Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Reverting undiscussed moves

Pasted from Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia (former city):

"What we really need is a procedure where an objection to undiscussed moves means they are reverted and the burden of establishing good reason for the move is placed on those wanting to move it. Gene Nygaard 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)"

Why is the onus of obtaining a supermajority placed on the party or parties who oppose the previously undiscussed move and is there any way to set up a procedure to have the undiscussed move reverted before a RM discussion is had? Example 1: Halifax, Nova Scotia (former city) RM Example 2: High Council of Sweden RMs (this one may end up having three RMs because of the situation). —  AjaxSmack  07:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moves aren't decided on supermajority, they're decided on the arguments presented, which are generally grounded in our policies and guidelines. Unless it can be demonstrated that the former name is the better one, moving it back would be folly. If it turns out that the former name was better, no real harm is done in taking five days to be sure of that before restoring the name. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The current sit is analogous to saying, if we can stick you in jail before anyone notices, then you need a trial to prove your innocence; if you can't prove it, then there you stay. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Very true. One person can do the move, and then, because the redirect is there, no one can move it back. Goldfritha 21:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct, Goldfritha, that nobody can move a page back over a redirect. Moves are possible as long as the target is a redirect to the source page, and has only one edit in its history, which is the case after a pagemove. Also, I don't think SigPig's trial analogy makes sense because between two possible names for an article, there's not generally anything like the difference between prison and freedom - if the move is at all controversial, then a case can generally be made for either name, and redirects are in place regardless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The very first paragraph at WP:RM says: "In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." Under the section "Uncontroversial moves", WP:RM clearly states, in bold: "If there is any possibility that the proposed page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section." It is implicit here that there should be no move if there is any controversy; the presence of objections means there cannot be an assumption of consensus, and consensus for the move must be determined. The system as it stands now allows a user to do an end-run around consensus -- sort of "ha, ha, I got here first".

Since WP is consensus-driven, I infer from the RM procedure (in conjunction with other policies) that an editor moving an article to another name without going through the RM process is making an assumption -- in good faith -- that the move is uncontroversial and not likely to be opposed; i.e., consensus is assumed. The presence of an objection to that move indicates indicates consensus cannot be assumed and must be determined through process, and the move should be reverted until it can be discussed, relevant policies and guidelines can be consulted, and a true consensus can be arrived at.

Given that the contentiousness of moves often parallels that of AfDs, there should be at least a few safeguards, or else people are going to move God to God (deity) and use the former as a redirect to Eric Clapton.

--SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Clapton and God: (a) If it hasn't happened yet, why are you so sure it will? (Mind the BEANS) and (b) That move would obviously be speedy-reverted without any need for a move request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is the problem that people may not be aware that there are objections. And even when people make the move in bad faith, knowing if they brought it up in advance there would be objections, they could claim to have made it innocently.

The only alternative would be to make moving an admin function, which would quickly create a backlog and undermine the value of this page by preventing admins from considering each one.

