Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Footnote regarding the correct implementation of approval voting

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)

Of course the footnote is necessary, while preventing people to try and steer votes like you did on Talk:William of Orange. No offense intended, I can perfectly see this happened in good faith. Why I'm nonetheless defending correct application of the procedure as it was fixed after long, and not always easy, debate above, is that a wishy-washy application of the procedure will probably (as usual) not be able to come nearer to a solution accepted by many parties over a longer period of time. And is that not what we want most? Or is this really about trying to prove right whatever the cost? I'd really think sorry you'd lose your taste for wikipedia over that in the end, while, indeed, I'd think that the consequence of not trying to solve issues by a consensus type of approach. --Francis Schonken 12:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Polling for requested page move

See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3#What form should the discussion on the talk page take for the previous discussion on this issue.
Kim Bruning edited WP:RM removing the votes line in the "Create a place for discussion" on the talk page[1] so leaving only one section.I presume under the noble wikipedia idea meta:Don't vote on everything. With only a discussion section recommended one of the first controversial pages formatted this way became confusing. See the history of Talk:William I, Prince of Orange Philip Baird Shearer

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)

In my opinion, Support-Oppose is a good guideline, rather than looser guidelines. But the wording could be changed, e.g "vote -> opinion". I'll make such example (and if you are dissatisfied, you of course reverse). 217.140.193.123 16:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

==Requested move==

The reasons for move copied from the entry on the [[WP:RM]] page
===Polling===
:''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an explanation of your opinion, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''

===Discussion===
:''Add any additional comments''

Almost agree, I changed it above for you. The explanation must not be optional, and preferably should actually be longer than one sentence. :-) Kim Bruning 16:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

When we moved from having the votes on the WP:RM page to the talk page as you will see from the archive, I originally proposed a more proscriptive solution but the opinion at the time was that was too much meta:instruction creep. The format we have been using for about 9 months seems to have worked well in the vast majority of cases. Particluarly since the agreement to count the proposer as a vote in favour of the change and a 60% threshold (see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3#consensus), so no votes 100% consensus in favour of the move, one oppose 50/50 no consensus, One support and one oppose 2/3 so consensus to move.

The recent change which 217.140.193.123 are IMHO better but I am going to remove the header "===Polling===". The other header "===Cast votes===" had snuck in without me noticing when I cut and pasted back what I thought was the original. Having a header between the proposer and an "opinion/poll" section could re-open the argument that "No one has voted in the poll section for the change, so no change should take place". This would be a pity because many page moves do not attract many votes and keeping it simple has worked well for those moves over the last few months. The idea behind what was as a compromise, to keep instruction creep to a minimum, while making sure that an administrator can easily work out what the result is without opening up a can of worms. (see Talk:Nagasaki which sparked the #consensus section mentioned above). Philip Baird Shearer 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I had an edit clash so I will also answer the last comment by kim Bruning. Yes the comment should be optional and yes it should only be one sentence long. Take a look at a vote like Talk:Zürich#Move (Zürich -> Zurich) and compare that with Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#WP:RM discussion to see why. Philip Baird Shearer 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The subtitle "polling" (or, earlier, "cast votes") should be kept, since it helps the actual editing process. With it, a voter (an "opinionator") needs not take the whole length into the edit window, when writing the vote. The size of edit window is important to many, with lesser net capacity. You have seen that the discussion portion could be somewhat full and long in certain cases. 217.140.193.123 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We should make a convention to admins that the proposer is counted as supporter (if not explicitly stated otherwise - there are submissions where the original proposer has forgotten to list it, but an opponent or a bystander desires to have a conclusion to a "tagging"). When closing admins know it, it should not be a problem - besides, in difficult cases, proposers themselves also seem often to register a separate vote, just to be sure. 217.140.193.123 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of trying to limit the main explanation - there are always people who write an "Agatha Christie" novel to give their reasons and much more else. It would be good to have main explanation of a couple of sentences, and all the else in commentaries-section. Perhaps it would be good to require at least one sentence, on the other hand. 217.140.193.123 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No the sentence should remain be optional (we don't want an arguments over "That vote does not count because you did not comment"). Fair point about the block edit. However I would suggest that it could be retrofitted (like proposals are) if the discussion starts to get large. But if we have a second header as you suggest, then we ought to have a section on WP:RM explaining that in a simple vote (only 2 options) the proposal counts as a vote. Perhaps we should have that section in the article anyway and formalise the talk page. Philip Baird Shearer 18:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the polling section myself; I think polling should only happen when discussion is just going around in circles so much you can't gauge consensus by it, and that "support" and "oippose" is useless without explanation. I don't want to read novels for each opinion, myself, but better a novel than nothing at all. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To be honest it takes long enough to sort these requests, and to have to wade through vast discussions takes even longer. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

60%

See Archive 4#consensus for how the number came to be included in the WP:RM page. Philip Baird Shearer

The "rough consensus (60%)" comment is laughably incorrect. I only hope that no-one is applying it. It's such an amazingly vile violation of policy that I'm surprised that I'd not noticed it before, but then I suppose I can't go around expecting people to actually understand policy and word things correctly. :-(--Peter Isotalo 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

James F. (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to really start the discussion now, though I do hope to come back this. However, in the mean time, would you care to list which "policies" it is a violation of? The community has long resisted defining consensus. The closest we have is the "guideline" at Wikipedia:Consensus, which says (among other things) that 66% is the typical minimum threshold for consensus in VFD. Dragons flight 14:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Which policy? Wikipedia:No original research states "Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are "Wikipedia:Neutral point" of view and "Wikipedia:Verifiability".
See the archive above but the reason for the 60% was to help administrators with a simple rule for all moves so that people could not quibble over what a "rough consensus" is. It was set at 60% because that number works well when there are only a few people (<6), expressing an opinion. Some in the previous discussion (including my self) would have liked a higher %age for larger votes but it was agreed to stick with one %age to keep the instruction creep to a minimum. I still agree with the argument presented by user:Jonathunder during the last discussion:
"Moving a page is not nearly as "big a deal" as setting policy, deleting a page, or promoting an admin - things that do require "rough consensus". Even though the title is the most visible part of the page, changing it isn't much different from changing content - something anyone can do. In fact, most of the time, any logged in user who's not completely new can just move a page. So I don't think we need to require a high threshold for moving pages listed here."
and I agued that "on pages like Zürich to Zurich the WP:RM serves another purpose and I think simple majority voting would not serve the wikipedia community as well consensus voting does by putting those types of debates to bed for a few months."--Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the conclusion to set a 60% figure for consensus in order to minimize instruction creep is a complete non-sequitur. It's the setting of the figure in the first place that's instruction creep. The problem is that admins are expected to be arbitrators of conflicts that don't even approach consensus that's the problem. If people can't agree on a certain course of action, then no decision should be made in the first place.
Peter Isotalo 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

too complicated polling tools

Please see what sort of voting table has been introduced into use at Talk:William I, Prince of Orange. I am quite certain that it is not from here, as RM page proposes much simpler things. I have understood that "instruction creepism" has been deemed bad by you, and you have desired to keep pollings simple. Particularly wrt what participants need to do in order to participate in the polling.

