Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 2

message: 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.
#This would preserve the history of the voting on the request.
#Involve the people who are actively watch the page to be moved for changes.
#It would integrate with the way other straw polls are run.
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RM is used for listing votes currently active on talk pages.  When a consensus is made either a request is put in for the move to be performed (if an admin is needed) or the link is removed.  This would therefore mean WP:RM is in two sections: active discussions and move assistance.
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)
replies: text: I don't think two stages are needed and it makes it overtly complicated. A request only comes to RM if there is a technical problem with a move. If a request is put here and any additional voting, generated by those who monitor this page, takes place under a straw poll on the the articles talk page, then after a number of days, if there is a consensus on that page an administrator can move it and remove the request from RM. I do not see that listing list of votes from another page on this page brings enough additional clarity to the issue to justify the effort. In addition the lists would be open copy errors either intentionaly or accidentally and then to allegations of abuse. Philip Baird Shearer 22:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking it in the way that some articles are very poorly monitored and have often seen a question (such as "should this be renamed?") go for months without a response.  However, I guess if nobody else becomes involved in the discussion then I guess nobody else cares!  Whatever happens I'm not a fan of the current wp:rm system and think that all such moves could be done by someone posting a request at wikipedia:village pump (assistance).  Or maybe a formalisation of the "admin required" system be put into place rather than just having the current noticeboard.  violet/riga (t) 22:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: voting takes place on Talk:Page of the page to be moved

message: *Normal controversial page moves are discussed on the talk page and do not come here. Why should page moves which arrive here, often for a minor technical reason, be treated any differently from any other move as regards a straw poll for moving? If the straw poll was done on the Talk page instead of here, then if a poll already exists any additional votes could be added to it and it one does not exist then one can be created. It must be usual that people only come to this page once a consensus has been reached for a move which has been attempted and there is a technical problem with the move. If they are coming to RM because they know that they will not get an agreement on the talk:page then there are already dispute mechanisms to deal with this eg  Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, without RM becoming a way to weasel around the dispute mechanisms.
* If a page is to be moved to a new name I can not think of anyone who would consider that it was a good thing for it to be "less disruptive to other discussions" that a vote occure on another page.  Page names are very important and most people who monitor a page would usully exepct to discuss a move on the talk page. Further, as it stands at the moment the text will be moved at the end of the voting on this page to the talk page of the RM, so the other discussions on that talk page will be disrupted.
* If a request to move was discussed on the local talk page it would be available to a broader audience because the link would be on the RM page would alert people who read this page and it would be available to people who monitor the page which is to be moved.  Generally the people who monitor a page for changes are those Wikipedians who have the most knowledge on the subject on that page and hence are often in a better position, than the general community, to know if the proposed move is for the best. If anyone who is interested in page moves in general by monitoring RM and is too lazy to go to a link to a Talk:Page for a specific move, then they are not very interested in the specific subject and so perhaps should not be voting on that page move. Making it easy for people who monitor RM to put in their tuppence worth should not be the top priority, it should be how to include as many people as possible who are interested in the specific page to be moved. Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on voting takes place on Talk:Page

message: As I've attempted to discuss earlier my proposal is this:
:WP:RM is used for listing votes currently active on talk pages.  When a consensus is made either a request is put in for the move to be performed (if an admin is needed) or the link is removed.  This would therefore mean WP:RM is in two sections: active discussions and move assistance.
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)
replies: text: I don't think two stages are needed and it makes it overtly complicated. A request only comes to RM if there is a technical problem with a move. If a request is put here and any additional voting, generated by those who monitor this page, takes place under a straw poll on the the articles talk page, then after a number of days, if there is a consensus on that page an administrator can move it and remove the request from RM. I do not see that listing list of votes from another page on this page brings enough additional clarity to the issue to justify the effort. In addition the lists would be open copy errors either intentionaly or accidentally and then to allegations of abuse. Philip Baird Shearer 22:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking it in the way that some articles are very poorly monitored and have often seen a question (such as "should this be renamed?") go for months without a response.  However, I guess if nobody else becomes involved in the discussion then I guess nobody else cares!  Whatever happens I'm not a fan of the current wp:rm system and think that all such moves could be done by someone posting a request at wikipedia:village pump (assistance).  Or maybe a formalisation of the "admin required" system be put into place rather than just having the current noticeboard.  violet/riga (t) 22:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Voting on talk pages and linked from here

message: To move "Neal Donald Walsch" to "Neale Donald Walsch". Thanks!--Febus 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me, please! 

message: 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)
* I also question some of the motives of ALoan in his policing of this page.  Some of his decisions I have the hard time rationalizing. —ExplorerCDT 17:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no motive other than trying to be helpful.  If you "question some of the motives" for the moves that I have done, please provide a list of the ones you don't like and tell me what motives you think I have, and we can talk about it. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rastafari