I think an "Undiscussed move" which allows a person to have a move reverted merely by showing that the move was made with no prior discussion would be the best thing. Goldfritha 15:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My first inclination is to disagree with a rule of reverting undiscussed moves if an objection comes up. Each case should be considered on merits. Purely procedural moves clutter up the article history and go against the spirit of WP:NOT a bureaucracy. As soon as it becomes apparent that a move is controversial, the best thing is to stop moving the page and have a discussion about what the name ought to be. Assuming that undiscussed moves were bad and resetting them in presumption that the objector is right is like building an assumption of bad faith into our procedures. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with GTBacchus on this for all of the same reasons. Plus, clearly someone thinks that the name belongs where it does now, so the move back would also be contentious. See m:The Wrong Version. Kyle Barbour 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should scrap the "Uncontroversial proposals" it is relatively new and seems to cause problems. If a move is uncontroversial then worse case the request will sit for 5 days on the talk page and then can be moved. I am very leery with administrators of this page deciding to override a consensus on a talk page, because they consider the move to be either fulfilling a guideline or breaking one. I think it is far better that the people in the debate decide this issue, not an admin. If the guidelines are being broken this can be discussed by the particpants in the requested move section on the talk page. If after the discussion there is a consensus to move the page then if an admin wants to get involved then they should move it even if they dissagree with the move (they can afterall not get involved if they hold opinion different from the consensus). If the number of editors who participate in the consensus building exercise are few in number then an admin can decide the issue because their opinion will swing the consensus. But it would be a very foolish admin who tried to argue that guidelines were being broken in discussions like the one over Ivory Coast (see Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1#Côte d'Ivoire and Ivory coast - under which name should the article appear?) or Zurich (See Talk:Zürich/Archive1#Move (Zürich -> Zurich) and insisted on going agaist the consensus or lack of consensus when so many editors are involved --Philip Baird Shearer 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What problems do you see being caused by "Uncontroversial proposals"? I complete a lot of those, and they seem pretty smooth to me, for the most part. Also, have you got examples of admins closing moves against consensus? I don't feel that I see many clear cases of consensus against guidelines, largely because the guidelines are simply records of longstanding consensus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For example anything with a funny foreign squiggle is a controversial. What you consider uncontroversial proposal may not be to someone else, so what is the harm in them being advertised on the talk page like other moves? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I'm checking uncontroversial moves, I try to note which ones are likely to be controversial and I don't blindly process them as uncontroversial in those cases. There's no harm in any move being advertised on the talk page, but I see no reason to put everything (simple typo corrections, orphaned talk pages, etc) through a five-day process. As long as the people patrolling Uncontroversial proposals know what they're doing, I don't think it's a problem. I'm certainly open to looking at any example of an uncontroversial move that you think should have had its five days but didn't get it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the length of time taken for the consensus to be reached is at the discretions of the administrator, then moves which are placed in the usual section can be actioned by you before the five days are up. But if the information is placed on the talk page, then people who monitor that page can see that a move has been requested. That gives them some hope of objecting before the move is made. If it is only placed here (on WP:RM), with no information on the talk page then someone with an objection has no chance to raise it before the move is made because most people do not watch and read this page most of the time. As you know, once the move is made then it needs to be shown that there is a consensus to move it back, (because obviously the move is contentious). For the sake of say 24 hours, I think it is better to delay all moves and register them on the talk page. This reduces the judgements that an admin has to make about whether the move is contentious or not, which I think is a good thing as we are all human, and to err is human. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree about erring and humanity and all that, and I think I understand what you're proposing, but I still disagree. If somebody requests a move at "Uncontroversial", and I complete it within twenty minutes, and somebody then realizes they disagree with it, then they'll generally make a comment somewhere, which begins a discussion, or else they'll move it back, which tends to also begin a discussion. Either way, no great harm is done, and we arrive at the right place, which is discussing the move. It's true that there might be two unnecessary moves sitting in the article history by then, but (a) empirically, that hardly ever happens, and (b) a history like that is a good way to telegraph to someone completing a future move that it certainly is controversial, which can be good.

We could ask people requesting an uncontroversial move to at least put the move template on the article's talk page. We could even have a modified version of the template for uncontroversials. It sounds like creating more "paperwork" to me, though, i.e., instruction creep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contary having two methods of requesting a page move is instruction creep. If there is only one way then there are less instructions to read. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could see it that way, but having uncontroversial moves in effect streamlines the procedure, and results in fewer person-hours being put into page moves. Forcing obvious moves to go through an unnecessary procedure is a bad idea, and people will try to bypass it. People will cut corners; you might as well allow for it so there's a paper trail. We have speedy deletion; we have speedy moves. I see no actual harm done, therefore no reason to change. I'm open to seeing concrete, specific evidence of actual problems created by the current system, but I've seen none yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Db-histmerge

Template:Db-histmerge has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kyle Barbour 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeshua

I was wondering if an admin could revert {{subst:Kendrick7}}'s move of Yeshua to Yeshua (name). It was a move that took place without talk page discussion or a requested move. I ask that an admin revert the change the user go through the appropriate channels. I for one believe the disambig header at the top of the page is good enough. If someone types in "Yeshua" and they wanted the "Jesus" article, that link is right at the top of the page. The disambig page (that Kendrick created) only contained two links and served the same purpose as the disambig header. Thanks for your consideration. (I moved the talk page already, but couldn't move the main page because the diambig page was created over the redirect).-Andrew c 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Uneeded moves

What should happen if a move request results in no consensus, but an admin who supported the move makes the move anyway? There was a move request, but after about 6 days an admin closed it because no consensus was reached. A few hours later though, another admin (who supported the move) moved it anyways and edited the old page so that only admins could move it back. Wouldn't this be against some kind of policy? TJ Spyke 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read this. Now explain to the class why this doesn't meet the criteria paid down in that decision. Chris cheese whine 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you can call it even then. If a move is closed, and you disagree with the closure, the best thing is to get more people to look at it and see what they think. Editing redirects to prevent move-backs isn't very cool, and neither is... doing the same thing, from the other side. On the other hand, it at least has the effect of slowing down a move war, and forcing participants back to the talk pages to sort things out. Now the articles don't even all match, which is a great situation to get people discussing, because nobody's happy with the status quo. That's kind of ideal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete proposals

I created a new section "Incomplete and disputed proposals" in an attempt to solve the persistent problem of 1) orphaned requests and 2) contested "uncontroversial" proposals. I'm aware that it goes against WP:CREEP, but:

1. If the proposer of the move doesn't bother to follow the proper procedure, why should we care?
2. If an uncontroversial move is contested, the request goes to the state of limbo; the proper procedure would be to relist it as a "controversial" move, but again, many such requests are either "nice tries" to "sneak" a move through, or even a good-faith but not really fitting the definition of "uncontroversial".