That table itself seems a too complicated thing to me. It presumably drives from taking part in discussion to mechanical voting. (Actually, several Dutch voters in the table have not uttered anything to the discussion, so their reasons remain unclear and are not helpful to build any sort of consensus).

Complications are a bad thing. What next: is someone entitled to demand that participants stood on their heads in order to be eligible to participate in a poll?

I cannot avoid an impression that someone has too much technical interests (perhaps too little interest in actual substance contents), has built an elaborate table, and that results in all others being forced to be guinea pigs to use that tool. I do not oppose if someone wants to maintain an extra table to show polling situation, but tob demand participants themselves to use such goes too far. Arrigo 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The WP:RM request for that page was done by user:Francis Schonken while a change in the WP:RM guidelines was in place for a day or so (see above: #Polling for requested page move) when the new format made it difficult to see who was supporting what, Francis introduced his own polling table. Since the WP:RM page guidlines reverted back to the previouse guidlines, something made possible to do with little argument thanks to the mess on Talk:William I, Prince of Orange page, Francis has continued to use the guidlines as layed out eg the more recent Talk:William I of England. Philip Baird Shearer 16:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

History description

Nitpicking alert: I note that the description of moves in the page history has changed from "PageName moved to NewPageName" to "PageName has been moved to NewPageName." Is this an improvement? I think it reads worse - the previous version was more grammatically neutral, so it made equal sense when viewed in user contributions, recent changes, and page histories; also, the full stop at the end is just wrong. It's in MediaWiki:1movedto2 if anyone feels like looking at it. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted it. violet/riga (t) 19:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Sweet. sjorford #£@%&$?! 20:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible clarification of instructions?

I misunderstood part of the instructions under "copying the following is suggested". Instead of putting this text in:

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

I did what it said: that is, I added Support, and signed my vote. SoM kindly informed me that you can't vote for your own move request, which I suppose makes sense; only, it doesn't say that anywhere in the instructions. Perhaps someone could reword the instructions slightly so that other folks don't make the mistake I did? —Josiah Rowe 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just template the thing, with instructions to type {{subst:Reqmove|Reasons for moving - ~~~~}} with a couple of variants for multiple page moves or a move with multiple options? - SoM 18:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

lots of confusion over redirect policies

Dear Wikipedians: Please note, that a similar question arose for NBC, as arose for Public Broadcasting Service. At NBC, it was suggested that it be moved to National Broadcasting Company. At Public Broadcasting Service, it was suggested that it be moved to PBS. IN EACH CASE, THE SAME JUSTIFICATION WAS GIVEN FOR COMPLETELY OPPOSITE DECISION. Namely, with PBS, because "Public Broadcasting Service" is "clearly predominant", that most people "know what it stands for", this is used as justification that it STAY at Public Broadcasting Service, and that PBS redirect to the full name. Yet, at the discussion at NBC, the article title "NBC" is kept because "about 99,999 people out of 100,000 will be looking for the National Broadcasting Company, not the Newfoundland Barbering Commission or the National Bowling Congress.", and "it will be the name most people are likely looking for". I believe this is evidence of one of 2 things:

  • The redirect and renaming policies are unclear or confusing.
  • The policies are clear, but people ignore them and just invoke them to support whatever they think is best.

Which is it? Revolver 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

How are noncontroversial moves made?

I'm sorry, but Wik is still a horrible chaos for normal users. I have been unable to find any-thing on normal moves (Wikipedia:moves gets re-directed hither). This article should have a link (Wik articles are usually way overloaded with links) to a straight-forward explanation of how noncontroversial moves are made. Kdammers 04:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Normal moves are made using the [Move] tab at the top of every page, between the [History] tab and the [Watch] (or [Unwatch]) tab. Guettarda 04:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 05:03, 25 September 2005
Probably the instructions at the top of this page ought to mention this; I'll add it (and a link to Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page) if they don't already. (I know, I know, "Instruction creep", but if we're getting questions...) Noel (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Repairing cut-and-paste moves

I've gotten a number of requests recently to help repair cut-and-paste moves, something I have some experience with. Since cut-and-paste moves (a big no-no, they separate the Wikipedia:Page history from the content, which we want to avoid for copyright reasons) seems to be something that happens a fair amount, I'm going to try and rejuventate the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen to deal with them; I have signed up on Wikipedia:Cleaning department to maintain it. I'm going to add a brief note to WP:RM mentioning it; hope that's OK. Noel (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Backlog

I did my best to delete those requests from the list which had already been fulfilled, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that there's still a backlog of moves to be done. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Backlog redux

There's still a horrendous backlog here. Can I propose a couple of mechanisms that might help cut it down?

  1. Make improper formulation of a request (current examples: Bast and Styria, Slovenia, which are lacking the talk-page boilerplate) grounds for flagging {notmoved} after a week or so (combined with a polite note on the talk page inviting its correct relisting).
  2. Place the onus on fixing "what links here" redirects, etc. on the person proposing the move, rather than on the poor overworked admin who makes the move. There are a couple of current listings with clear consensuses in favour, but a daunting amount of incoming links and redirects. Plus, the requester should be better acquainted with the subject matter and better qualified to make correct decisions on what goes where.

Comments? –Hajor 02:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep - I made a template for #1 - {{Notmovedmalformed}} which produces:

Consensus could not be determined in this requested move because the proper procedure for listing was not followed. If there is still a desire for the page to be moved, please request a move again using the procedure outlined at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. ~~~~

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

About #2 - I added a bit about that. It may be a bit too much though... remove it if it is :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting is not consensus building

I question the current recommendations of this page. The idea that approval voting is a good way to build consensus is completely flawed, especially when it's set at a measly 60%. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

I also question the status of this page as anything other than a user tool and a way to contact admins to help move articles that can't be moved by normal users. This page is not an arbitrator of official policy, does not hold sway over consensus achieved in pages such as WikiProjects and especially not if it works by the idea that majority decisions can decide article titles on Wikipedia.

