a manner that would be dangerous to Wikipedia as a whole.
I think we should start to rein in the potential to abuse the precedent that is rapidly coming into being.  Perhaps it may be essential to limit page move requests to one at a time, or to specifically/explicitly enumerate the pages instead of a general block (i.e. in the current XXX in Macao → XXX in Macau) debate?
Considerations - if the extreme of enumerating each requested move in a general block of pages as a separate vote could cause bloating...something this page have never experienced before.  However, not separating individual pages in a general block could promote increased confusion in the event people vote supporting one, two or a few of the block, but oppose one, two or a few of the rest of the block.  Also, if in the event consensus leads to voting on individual article's discussion pages, this concern would grow wildly uncontrollable.
I look forward to your comments, whether or not you share my concern, and if necessary what solutions may be posed to this issue. (except you, Instantnood, you're just an annoying non-constructive gnat at I time I cannot find a big enough swatter).—ExplorerCDT 21:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocks of Page Moves

message: The project page would be easier to use if the table of contents were higher. Maurreen 18:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true.  In fact, the whole intro is way too long, but it's probably best to wait for the result of the poll before changing it around. violet/riga (t) 23:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of contents

message: This page anounces that it is the wrong place to ask for pictures to be moved.  Fine, but where is the right place? 
I'd like to move :Image:Hedgehog.jpg aside (to :Image:Hedgehog.777life.jpg) to allow :commons:Image:Hedgehog.jpg to display, but I can't (and it would leave behind a redirect anyway).  The local version has worse (but not actually unacceptable) copyright status, but is still a worthwhile picture. --Andrew 09:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
* You do it yourself.  Re-upload the image with the name you want, change the links on the relevant pages.  To delete the old one, ask an admin. Simple. —ExplorerCDT 17:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do I request picture moves?