In any case, I'll try this procedure. If anyone has an objection, feel free to revert (i.e. remove the section); I'm exercizing WP:BOLD but I do mind WP:1RR. Duja► 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm agains this. Either put it into the usual move section and fix the talk page or leave a polite not on the editors talk page explaining that they need to resubmit the request. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to try it out, but I'm a bit sceptical. It might be simpler to just say that once an objection is noted to a move in the "uncontroversial" section, then it can be removed after N days if the requestor doesn't complete a full request, where N is a number like 3 or 5. As for incomplete requests, I don't have a problem setting up a talk page discussion late, or when relisting the move, or just completing the move if it seems uncontroversial enough. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it now. I think it's working, having a way for requests posted in "Uncontroversial" that aren't really uncontroversial to filter down into ordinary requests. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mess at Barbados cricket team and Barbadian cricket team

How should I fix a cut-and-past move? Someone did a cut-and-paste move of Barbadian cricket team to Barbados cricket team in January. I believe the article should be at "Barbadian cricket team" to conform with other articles in Category:National cricket teams. Since the bad move there has been one good-faith edit at "Barbados cricket team". Should I do another cut-and-paste move back to "Barbadian cricket team" and lose the history of that one edit, or is there a special administrator way of fixing it? Jwillbur 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it all up. —METS501 (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing move discussions, talk-age formatting, information and policy

I cannot find guidance on the process for closing move discussions.
Since helpful-non administrator editors can undertake straightforward moves and close discussions that are clear in concensus, this guidance/policy should be easily accessible to all, probably here at the Requested Moves page. I have seen examples of announced discussion closure on moves, like this one, Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move; if you know if these examples exist, it's possible to model closures based on the edits/templates found there.

But some helpful editors participating in closing Requested Moves discussions seem not to know of the desirablility of explicit closure, and their related templates/formatting, and it's possible the participants at the moved page don't know about the templates/formats either. -- Yellowdesk 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, Yellowdesk. I can't speak for other closers, but I'll tell you the procedure I've worked out over several hundred move request closures. If the article is to be moved, I do that first, swap histories if necessary, and fix all the double redirects. Once the page is either moved or not, I remove the move template from the talk page and deal with the discussion. If it's just an informal discussion, I just leave a note at the bottom.

To close a formal discussion, I use the {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}} templates. Just under "==Requested move==", I add {{subst:polltop}} followed by whatever comments seem appropriate. It's usually just "PAGE MOVED per discussion below," or "NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below." I sign that part.

On the line below that (still above the original request), I add an <hr/>, and then I add a {{subst:pollbottom}} at the bottom of the discussion section.

I've never really described that process before; if there are any improvements anybody wants to suggest, I'd love to hear. I'd also like to hear whether other closers have other patterns that work for them, and maybe we can distill some of the best practices and describe them on the project page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Noisettes fix name

I do not know if this is the place to go, but the article of the uk band The Noisettes should be moved to just Noisettes since the band from the UK has no The in there name--Migospia 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a move request corresponding to this on the project page. Once it's been 5 days since the move was listed, and people have had a chance to comment, the page will probably be moved without any more trouble. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to shift articles

I was trying to shift the article East Caribbean dollar to the correct East Caribbean States dollar, only to get a red link. Why is this? How come there isn't a 'move' tab at the top of each article to make it easier? - (British Commonwealth Numismatics 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

It appears to me that there is a move tab on the East Caribbean dollar article. However, I find that if I browse to the page while not logged in, the tab does not appear. Either you weren't logged in at the time you visited the page, or else you need to refresh your browser, or you've encountered some technical glitch.zadignose 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from project page. --Stemonitis 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The account had just been created that day, and there's a 4-day waiting period after registration before the move tag pops up. Dekimasuよ! 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding section to header

I am requesting review of this edit, in which I added a section to the WP:RM header. This is partly in response to the comment (three sections up) by Yellowdesk. If anybody sees improvements that can be made, please be bold, and if anybody disagrees completely with the section, please feel free to revert me (or just post here saying what issues you see), and we'll discuss it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Three small issues:

I wonder whether our use of "consensus" may be confusing to some. Effectively, a debate may have reached one of three situations by the end of five days: yes to the move, no to the move, and we cannot be sure whether to move. We call the first "consensus", the second "no consensus", and we haven't really got a name for the third. "If it is not yet clear whether consensus is for or against the move, then the move may be relisted in the current day's section" is slightly at odds with that, because it allows for a consensus against the proposal, but which we call no consensus.

I think we ought to be a bit more transparent about when things get re-listed. Some tied votes get closed as "no consensus" while others get re-listed. How is one to know which will occur? I tend to relist those where discussion is ongoing and consensus might shift, but close those which have either stagnated (no edits for a couple of days) or are clearly not going to be resolved (e.g. if there are two entrenched parties who are unwilling to compromise, not that I've seen many of those). I can't think of a clear and concise way of wording that, but I think it would be helpful to add.