Peter Isotalo 22:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

So... what do you propose? There are plenty of complaints already, and meanwhile the backlog keeps growing :\. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

A page is blocked from being moved a person proposes a move. Two others express an opinion. One for one against. You are the administrator after five days do you move it or not?

Next day a page is blocked from being moved a person proposes a move. Two others express an opinion. Both disagree with the move. You are the administrator after five days do you move it or not?

This is a decision that the overworked administrators who look at this page have to make all the time. The 60% or more rule is simple to follow and reduces conflict for the adminstrators by giving them some protection from them being accused of acting in an abitary manner. See the history of the WP:RM talk pages for examples. It also makes WP:RM moves sticky in that a 20% change in the rough consensus has to take place before a new WP:RM request can overturn a previous one.

Peter also look at the bottom of the WP:RM page. WP:RM activly suggests informing WikiProjects of page moves which effect pages in their domain to try to stop WP:RM being used as an underhand way to get around project guidelines. If you think that a particular WikiProject is missing which you think should be added to the list then why not add it? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If an administrator is unsure whether there is consensus or not, and all the appropriate guidelines have been weighed in, the answer is very self-evident; don't move the page. This is the standard practice in all other similar situations concerning article content or article status. The solution is not to set unacceptably low standards for what consensus actually is.
I've made amendments to the guidelines that actually follow the recommendations of Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote and hard policies such as WP:NOT. If you look at the rewording, you'll notice that the idea that people should give proper time for discussion and consensus to build up would discourage the current system of first plopping a full-fledged vote on unsuspeciting talkpages (with a horrendously low percentage for approval). If people don't make proper attempts to discuss before requesting moves, I think admins should simply remove the request (and any attempts of voting) until this is actually done. Just demand that people actually take time to ask around, start discussions and check the proper guidelines and policies before dumping the request here to simmer Admins should not be forced to make the kind of decisions they're currently making.
I've also removed the 60% figure, because it has no support in the practices of Wikipedia in general and has nothing to do with genuine consensus building. If people demand set percentages, then they should be informed that this is not the place to enforce such standards. And, btw, I don't think that individual WikiProjects should be linked to. There's just way too many of them.
Peter Isotalo 13:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

guidence requested

OK - I took care of quite a few days, but I ran into some distintly difficult cases:

  1. There was no notice/template on the talk page but there was in entry here. In this case I turned down the request
    did you leave a comment explaining why?
    • There was another one like the above only this time with more approval on talk page - in this case I moved
    Yep I guess.
  2. Another one where there was notification on the talk page, but the only comment/vote was from an anon not to move. In this case I didn't move it.
    I think you should have moved it. But as the administrator who delt with it I support your decision.
  3. One where an anon nominated but a logged in user with a comment from several months ago disagreed
    I would not have moved it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of the above has drawn strong complaints. What would you do :)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For the first one I made the template outlined above (but on the requests in question just gave an explanation). Thanks a million for your thoughts/opinions! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

ch-ch-changes

How big should the introduction be

See previous debates on this talk page about this. I am in favour of keeping the introduction as short a possible otherwise the trees get lost in the wood. Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, on AfD they move stuff to subpage. Maybe we could have something like Wikipedia:Guide to Requested moves if it gets too big? Otherwise I agree of course.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Previously the introduction become bloated over time with instruction creep. compare: 13 November 2004 with 1 January 2004 with 27 February 2005 and this comment Talk Archive 3:Table of contents. So the previous consensus was to keep the introduction brief and move the detailed instructions into sections lower down the page. Philip Baird Shearer 15:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

On of the edit today replaced this text

It is requested that users follow the three-step process outlined in #Instructions when requesting a move, as moves that do not follow this may not be acted upon.

with

If you've reached consensus and want to request a move, follow the three-step process outlined in

A literal reading of this new text would be that a WP:RM could only be made if a consensus had been reached on the talk page.

This sentence:

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page.

with

If there is no clear consensus the use of straw polls is encouraged for page moves requested on this page.

what is a clear consensus? How does one determine if there is a clear consensus. If one person objects is there a clear consensus or just a rough consensus? What about two people is there no longer a clear consensus? What are the rules for a straw poll? After all it is being argued that a straw poll should only be held if there is no clear consensus so it is likely to be contentious.

This sentence:

Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally at least 60% as determined by an administrator) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved...

with:

Requested moves may be implemented if there is consensus supporting the moving of an article after 5 days on the talk page of the article to be moved...

Again what is a consensus?

The new wording was less concise and would lead to conflict over interpretation. which is why I reinstalled the original wording. The current wording has been thrashed out over months with two briefs in mind: to lay out a set of unambiguous guidelines, but to keep them as brief as possible. For example the 60% rule works really well when a page involves up to half a dozen participants. Perhaps with more participants it would be desirable to use a bigger percentage, but to describe a movable percentage just leads to bloat in the instructions, choosing the bands is arbitrary, and althought it is set at a minumum of 60% this is only to move a page, it is not the same as deleteing one, or voting for a new admin.

KEEP IT SIMPLE is probably the best guide to these instructions. If there is only a simple move not move then approval voting is not relevant, but it is simpler to leave the sentence about approval voting without a qualification explaining this because an approval vote with only two options acts just like a first past the post system so the sentence does not need a qualification to remain correct in its meaning. Philip Baird Shearer 21:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, what "rules"? Wikipedia has no rules. Please stop asking about them.
Now, my version was barely bigger than what you're suggesting right now, except that you're demanding that a decision be made that "consensus" is pretty much the same as "60% majority", which shows that you've not understood how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The solution to back log problems is telling people to work things out with their peers, not to encourage them to ask for admin arbitration almost immidiately.
Have you thought about how many users reverted on this page today, by the way? It's very interesting that you're only interested in demanding consensus when it comes to redifing the rules that you personally support. Whether or not they go against very basic principles of Wikipedia seems to matter a lot less to you. I don't see how this is any different from all the times you've rules lawyered any number of subordinate or trivial guidelines.
Peter Isotalo 23:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Should Current notices be in a sub page

I am of a mind that they should remain on this page otherwise this page does not get monitored like it should and probably does not get read. It has the effect of removing the instructions form the action. Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I was going for an AfD-style layout. Someone suggested a subpage for content too on WP:AN. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 14:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that AFD has anything to reccomend it. Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, the AfD-style layout isn't bad, but it doesn't seem necessary as long as the backlog doesn't get absolutely overwhelming. I'd prefer to have the requests on the same page until it really starts to get huge.
Philip, I'm not sure this kind of discussion granulating is especially helpful. If you only have a few sentances worth of post, just keep it under one header.
Peter Isotalo 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I did it because they are two distinct issues. I agree with you on keeping the requests on the same page. But do you agree with me that the introduction should be kept short and susinct? (please relply to that in the section above) Philip Baird Shearer 15:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

