Wikipedia talk:Binding content discussions

The movement of this page

I have moved this page back to it's original title per WP:BRD as I feel that this is the proper title for this proposal. Feel free to state your arguments for moving before moving again. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 03:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How will "binding content discussions" be different from the binding RfCs (or anything else for that matter that requires no change in content for a period of time) that you propose?Curb Chain (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for the future

Just a thought. This proposal might be more acceptable if it was limited to disputes over article titles. Unlike the rest of the content in an article, there is only one article title no matter how many redirects there are. In most other parts of an article is is possible to finesse disagreements and work towards consensus. Titling disputes often come down to two choices with good justifications for each. That is the situation this proposal was created to address. Extending the proposal to cover general content disputes complicates it vastly. Keep it simple. Perhaps it could be rebranded as "binding page moves"? Will Beback talk 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and perhaps an unbinding variant, but with the same structure, could be used between mediation and before arbitration. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I appreciate that there must be some consistency in Wikipedia, but when all is said and done, we are a community of volunteers, and give our time freely. Entire projects are being harassed by the MoS warriors, and contributors driven away from Wikipedia by the capitals-endash-hyphen fanatics (behaviour which has been referred to Arbcom). This seems yet another half-hidden attempt to make Wikipedia less friendly and more dictatorial. Pay me, and I'll do as I'm told. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has ways where the community votes to impose binding solutions such as community bans which works similarly to Steven and I's proposal on binding content discussions. It is nearly impossible to abuse this process as it will work similarly to the already successful dispute resolution noticeboard. I look forward to your comments and response. Whenaxis talk · contribs 14:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that there have to be some rules, but in the bird project, we have a capitalisation policy accepted by every member of the project (itself unusual given the difficulty of getting consensus on anything in Wikipedia. That policy also follows the practice of the organisation agreed by the project as our standard for common names, and is applied to over 10,000 project articles, all of which have at least one reference. Nevertheless, there are people who see any deviation from what they want as heresy, produce walls of text, amass pages (subpages of course, less obvious) of "evidence", go to Arbcom as "uninvolved" witnesses, and all the rest of the nastiness. Already, one active participant has left the project, and another is only sticking to avoid giving satisfaction to the capfascists. This just seems to be another attempt to force UNPAID VOLUNTEERS to follow some god-given orthodoxy through another route. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that there is some issues with MoS in orinthology because we have had a lot of requests go through the dispute resolution process. I thank you for your comments; Steven and I will discuss these problems that you have brought up. Best, Whenaxis talk · contribs 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the opposite side of the Great Bird War from Jimfbleak, but I don't understand the purpose of this proposal (?) either. RMs are "binding," as are RfCs, generally. Would BCDs be something stronger, anything like the Arbcom's treatment of Ireland naming issues? And this is all hypothetical, right? --BDD (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading name (ironically)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This proposal was kicked around for more than a year. It was created by User:Steven Zhang in December 2011, and at that time it was intended for disputes generally, not just article titles. For part of the time it was at the present title, and for part of the time it was called Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. An RFC that was found to be binding would presumably be intended to do more than decide article titles. The idea of renaming this page would better be addressed to the original supporters. They no longer seem to be following it up. If this proposal is ever revived, a rename might be considered. If any of the original proponents see this discussion, please come to the talk page and offer your ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note by move closer: For the most recent mention of this (defunct) proposal see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Talk page violation in March 2014. It was referred to there as WP:BCD per this edit by User:TransporterMan. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Binding content discussions → Wikipedia:Binding article title discussions – Contradicts it's own wording: "Binding content discussions are for content naming disputes about the title of the article, not about the information or content within the article itself." Even if it isn't revived as a proposal, it's surely "bound" for moving to Wikipedia:Binding article title discussions, since by it's own wording it is explicitly not about article content. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? Mark it historical, and it won't matter very much what we call it. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.