I have edited the section about the backlog, since the backlog marker moves once daily at most, meaning that requests have often been listed for more than five days without being in the backlog. --Stemonitis 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the helpful edits. Your wording of the backlog section is clearer, although it might be fair to mention that some move requests really are closed before 5 days have elapsed. I don't do it in more than a small percentage of cases, but it does happen occasionally and I know I'm not the only one. Some get closed a few hours before five days elapses; some get closed as clearly uncontroversial (e.g., typo fixes) shortly after being listed. Should that practice be discouraged? (or not encouraged?)

Regarding your other two points: Consensus is tricky, yes, and our jargon is somewhat misleading. Consensus not to move is different from lack of consensus to move, yet we say the latter when meaning the former. Additionally, moves are sometimes completed despite lack of clear consensus, just as some articles are not moved despite a supermajority of "!votes" to move. I don't know the best way to convey the nuanced relationship between consensus and policy at Wikipedia without taking a paragraph aside to do it, which seems inappropriate on the Requested moves page.

On your second point, I agree that it's somewhat complex when we choose to relist versus close. When discussion is ongoing and productive, that's a pretty clear case to relist, but when it's stagnant, or just going in circles, it's kind of a judgement call. I think the actual practice is that the request spends time being relisted and/or languishing in the backlog until either a consensus develops, or someone finally comes along and decides to make a call. I suggest rewording the second paragraph as something like:

If the discussion has not arrived at a clear decision to move or not to move, then the move may be relisted in the current day's section. Generally, a note such as "Relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop. ~~~~" is appended at the bottom. This is especially appropriate in cases where discussion in ongoing. Alternatively, an administrator or other experienced closer may choose to declare a consensus or a lack of consensus. This is sometimes controversial, and editors are encouraged to use special caution and attention to detail when closing contested move requests, and to explain their decision in appropriate detail.

Would that be laboring the point too much? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the occasional closure shortly before the full five days can probably be taken as bending the rules, and needn't be specifically mentioned. It shouldn't be encouraged, although where consensus is clear, it doesn't actually do much harm. Perhaps some of the ambiguity of "consensus" could be reduced by re-wording things to state that people don't so much cast votes as state their interpretations of the policies, but I can't see a good way of shoe-horning that in to the existing text yet. The debates are ultimately votes, but votes about which interpretation is preferred, and not directly about which title is preferred (which explains how a supermajority can be overruled by an admin who is aware of the relevant policies and guidelines). Your replacement paragraph about re-listing is excellent. --Stemonitis 09:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I implemented the re-listing paragraph, with a couple of slight changes. I'm not too sure how to explain the whole consensus thing in a nutshell either. I'll re-read the section later, and see if anything occurs to me, or maybe you or someone else will fix it up before I get a chance to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there so much process around this place?!?!

Arrrrrgh! Anyway, now that that's off my chest, I was wondering if the pages Hawaiian Renaissance and Hawaiian Rennaissance (2 "n"s) could be merged together. But the intricate processes just make me want to give up... listing here. I would be more than willing to edit the merged pages to remove duplicate information, but don't want to jump through all kinds of hoops to list the page correctly. Maybe someone will take up the cause. Mahalo. --Ali'i 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, you don't need to request a move in order to carry out a merge. In this case, the more substantial history, and the more substantial article, are at the correct spelling. Therefore, all you have to do is merge the content from "Rennaissance" to "Renaissance", noting in the edit summary where it came from, and then turn "Rennaissance" into a redirect. The histories are overlapping, so we couldn't really merge them anyway.

As for process on this page, I think we'd be quite open to suggestions on how to simplify it, but part of the complexity reflects the fact that page moves and history merges can get a bit complicated at times. If you have any specific complaints about particularly dense processes, I'm all ears. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. I have done the merge. I'll take a look at the process again and try and articulate my concerns. I'll let you know. Thanks again. --Ali'i 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How much discussion is needed?

I requested a move on Talk:Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) and "advertised" it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Requested move. Stemonitis recently closed it as "no consensus" because no one cared enough to say anything. Isn't one out of one consensus? --NE2 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite why - perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In other cases where there is no reason not to make a move, a single opinion is enough. This is often the case for obscure articles. For articles on subway stations which dozens of editors use daily (I expect), and where the naming conventions are anything but settled, I didn't think that lone voice was enough. Determining consensus is highly subjective. --Stemonitis 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These are actually pretty obscure articles. Anyone who wanted to comment would have seen the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Requested move and done so. I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#If no one cares enough to comment, is there consensus?, though the intent was to get more people to this discussion rather than starting another one there. --NE2 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Layout

I've just had the idea of changing the background colour of the "incomplete and contested" section, to try and indicate that they're in limbo (akin to greying-out, but affecting the background). Would anyone have a problem with that? I think it would help to show that it's not a place for discussion, and would also break the page up, making it easier to navigate. There are also a few other changes I'd like to make, but I'm still mulling them over. --Stemonitis 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing about the other changes. As for the "incomplete and contested" section, it seems like the only way to encourage people not to use the space for discussion would be to state explicitly that responding to opposition won't make the move uncontested again; i.e., to force those discussions into the "other proposals" section. In your List of Gnostics objection and subsequent move, I replied in the contested space to what I saw as a valid call for clarification, but I still didn't believe that the request required a full move discussion. I'm sure many people are typing along the same lines. Maybe we should discuss whether it necessary to discourage that type of interaction.