#History merges

The reason I removed that is because its in the admin instructions... right now it doesn't point to anything. Maybe that part needs to be here someplace (maybe it's not admin-specific?)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I fixed that link to point to the admin page. A little clumsy, but it works. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

consensus building

Hey, what's going on here? Kermosin's changes were quite good, albiet not perfect to the intro, and those seem mostly gone now. In addition, practically every structural change I made has been reverted somewhat quietly too. That's rather disappointing - as this page needs a overhaul. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"somewhat quietly too": From the history of the page are two of my edits "It is difficult to think of a A major change like this should be discussed for a week or so on the Talk page. RFD is not something I think is a good template to follow. and "SLOW down lets talk first" etc was not quietly. I think changes of the type which were made today should be discussed first and a consensus reached before the changes are made. See above #How big should the introduction be and #Should Current notices be in a sub page. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I was mostly talking about Kermosin's changes which has an easy consensus here (i.e. minus the 60%/approval voting stuff). Also, as I've said before you've got "basic" instructions at top and "advanced" instructions along with some stuff that should be at top at the bottom. The instructions should be kept succinct and in one place or moved to a daughter article IMHO. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, for the AfD stuff I was talking about keeping all the actual how-to instructions at the bottom for consistancy like the AfD page does, which makes sense to me. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Little discussion"? There's beens tons of arguments in favor of it. The only problem is that you won't recognize any of them. Right now it seems to be you against both policy and more than one user.
Peter Isotalo 23:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, we just had someone quote the 60% as though it was accepted policy. I'm removing the figure until we have consensus to reinstate it.
Peter Isotalo 13:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a consensus built to put in the figure. This has been discussed before and there was a consesnsus for if (see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 4#consensus). Build a consesnsus to remove it. So far you are the only one who wants to. The only other person to express an opinion about this in the last 24 hours has been RN who has not stated that he approves of the removeal of the 60%. I am going to revert your revertPhilip Baird Shearer 15:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Also I an not happy that having added the text "Such moves ought be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first, particularly where a page move may be controversial. It is best not to begin by announcing a vote and then ask people to discuss the matter. Votes are not a good way of building consensus and should only be used as a last option. Make sure you've given enough time for people to acknowledge your intentions to move before following the steps below." as you are using it to remove WP:RM requests on your say so. If in their judgement a user wishes to place a WP:RM here I do not think you should arbitrarily remove it on your judgement. Nor if the proposer has followed the WP:RM guidelines, do I think you should close a vote until five days have passed without the full consent of the people who are involved in trying to build a rought consensus on the page in question. Philip Baird Shearer 15:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Both I and James F have questioned it and there is no support for it in general Wikipedia policy. The discussion you're refering to consists of about four or five people discussing it and the whole discussion is based on the false assumption that RM is a place to announce votes. I do not recognize this as anything remotely resembling consensus. You can't set up guidelines that policy of the rest of Wikipedia as well as violating the very idea of consensus building and then demand that consensu be built to reverse this decision. If there's consensus for this figure, then you should be able to support it. Until then there should be no figure at all, since that is by far the more neutral.
Peter Isotalo 19:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I have put up a notice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies about the problems involved with this page trying to define "consensus" as being identical to "majority decision".
Peter Isotalo 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you have followed the guidelines on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies before posting there? Philip Baird Shearer 20:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you look at Westminster System#Cabinet government, you will read about a system were there is always a consensus. On Wikipedia it is rare to have a consensus because of the structure of the community. Nearly all consensuses are "rough consensuses". The only question which then is needed is how big need the consensus be for it to be defined as a consensus. Not defining numbers leads to arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a rough consensus and leads to "rough justice" and complaints. I think that for page moves, it is better to define the number so that it is fair on everyone. Ideally all moves should be with a true consensus, but in practice 60% has served the community well for many months. It is not a "majority decision" making, 51% expressing an opinion to move is not accepted, it is a minimum of 60/40, which when there are less than half a dozen expressing an opinion has served WP:RM well. Let me give you a couple of examples and please explain what would you do?

If after five days only the request has been lodged. At the moment this is taken to be 100% in favour of a move ie consensus. In you opinion is there a consensus to move? After all if there was not a lock on the page no consensus is needed to make a move.

If after five days of a request residing on WP:RM and only three people have expressed an opinion two in favour of a move and one against. At the moment that is taken to be a consensus to move. In you opinion is there a consensus to move the page?

In the case of many people expressing an opinion about a move eg Talk:Zürich#Move (Zürich -> Zurich) or Talk:Kolkata/archive2#Straw_poll_on_the_move_of_Calcutta_to_Kolkata one could argue that the thresshold could be higher but in practice 60/40 has worked well for those decisions as well. The people who discussed this previously decided that one size fits all saved having instuction creep. Philip Baird Shearer 20:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The "minimum" part of "60%" is more or less ignore in most polls I've ever seen here. People quote the 60% though it was policy and you aren't really any different. Instruction creep is not avoiding figures, but setting them, and you've sure done that here. Once you have such a ridiculously low figure in print people will take it literally, and you still seem completely immune to any suggestions that people settle matters with discussion amongst themselves rather than demanding that admins come and settle things for them. The problems with your backlogs is that you actually encourage users to first call a vote and then discuss instead of the other way around. I mean, every single policy page about votes on Wikipedia explains it very clearly: votes are not a good way to build consensus. And yet you ignore it and try to circumvent it at every turn. Again, why should I take your requests to respect the minute consensus you've accomplished here seriously if you ignore the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community?
Peter Isotalo 21:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not my consensus, it was a consensus reached by the people who at the time expressed an opinion on the issue on this talk page. For example I thought seven days was better than five for a request to remain on WP:RM but the consensus was that as five was used on VFD then this page should remain on the five day cycle, I was willing to go along with that after my argument for seven was rejected by other people.

I am more than willing to discuss the issue with you and build a new consensus if one is needed, but I think that to change the current guidelines on WP:RM there ought to be a consensus to change it, and, so far, I do not think that there is a consensus. As I find it easier to think through proposition with examples, please explain how would you think the two general examples I gave above should be handled? Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Also earlier today you removed several WP:RMs with the comment that there had not been an attempt to reach a consensus before posting to WP:RM eg [2]. Yet you did not do it for Talk:Air_Asia, have you changed your position on removing pages which have not tried to reach a consensus before making a WP:RM? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes

OK, I've been literally the main maintainer right now, and no other admins are taking part in current discussion - we need you guys! For those who don't know, requested moves is like AfD, only discussion happens on the talk page - its just like AfD where an administrator determines consensus with support/oppose opinions.

OK, well, you're asking for it, so I'm talking. Tonymec

Anyway, at the talk page I have a few proposals:

First off, "consensus" is being set at 60% currently - this has led to many disagreements and revert wars. My proposal is to set consensus the same as AfD - - not only that but not mention it on the front page (the idea is that there should already be consensus in most cases before resorting to WP:RM).

neutral on exact %, agree on "same as AfD", but isn't "3 vs 2" a little low? Tonymec
If you look at the archives, 60% arose out of an agreement that since page names were less important than issues like deletion that we would tolerate 3 vs. 2 votes as sufficient consensus to move (with some admin discretion). Dragons flight
I'd agree if a minimum number of voters are required. Admins are now often extending an AfD if there are less than four votes. - Tεxτurε 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. For esoteric topics that no one cares about you may see a move listed for two weeks and still get only one or two votes. In many cases the reason the move wasn't made without intervention (in the way most moves are) is because the proposed name was a redirect with history that prevented the move. If a move is properly noticed and there is no dissent after a substantial amount of time, it should be moved regardless of the number of participants. I do favor trying to increase the number of voices that show up though. Dragons flight
First I think that AFD is not a template I would recommend to anyone. Whenever I am involved there I come away with a bad taste in my mouth because the customary guidelines which people follow there and those which are documented are different. So for anyone who is not a regular there must often come away feeling that they have been mugged. I would hope that the guidelines here can be more succinct. If you come from a AFD background you are bound to prefer what you know. Please be open minded and consider that other ways may be more suitable for other situations.
  1. Naming a number for a minimum rough consensus reduces conflict it does not exacerbate it. This is particularly in this procedure because unlike AFD there is no unmoved. If we do not have a minimum we will open up a can of worms where people challenge the number and demand a another round of voting to move it back. They will also state that as the move should not have happened that it should be moved back first so that the onus is on the initial move to get whatever the rough consensus is. It is far better to have a specific threshold and not allow another move for six months, because one of the other functionsof WP:RM is to dampan down page move wars. WP:RM has by and large worked well for the last year I do not see the proposed chages enhancing the situation.
  2. The reason 60% was chosen is because it works well with low numbers. (See wikipedia talk:Requested_moves/Archive_4#consensus for an example of the maths.I do not think having different numbers needed to build a consensus is a good idea because it brings instruction creep, with more complexity for not much gain.
  3. Also a consensus is not needed to post a request here at the moment and I do not think it is necessary. Take this example, suppose someone tries to move a page from "A list of British native fish breeds" to "List of British native fish breeds" and the page is blocked because of a redirect. The move failure directs to them to this page. If they think it is within WP:NC guidelines, why should they have to seek a consensus first. Why should an administrator here make that decision? Better to let it be listed in the normal WP:RM way and see if there is a consensus for a move. People also use this page to seek more people to contribute to the consensus; that for some pages, despite this when only one or two bother add a comment shows that, most are not passionate about the page name. Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, setting a number like that does exacerbate conflict because people will start demanding (as you have to me more than one) all pages be moved with 60% regardless of whether they break naming conventions of wikipedia or wikipedia projects, for example. In those cases consensus might be set higher as they break against formal policies. I wouldn't mind if we gave 60% as a general guideline in the administrator section, but putting on the front page gives some people the idea that they are entitled to a page move at 60%. As for (2) 3 vs. 5 is not a move in my book unless there is a seriously evident reason why it should be moved, as I can understand one person "opposing for the heck of it", but the fact that two will in only a small group indicates a problem. As for (3) - when was say "find a consensus before requesting a move" we mean making sure that no one will disagree with you, and if they do, try to take care of it before requesting a move as requested moves should not serve as a babysitter for determining consensus except for rare problem cases. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit header 1

Second, I propose that requests are archived instead of deleted as they currently are. There have been a lot of comments about not being able to tell if a page has been on RM before.

strongly agree. Tonymec
Agree - Tεxτurε 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, the talk page of the article should provide that archive, as it does now. There should be a discussion on that talk page and the person closing the move is expected to record the outcome. Since WP:RM consists typically only of one-line requests with reasons, I see very little reason to archive that. In principle, the reason for the request was supposed to appear verbatim (or close to it) on the article's talk page anyway. Dragons flight
I agree with Dragons flight on this. The talk page acts as an archive. This is doubly true it the page is moved again. How is one supposed to tie in the inital name with the current name if a move has been made without using WP:RM, ie the normal way to move a page? If the change is in the talk page this is not a problem.Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The talk page in a most cases does not act as an archive as people in a lot of cases don't use the third provision of the instructions and often do not write anything on the talk page itself besides the template box, leaving an administrator to try to record the move (although in reality the admin usually doesn't) for the person. Also, looking for a previous requested move in that case means digging through the talk page archives for it which seems silly if they could easily go here and quickly look it up.
No need for this page to be archived as the talk page is the main discussion and has the important content. violet/riga (t) 14:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Third, I propose that instead of the notice sticker being posted on the talk page of the article to be moved, the notice sticker is posted on the article itself - that way people KNOW when a page is proposed to be moved - otherwise they may not know and the page may get moved under their noses!

why not both? Tonymec
Sticker must be on the article itself. Many won't know to look on the talk page. - Tεxτurε 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any real problem with the current system, as most visitors don't need to see an ugly box, and unlike AFD, a page move doesn't eliminate (or even hide) the content. However, in the interest of increasing participation in page move discussions, I won't fight this one. Dragons flight
I also agree with Dragons flight on this the article page is premerily for reader not editors. Keep the notices only on the talk page. Anyone who has it on their watch list will be notified of the change to the talk page.Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually it DOES eliminate content - a redirect, and in some cases it does eliminate an actual page (for example one requested a move over a disambiguation page) and redirects can mean a lot to people, as sometimes the name of an article is almost as important as the content to some people (see the macedonia-related articles for a perfect example). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Meta-data tags belong on talk pages. violet/riga (t) 14:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit header 2

Also, I have a proposal for a new look with new consensus wording at User:RN/RM which mirrors AfD more.

mirroring policies between RM and AfD reduces confusion, so (unless it makes both policies ridiculously unsound) it gets my approval. Tonymec
As I said above I disagree. One could argue the other way and insist that AFD mirrors WP:RM procedures. If you think that is a silly idea why is WP:RM mirroring ADF a good idea? Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Because AfD has better and more widely accepted policies for consensus, archiving etc? We adopt the things of AfD that work here without adopting the ones that don't. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE COMMENT! Right now its basically me and two non-admins, one agreeing with me on the consensus part and another disagreeing and claiming consensus. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Now it'll be you and (at least) three non-admins. :-) - Tonymec 09:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'm completely new to this, to my shame, but I'd like to suggest a couple of things. Firstly, is there a case for a category of speedy moves. As an example, I once created an article called Irish Poetry (very early days for me and I new nothing about page naming conventions), which was quickly moved to Irish poetry. Maybe the idea of moving these without discussion is already current, but should it be formalised?