I also think it's a loss under the current system that the contested proposals are removed from the page and left unarchived. They're available in the page history, but no one will ever be able to find them, nor (in many cases) is there any evidence left on the talk pages of the articles in question that there was ever a move request. Any reason not to archive them by date on a subpage somewhere? Dekimasuよ! 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

About the layout changes, I'll upload a suggested replacement (which will only be moderately different to the current layout) once I've had time to look it over again. Concerning the achival, I had written a different response (off-site), but I've been thinking about it, and I've changed my mind. I no longer believe that there is any need to archive the incomplete proposals. They can only be one of two things: either a purportedly uncontroversial proposal which turned out to be controversial (usually because it contradicts established guidelines or practices), or an attempt to start a full debate which subsequently foundered. In the first case, there is nothing worth archiving, and in the second, the will behind the move would seem to have been exhausted. In either case, there is not much to archive. I think it would be reasonable to remove all discussion about contested requests to the relevant talk pages. Until then, there is no discussion to archive, but as soon as there is discussion, it should go on the article's talk page, removing hte need for archival at this end. If others agree, I would be happy with a change whereby supposedly uncontroversial requests which get moved to the "Incomplete and contested" section are noted with something like "Contested; see [[Talk:Article to be moved|talk]] ~~~~" and nothing more, and also with establishing a practice of moving comments from WP:RM to articles' talk pages if they should appear here. The example of list of gnostics is a good one. There needed to be a small amount of discourse (although, I agree in hindsight, not a full request) to clarify matters; it would also have been useful to have had a space ready for me to explain my actions in that context. The whole middle section is a fairly new innovation, so it might not be too much of a sea-change if we alter the way it functions now, after this short trial period. I await opinions. --Stemonitis 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the greying out provided the grey is not so grey that it looks like an archive, and there should be more explicit instruction at the top of the section to make it clear that it is not the place for discussion. Also, what about moving that See also section on one single template {{db-move}} up to What requested moves are not for? –Pomte 05:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That was one of the things my alterations sought to address. The proposed update is at User:Stemonitis/RMheader. Since it's not in use, feel free to boldly edit it. I have tried to make it more user-friendly, by thinking about the process of an editor trying to move a page, which is after all who this page should serve. --Stemonitis 06:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Step 1a bugs me. It's really minor but makes the instructions look that much longer. Even without the time zone issue, you have to monitor it daily to see that a new section does get added. It can become a fairly trivial bot task; someone at Wikipedia:Bot requests should be able to handle this.

I think the grey code boxes are unnecessary. How often do people copy and paste the extended format in the second box? Both of them should have a template, unless I'm missing the second one. –Pomte 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the second grey box of template output; see #RMtalk template below. Are you suggesting that even the one grey box is superfluous? If so, you might be right. The date issue doesn't bother me (but then my time zone is pretty close to UTM, so it's easy for me to work out, and I'm usually asleep then anyway), but if you think a bot could simplify things for the average use, then I'd be more than happy to see that implemented.

To return to an earlier point, would anyone be dissatisfied with a change so that all contested "uncontroversial" moves are contested on their talk pages, and not here? I would like to introduce that fairly soon if there is support for it. --Stemonitis 09:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, although editing multiple pages to contest a request seems to put more of a burden on the contesting editor. I think the RMheader in your userspace is, by and large, a great improvement over the current setup as well. The only thing I'm wondering about is whether the "processing move requests" section can be covered briefly and adequately in the introduction, and then have the text of the section itself moved to a subpage. I'm not sure it's necessary to go into polltop and pollbottom, etc. on the main page here. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that section is still pretty wordy and involved. I'll have another go at improving that in the next day or two, and then, if there are no objections by then, switch to the new format for a trial period.

I don't think the burden on contesting editors is all that great, especially since we are normally the contesting editors. I'll start moving objections to the relevant talk pages; we can always abandon the practice if it becomes undesirable. --Stemonitis 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

processes

Discussion, and, perhaps, some argument and recriminations between GTBacchus and me, over at Talk:Union Jack have led me to wonder rather strongly about the current state of the process of moving articles. The current standard way of starting a move "discussion" rather strongly resembles a vote - people sign their name next to bullet points and briefly state why they support or oppose a particular move. Sometimes, in more complicated situations, more complicated discussions arise, but the vast majority of "move discussions" seem more or less to be "move votes". My understanding was always that this is more or less the case - one does a proposed move in instances where one is uncertain if there is consensus for a move, and that a move only takes place when there's a supermajority for it. At the same time, GTBacchus has indicated at the linked page that his interpretation of this (and I suppose he ought to get some deference on what is intended by it, since he apparently wrote it) is that, rather, the "move discussion" is not anything like a vote, and that competent administrators (apparently, I'm not really sure) who close the debate get to make judgments, on their own authority, of the "quality" as well as the "quantity" of opposing arguments, and to decide what happens.

I'm going to say straight out that I don't see how this can possibly be a workable position for how this should work. The result becomes completely opaque. Obviously, in cases where everyone agrees to a move, the move should go forward. When nobody accept the proposer likes it, it should not. But in other cases, I don't see how we can get beyond some kind of numeric or voting based way of deciding whether a move has been agreed upon. Different people can and do disagree on the "quality" of arguments presented by each side. As far as I can tell, the current system basically means that people like GTBacchus, who closely follow move debates, get to basically decide if a move goes through or not, regardless of what is actually stated in the move debate. I am sure that GTBacchus, et al, are conscientious in their decisions, and try to apply some uniform standards when deciding what way to close a move debate, but really, as it stands the whole process is entirely abstruse. You propose a move, people weigh in on whether they think it's a good idea, and then some self-appointed third party comes in and decides for themselves who has won the argument. I would suggest alternative moves in two directions: firstly, considerably more encouragement of people to simply move articles without need for an involved voting process; and secondly, a greater acknowledgement that when the voting process is used, it is indeed a vote. The kind of pseudo-vote system we have now is as bureaucratic as any voting system, and as arbitrary as any unilateral move would be. john k 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an important point, and deserving of a response. You are right that most move requests are effectively votes. If the supporters of the move significantly outnumber the opponents, then the move will be effected. That said, I do feel it is important that move requests are not rigidly cast as votes, which is the intention of the present system. In the case of Union Jack, I would have made the same decision as GTBacchus, had I got round to closing the discussion (I had considered it repeatedly, but was too lazy to act). The numbers were pretty even for and against but, critically, the reasons for not moving were only that "Union Flag" is the correct term, whereas the reasons for moving were that "Union Jack" is the more commonly used term (ambiguity being present on both names). The purpose of the administrator is to weigh up the value of each argument and compare it with established polcies and practices. WP:NC(CN) is a fundamental tenet of naming, while academic correctness is not. Thus, GTBacchus was right to afford more weight to the argument about common names. More generally, casting move requests as simple votes would allow POV-pushers to wreak havoc. Any contentious issue would become a battle of which side could drum up the greatest number of votes. The administrator's role is not to decide the outcome per se, but to assess the policy compliance (and thus consensus, since policies and guidelines are formed by consensus) of different titles. I could imagine a reform to the system whereby rather than giving an explicit "support" or "oppose", contributors listed policies and guidelines which had some bearing on the case. However, I think this would be seen as further bureaucratisation (instruction creep), and likely to exclude newer users. The discussion header on every move request states "Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight". If you feel this is unclear or could be improved, I think we're all open to suggestions. The system may be prone to opacity, but that should be counteracted by the admin's comments on closing the debate. GTBacchus gave two paragraphs which explained his reasoning in some detail. I'm not sure what more we could ask — it seems perfectly transparent to me, but anything to make it more so is welcome. --Stemonitis 11:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy response. On thinking about it further, I am more comfortable with GTBacchus's decision. I will certainly agree that turning move requests into "simple votes" would be bad, and would encourage POV pushing. On the other hand, I still feel that the action was somewhat problematic. What if the vote had been four in favor of the move and six opposed, but with more or less the same arguments presented? Or what if it had been two in favor and eight opposed? Would the discretion of the closing admin still allow him or her to make the decision in favor of the move on the basis of quality of argument/policy compliance? A couple of points that make me pause. Firstly, the idea that the administrator has a special role in this strikes me as wrong. In my view, the only special role of an administrator in page moves is to delete redirect pages to allow the move to take place. In cases where there is no redirect page, there's no need for an administrator to be involved at all. The administrator is a functionary, who should only carry out a move when there is some kind of consensus to do so among interested parties who have discussed it on the talk page. Your attitude, and GTBacchus's, so far as I can gather, appears to be that the Administrator essentially acts as a judge (and perhaps also a jury). The administrator looks at the arguments presented, and determines which ones comply more closely with policy, in much the same way that a judge would look at lawyers' opposing cases and decide what the law is. There also appears to be some sense that the administrator is a finder of fact (i.e., a jury) - based on what the advocates and opponents of a move present as evidence, the administrator can way what is or is not the most common name. IF the Plaintiff have proved by the preponderance of the evidence that the proposed new name is the most common name, and IF there are no countervailing policies to suggest another name, as determined by an administrator, THEN the move goes forward. I think this is a dangerous way to view the administrator's role. Administrators are around to grease the wheels and see that things go smoothly, to deal with vandalism, and to enforce basic wikipedia policies like civility. It is not their role, as admins, to enforce naming guidelines. Naming issues ought to be decided by users as a whole. So I guess that's my issue with it. It raises admins to a special level in judging content which I don't think they are meant to have. john k 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves is not policy. It does not adhere to the polling guidelines at all. It is a somewhat strange artifact. --Kim Bruning 18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The "requested moves" process and page are part of "common practice", so by your definition, doesn't that make them part of "policy" whether there is a policy tag or not? As for the process itself, it is necessary to have some mechanism to decide page-naming disputes in order to avoid move-wars, which are very disruptive. I think most people view RFM (or whatever the correct acronym is) as being on a par with XfD (which I think you don't like either), so it does not really have to comply with the "polling guidelines." 6SJ7 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a practice that is encouraged by some, and discouraged by others. The status of this page is roughly similar to the snowball clause. In the past, it has been very hard to keep this page synchronised with guidelines posted elsewhere, as well as common practice at the time, and even with known procedures from the mediawiki manual! This is mostly due to ownership issues. Many people just gave up and mostly ignore this page. I know I do.