I've thought having a seperate category for speedy moves would be a good idea in the past. In essence, I would create a place for listing moves that are A) uncontroversial, B) are being made to reflect pre-exsting consensus (usually naming conventions), and C) still require admin intervention for some reason. Presumably we could also use this to fix cut-and-paste moves. The only problem is that sometimes naming conventions (or their application) are also controversial, and so admins need to be careful about this. Dragons flight
I disagee. If the move can be made it can already be made quickly. If it is posted here it can already, at an administrators discression be moved in less than five days. Why hide it away on another page? But if one is moved in less than five days, it often becomes a bone of contention later on. See the current comment on Talk:Ubeda, where it is half seriously suggested that the move was timed to take placed during a Spanish holiday. It is rare that a page needs to be moved in a hurry it is not like a speedy deletion which is probably a better option if the page is new and the page name is NPOV. If the page has been around for a month or two or longer why should it need moving quicker than any other page? Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't mean as a seperate page, I meant as a seperate section, similar to how WP:CFD has a section for speedy renaming categories that have problems for dumb reasons (like capitalization). I would envision having a section of this page for renames based on issues like capitalization and spelling. I agree though that it is probably not strictly necessary, but given the way this page tends to develop a backlog it might be nice to segregate off the things that are simple and dumb. Dragons flight 22:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Good point but if there is to be a section, as SoM suggests lower down, I think that the section should have clear guidlines so that it is not abused. Philip Baird Shearer 13:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the way AfD seems to work is that a proposal is made to change something, and unless there is a consensus to make the change, the status quo is retained. The strengt and weakness of this system is that it requires a significant number of people visiting AfD regularly to make it work. I'm not certain that RM will ever be that "sexy", so maybe just copying the AfD model is not appropriate.

In addition, you cannot set consensus at a specific %; that's setting a qualified majority level. And what happens if only two people vote, negating each other? For 80%, assuming one negative you'd need at least 5 voters, and this debate hasn't raised that level of interest so far. I'd suggest that a system something like User:FooA requests a move and gives detailed reasons for the request, citing specific reasons and providing verifiable evidence. Any objection to that move needs to be detailed and supported in exactly the same way. In cases where such an objection is raised, an admin who is not involved in the debate has to make a call, having studied the evidence presented. In cases where the admin cannot make such a call, the status quo prevails. This avoids the tendency to have voters piling in and adding nothing more than raw numbers to the decision-making process. In short, let facts rather than votes be the deciding factor. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a "status quo" requirement. If there is not enough consensus the default must be to not move - Tεxτurε 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It is perhaps a dirty little secret of RM but 60% does not really mean 60%. 60% means that we are unlikely to consider your move if you have more than 40% opposition, but closers do use their good judgment. In particular, we can veto moves that violate naming conventions even if a nominal consensus exists, because we believe that far more people would object than support if they had been in the discussion. Or in some cases the discussion is hugely biased by talk page spamming and essentially ballot stuffing. So in essence the 60% is more a guideline for what newbies can expect (and many do try to move pages), but it is not something tahat should be seen as tying our hands. Dragons flight
I intend to comment more on RN's proposed changes when I get a chance, but now I need to go pay attention to the real world. Dragons flight 17:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


I agree with the proposed 3 changes. Same as AfD brings the much needed consistency, archiving instead of deleting should be a standard by now as well, and move is no different from merge which templates are put in the articles. The sooner we have those changes, the better - good job guys. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And I dissagree. If a move was no different from a merge, then the we would not need WP:RM because a cut and past copy and delete would do the job for all moves. A WP:RM move keeps the history of the page and the talk page with the page in the same way as a move does and a merge does not. If you are talking abut ADF style templates, the talk page of the article is a better place to keep the WP:RM rather than in an ADF style templte archive. Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit header 3

Okay, my thoughts:

  1. No minimum participation. If there is no objection to a move after X days (however long the move process is), move it. This isn't AFD - there's a presumption of moving, since in 90% of page moves, there is no need for WP:RM.
  2. I know it's instruction creep, but I think tiers of support, by the number of voters, would be a good idea. <7 votes, 60%; 7-20 votes, 66%; >20 votes, 75%. This builds in a buffer against "move wars" on controversial pages. - SoM 21:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Same as breaking a filibuster, three/fifths majority. nobs 22:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"Majority" means more than half. (Three/fifths majority is a confused expression. What you meant was a three-fifths vote.) A majority requirement is the only one which gives every person equal weight when there are two options. There is no reason to favor one side. Having looked at quite a few requested moves, I see many are listed right after one side has moved the page. Why set a high bar that arbitrarily favours whomever moved it last before the request was listed? Why not advertise the move for a week and let whosoever has an opinion vote. If twenty people do, let the majority rule. If three do, let the majority rule. That way all votes are equal. I don't know ahead of time if I will be favoured or disfavoured by some other scheme -- it could be either -- but letting the majority decide after everyone has had his say favours all alike. Quintusdecimus

Consensus means consensus. Pages shouldn't be moved over substantial reasonable opposition unless it's a definite naming convention issue or something like that. Simple enough. Of course, if there is page-move-warring, then maybe we go back to the last page with real support. Guettarda 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • RM notice on talk pages or article pages at the discretion of the requester. If likely to be a controversial move, instructions should encourage them to place it on the article page, as likely to gain more attention.
  • Separate section for Moves I Would Have Done If I Could, i.e. the only reason for listing is that the Move button is blocked by an existing page. Guidelines should make clear what should and shouldn't be listed here: it's essentially a Speedy Move subsection. Necessity for moving quickly may be less than for Speedy Delete, but separating out the move discussions likely to be interesting from the those likely not to be is probably helpful. Rd232 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • On a speedy moves section - it would be a good idea, now you mention it, but what can be speedy-moved should be fairly tightly defined. How about:
  1. Destination must be a redirect to the page in question (or double-redirect), and have been so for some time (exact length subject to discussion), unless the page was created more recently than that.
  2. If destination page has non-redirect history, it must be preserved at some location (GFDL requirement anyway, but should probably be spelled out). - SoM 23:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Set a highish, stepped bar for moves (SOM's proposal is as good as any), since any controversial and much-discussed moves may require either or both of editors understanding the conventions better or going off to try to refine the conventions. Rd232 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is getting crazier