>99% of moves don't need to go through this page anyway. The <1% remaining can also be requested per IRC or AN or other fora.

--Kim Bruning 15:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Many decisions need input from the wider community either to establish consensus or to determine primary usage, or for some other reason, and therefore the move requests need to be advertised somewhere central for all users to see. It is not enough to broadcast the information to a forum specifically for administrators, nor to an IRC channel that very few users follow. The openness here encourages people to join in, and prevents claims of cabalism and the like. If all articles were covered by a WikiProject, then moves could be advertised there instead, but until that's the case (which will probably never be), another location is needed: here. Consensus is a core policy, and WP:RM is an expression of consensus-building (at least, ideally). I cannot see any justification for saying "Requested moves is not policy"; it is not a part of any policy, but it certainly does not go against policy. --Stemonitis 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with a page where moves are advertised and admins can go to see where they are needed to move pages where there has been a consensus to move. Beyond that, though, I'm going to reassert that my main problem has to do with the idea that admins who watch this page are somehow granted special prerogative to judge the quality of arguments in move debates, and to decide what to do. john k 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on page moves do not affect the wider community, so wider community input is overkill at best.

Once a decision has been made by one or more editors working on a page, they can push a button, and presto, it moves. In the rare situation where a page move would overwrite history, you ask an admin to do the move. IRC and the Admins noticeboard (or just some admins talk page) are quite sufficient for this.

The only change caused by a page move is to one (or at most 2) pages. This kind of change exactly requires input from the editors working on the page. This kind of change does not require more input. Less input may be insufficient. Other modes of input may well subvert consensus.

--Kim Bruning 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you any suggestions? --Stemonitis 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is mostly redundant. It would be sufficient to have a page requesting admin assistance, with the requirement that consensus for the move must be obvious/shown. (note, consensus is not some vote!) --Kim Bruning 17:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ps. Requested Moves in fact does violate guidelines on polling, at the very least. It certainly violates the rule of thumb about no binding votes in the main namespace.

I agree with Stemonitis and John k, and I do not believe that other alternatives can completely replace the function of this page. Kim, my suggestion is that if you do not find this page useful, don't use it, and leave everybody else alone. 6SJ7 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which functions of this page do not have alternatives? --Kim Bruning 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether there are alternatives, but whether those alternatives would be an improvement. --Stemonitis 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much which would not be an improvement. In fact, if your statements above are true and RM is treated as a straight vote, it violates our guidelines outright. Again, could you please indicate which items on this page do not have alternatives? Thank you. --Kim Bruning 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I say, I do not doubt that there are alternatives, but with no details forthcoming, it is impossible to gauge whether or not they might be an improvement. If you have no suggestions to make, then this is no longer the place for this discussion. --Stemonitis 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I'd already mentioned them. To recap: There's a button in your standard user interface, thoughtfully provided to perform this function with a click of the mouse. Like any button, it is sometimes wise to accompany the use of the button with good edit summaries and discussion on the talk page upfront, so as to be sure you have consensus. If the button doesn't work for some reason, call for a passing admin to help. They can always make it work.