Not so long ago this page did not exist. All moves were what are called "speedy moves" above. Things worked pretty well apart from one minor problem: A very small number of moves were impossible to carry out without administrative powers, perhaps because two pages needed to be merged or perhaps for some other reason). This page was created to allow those moves to be listed by editors without admin functions so that those with admin functions could carry them out. When that was all it did, it worked fairly well. However it has slowly but surely grown more and more bureaucratic over time and its function has slowly changed to the approval of page moves rather than the simple listing of difficult ones. Partly as a consequence its backlog has grown bigger and bigger.

I would suggest that the page has reached the point in its lifecycle where it now creates problems rather than solving them. We now seem to be in a position where some people think that page moves should only be made after being listed on this page. That is not an approach that scales well as the current backlog indicates. I suggest that the page should be listed on AFD and that we go back to what we were doing before it was created. A simple category or template could be used to solve the aforesaid minor problem of difficult page moves in the same way that speedy deletes are currently dealt with. Controversial page moves can be handled (as they are now and in fact always have been) via the talk page of the article concerned. There is no need for a page like Wikipedia:Requested moves when a simple category page can do the same job. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It works fine when there are people keeping on top of it. I agree in part with what you are saying, and the idea of this page is negated when it is bloated - it is supposed to do two jobs:
  1. Help gain consensus on a move discussion
  2. Help users without admin rights move a page
It has been doing the first one fairly well, but the second lot are just lost in the bloat. You suggestion doesn't take into account moves that are being argued, and that is one of the reasons for this place. violet/riga (t) 14:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that my suggestion could deal with both cases if it were expanded a little, Violet. Simply produce one template/category for "Difficult" moves and a second one for "Controversial" moves. The discussion for controversial moves is supposed to take place on the article's own talk page anyway, so that would continue as it does now. If this were to be done, admin load would be reduced slightly since the replacement pages for WP:RM would be more automated than they are at the moment. The "difficult" moves wouldn't be getting lost either since they would be separate from the "controversial" moves. And we would still have a page which recorded moves that are being argued. The main benefit that I foresee though is that newcomers would no longer assume that every page move must be approved on the WP:RM page as they appear to be doing now and thus easy, uncontroversial page moves (the ones that attract so little interest that people are complaining that they are "inquorate") would just be carried out as they were before WP:RM made its appearance. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Derek, you're not thinking this through - people WILL, deliberately or otherwise, put pages into the wrong category.
It's becoming clearer and clearer that we need some sort of speedy-moves thing, but this isn't it - SoM 15:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, SoM, at the moment they can't put it into the right category even if they want to because there is just one big bucket called WP:RM and it's receiving all three types of page move. If there were to be a division along the lines I have suggested, at least some, if not a majority, of the requests would end up in the right category. Fact is that all editors already have a speedy moves option -- it's the "Move this page" link on the toolbar. It's just a matter of ensuring that they're not unecessarily scared of using it. -- Derek Ross | Talk
Very true, and the current system is badly flawed. I don't think your proposed system is any less flawed however.
And, on the "move" button - well, WP:RM exists because a certain percentage of page moves, uncontoversial or otherwise, can't be accomplished by a non-admin. (This is to say nothing of newbies/anons, who don't have access to the move button). It's these which I refer to as being speedy-moves. - SoM 15:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

However we deal with it, we have these types of moves:

  1. Speedy Moves: moves that do not need to be discussed, because they meet certain criteria (eg obvious or well-sourced misspelling)
    a) which could be done by a non-admin using the Move button
    b) which require admin assistance because there is a target page with a history (excepting - aargh - cut'n'paste)
  2. Controversial Moves: moves that should be discussed by users interested in the article
    a) which could be done by a non-admin using the Move button
    b) which require admin assistance if an agreement to move is reached (excepting - aargh - cut'n'paste)
  3. Highly Controversial Moves: moves that would violate naming conventions, or for other reasons should act as a type of test case.

This lists them in order of relevance to WP:RM discussion. Since the distinction between them is not clearcut in practice (even if we always assume good faith), I think all should be listed on the same page, in different sections, unless this becomes seriously inconvenient. I don't like the idea of categories - it puts too much pressure on admins to identify miscategorisation; if requests are all in one place, it's easier for anyone to challenge them if appropriate. Rd232 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Stats

Csn we get some stats here?

  1. What percentage of pages listed on this page are moved, total?
  2. What percentage attract few (<5) or no votes at all. At present, do any admins not move these as inquorate even when >60% are in favour of moving?
  3. What percentage are for stuff like spelling (exc. US/non-US spelling issues), capitalisation, etc
  4. What percentage are to move page X to, from, or to make way for X (disambiguation)?
  5. What percentage are to move over a redirect-with-history? How many of these are not moved?
  6. What percentage are moves that any registered user with more than 100 (or whatever the number is) edits could perform, but the requester is either a newbie or simply hasn't noticed they can? Again, what % of these are denied?

I think answers to these, and perhaps a couple more that escape me just now, are essential. - SoM 14:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll answer those (these are ROUGH answers from me taking care of about a half month of the backlog or so) -

  1. I'd say something like 70% - of those that have an opposition vote only about 35% or so of those are actually moved - most of them tend to get no consensus
  2. Nearly 80% attract fewer then 5 opinions - in a sense that's not really an arguement for ditching RM though since those get moved just the same as they would in a category
  3. Almost none are for spelling
  4. Most of the moves I've seen that involve disambig pages are to make the main version (for example to move Phylum to Phylum ((disambiguation)) a certain article. Sometimes I get requests to delete disambig pages in the process
  5. Quite a few as there are a lot of botched (cut n paste) move fixing requests - most of those are moved
  6. Not so many any more - almost none of those are denied (I honestly don't remember denying ANY of these)

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to extend on these - moves by "registered user with more than 100" that the user could perform are almost always moved within two days by someone (most likely another non-admin). The same goes for normal moves for anon users/users under 100 edits. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no restriction on the number of edits (though some of us argue vigorously that there should be). The current restriction is that the newest 1% of accounts registered can not move pages. In terms of Wikipedia's actual growth, this means that an account has to be about 5 days old before it can move pages. Dragons flight 17:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Using the backlog Revision as of 22:08, 10 October 2005 I have created a page Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/stats 1-10 October.