I think that covers 100% of the practical situations. Are there any that I've missed? If so, please explain. --Kim Bruning 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a largely sensible position to me. john k 04:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very many pages are not watched by anyone, or are only watched by a very small number of people. Any moves suggested there will be hidden from almost everyone. Many move discussions need wider input. There are also problems with proponents of move determining consensus; I have seen debates where each side considered that their view was the consensus view. An impartial outsider helps to solve that. Finally, one of the primary purposes of this page is to help. Deleting it outright, or replacing it with a notice that users should look elsewhere is to slam the door in their face. We already suggest several alternatives in the instructions which editors might use to achieve the same ends. We already encourage them to make uncontroversial moves on their own; we already suggest they seek administrator assistance to delete obstructive redirects. We already do all of this, and still people come here with requests. That demonstrates better than any rhetoric that the page fulfils some purpose. If you don't like it, then don't use it. If you want it to be got rid of, then take it to miscellany for deletion, and see what the consensus is there (if any). We are writing an encyclopaedia. This is a tool that has been made available. People use it. Why deny them that? Why not keep all options open? --Stemonitis 07:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an important admin function with RM is as an outside, mediating view. Think about the contentiousness of the Highway naming, TV shows and the US City, State conventions and what kind of chaos would erupt if editors could drum some "faux consensus" of a couple of their friends and run rampage through dozens of pages. The procedure of RM and the admin "maintenance" of this page at least encourages more discussion centered on policy, guidelines and naming conventions while trying to get as broad of a sense of consensus as can be. Is it perfect? Of course not but I would say the bigger problem is when there is not enough awareness of pertinent page moves that affect naming convention or when admins do view it as a straight vote count and avoid considering policy and conventions. To that regard, I think it maybe worthwhile to consider some sort of page move review system a little similar to the Good Article Review where editors who think a move was done improperly can get outside opinions by those who were not involved in the original discussion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This may or may not all be true, but doesn't answer the question. Is there any function of this page that is not redundant with the mediawiki UI (with the occaisional nudge by an admin) ? --Kim Bruning 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim, how do you suggest that Wikipedia deal with a situation where there is a heated dispute over what an article's title should be -- with both sides claiming the "other" title would be POV, disagreement about which title (if any) has "consensus", and perhaps also a move war in progress? And as for a "nudge" from an admin, let's say there are already admins involved on both sides of the dispute. For an example of where such a situation was worked out by resort to WP:RPM (not to everyone's satisfaction, of course), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid/Archive2, and if further context is desired, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid/Archived_discussion_up_to_June_23%2C_2006 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid/Archive3. (If these pages seem to be out of chronological order, that is just the way they were archived.) I have mentioned this example to you in the past (in general discussions of consensus and polling, not necessarily a page-move poll), and you asked me whether mediation had been attempted. Both informal and formal mediation was attempted, but without getting into a whole discussion of what occurred (which filled up page after page of talk and ended up in arbitration), let's just say it didn't work. The point is, this process ended up resolving some aspect of this overall dispute, and despite some efforts to change the article title back to where it was, the result of this process has stuck, so far. I do not see how there could have been any better result without this process. 6SJ7 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)If you're going to limit these kinds of pages to only things that the UI can't do, then couldn't the same be said of all the discussion/deletion/request pages (WP:MERGE, WP:XFD, WP:RFA, etc.)? Beyond a centralized location to list the discussions, none of these pages provide anything that couldn't be done using talk pages. WP:AFD could be conducted on an article's talk page and then once the discussion is over, a speedy delete template could be added to the article, or someone could turn it into a redirect to another article, etc. An RFA could be conducted on the User's talk page, once someone decides the discussion is over, a request could be submitted to a bureaucrat to bless the decision, etc. All in all, the biggest advantage that this page provides over what is already included in the UI is the exact same thing that is provided in all of the other discussion/deletion/request pages, a centralized location that users can go to get the input of the community. --Bobblehead 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• If I may chime in here, I tend to agree with Kim that there's no real need for bureaucracy here. There is a need for a "request an admin to move the page", but other than that the issues covered here are better covered on the article talk page, or in case of heated disagreement, with an article RFC. People do respond to those, a lot. >Radiant< 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• The uncontroversial proposals section is apparently what Kim Bruning wants this page to be limited to, a section where admins just push the button. However, if someone lists a page for "uncontroversial" retitling by an admin, the admin should still make some sort of judgment as to whether it is a reasonable proposal. This is precisely the same thing the admin is doing in gauging consensus on "other proposals" here. The listings here are a harlmess list of links to article talk pages where people present third opinions. Not every move request is listed here, but the ones that are can be helped out by third parties and dealt with promptly by an admin if consensus for a move is apparent. It's much like an article RfC, sure, but it's useful to gather together discussions of one particular type in a central area (does anyone want AfDs dealt with in a decentralized fashion?). These admin moves are no more "binding decisions in the main namespace" than anything else; they judge consensus with the implicit understanding that consensus can change. Dekimasuよ! 13:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well obviously an admin is not going to click 'move' blindly just because it was suggested here; I'm sure nobody was thinking that? The point is that, unlike article RFC, this process is needlessly formalized and bureaucratic. >Radiant< 13:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We are working to reduce the bureaucracy and would welcome specific suggestions. --Stemonitis 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And I think you would also want to welcome facts to support any change and not just opinions such as "needlessly formalized and bureacratic." What is "needed" or "needless" is highly subjective. 6SJ7 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

The imput of users & administrators familiar with move request procedures will be much appreciated at the administrators' noticeboard. See:

• Requested move to Shatt al-Arab
• At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?

Thanks already. - Best regards, Ev 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)