  • Total of 71 pages:
  1. moved 41
    • 26 not moved,
    • 2 N/A -- Not sure about the other 2 some one can check these numbers.
    • 57% moved 37% not moved 6% Not known
  2. 52 under 5
    • 7 over 5
    • 13 nor clear -- (out by one)
    • 63% under 5, 10% 0ver 5, 18% not clear/spoilt
  3. 1 but there may be one or two more, see data.
  4. 1 or 2 but see data.
  5. 2 from memory but see the data, Also 2 not moved because target page existed.
  6. Not available from the post data as the redirect is overwritten and it is not usually mentioned on the talk page.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"approval voting"

Philip, stop revert warring. Both me and karmosin have taken this thing out. Approval Voting should not be encouraged - its a complete mess. I have half a mind just to delete requested moves and move to the category thing because of this.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway I put in a mention about it. Is that ok with you? I'd really like to reach a compromise here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As others can see in the stats above, and you know from administrating this page, the number of approval votes (where there are more than a binary: move, don't move, choice) are very low. However, if initially there are known to be known to be multiple possbilities, or for some page moves where during the consensus building it becomes obvious that the initial move not what people wanted and that the current name is also unacceptable, there needs to be a mechanism so that multiple choices can be presented. That is all it is for. For those of you who have not had the pleasure of building a consensus using an approval vote please see Talk:Independent school (UK)/Archive 1#Requested move for a recent example. Philip Baird Shearer 08:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Straw polls are much better and are the recommended way around here for determining consensus. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Approveal voting is used see:

This is not an approval voting or consensus reaching choice. Approval voting is a tool to help build a consensus particularly if tactical voting is encouraged. A straw poll can be used to do the same thing, but as no one has written a page describing how a wikipedia multi-choice straw poll should be organised, the design of such a straw poll is open to argument and can be interpreted in an arbitrary way. Instead of trying to build a consensus people often argue about how the poll should be organised which is not an aid to consensus building. As I said above look through the example of "Independent school (UK)" to see how approval voting can help to reach a consensus. It is not infallible as was shown in the attempt to build a consensus for a move on Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse, but it often works well eg: Talk:2005 Ashes series where it was used to build a consensus before a WP:RM request was made (it is called a straw poll but it was organised on approval voting lines with no oppose votes). In the 71 WP:RMs between 1-10 of October as listed in the stats section just before this section, only the Ashes and one other request used approval voting (where there was more than a simple choice), so if the survey is typical of WP:RM requests the line effects less than 3% of the articles to be moved and of those which use it most seem to use it effectivly, so given that is is useful in a very small minority of cases, and is contentious in even less, why remove the sentence, that can help to build a consensus in a few difficult cases? Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That people argue about voting procedure is a sign that they've not made proper attempts to reach consensus, but rather have decided to buckle down and ride the conflict out by battering each other into submission by throwing irrelevant and/or minor guidelines in each others faces. The best solution to this is to inform people that this is not a good way of solving disputes. Your solution seems to be that we should instead encourge it.
And, frankly, I don't think the way you try to use statistics is really honest at all. My experience is that the guidelines and recommendations you insist on forces rushed decisions without encouraging people to talk things over with their peers or to actually get a grip on what they're supposed to vote on.
Peter Isotalo 12:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

major changes

OK, I think I incorporated the suggestions here:

1) Moving policy - this contains everything mentioned before - with the template on the talk page and reccomended on the article page in contentious moves. 2) Consensus - added a big section to the administrator's page basically detailing everything above

Main page - I trimmed it down and moved a lot of it to moving policy.

So what does everyone think? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it is a mistake. The revision seems to base this project on AfD. Why do that? Many people find AfD one of the least enjoyable parts of Wikipedia. Moving a page is not at all like deleting it. Moving a page changes the title, which is not very different from revising the first sentence.
The new guidelines for determining whether to move a page are complicated and unclear, but they seem to encourage great reluctance to retitle a page unless a high threshold is reached. Many pages listed here have had two or more titles, often in the recent past. In AfD, it does make sense to have some bias in the rules toward keeping content. But why such strong bias on RM toward the current title, which a page may not have had for long?
I predict this overhaul of RM, if kept, will make RM less able to do what it was created for. Jonathunder 03:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to the old one - my version is | here. Anyway, at least my impression from doing these moves is that even at 60% it causes a lot of trouble and e-mail complaints when a page is moved. It shouldn't be that big of a deal but I guess to a lot of people it is. I don't know... anything I can do to make it better? I'm here to serve the users, you know :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Got to agree - baaad version. Where, according to yourself and PBS above, most pages attract very few or no votes, there's no need to spend days or weeks over most moves. Yeah, there's a few Yoghurts in the mix, but they shouldn't be the basis of the text. - SoM 11:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Splitting this page

My suggestion is as follows:

  • Wikipedia:Requested moves is used for requesting moves that have been discussed on the talk page and are unable to be moved without admin intervention
  • Wikipedia:Naming discussions is created for any move that:
    1. has not reached consensus on the talk page
    2. is, by its nature, going to be controversial

WP:RM requests would go through as quickly as possible, with no need to wait for a set length of time. Any that are debated could be moved to the latter.

WP:ND could be replaced by the RFC process, but I don't think that would be the best idea. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds good to me. Rd232 19:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And what about moves that are so uncontroversial (or for pages which are only edited once in a blue moon and no-one has on their watchlists) that there is no discussion on the talk page after an attempt? Would they really have to go to ND? - SoM 19:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, because the lack of any opposition (after a sensible length of time) is consensus. If a move is requested (or even performed) then it can be discussed at WP:ND afterwards (with or without undoing the move). violet/riga (t) 20:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

But given that once a move is made the page becomes sticky towards the current page name. Who is to decide if it move back before the debate as that could prove to be very controversial? The name Zurich is at Zürich at the moment but if the voteconsensus building ;-) , had been while it was at Zurich it would still be there.

Given the stats in the statistics section above is there any need for two pages as the vast majority of moves seem to be:

  • some one decides to move a page
  • either it goes through on the tab or a warning comes up so they post a request here.
  • if posted here, the request sits here for five days, involves five or less people and is then moved or not moved on the say-so of those people.

It seems that more than twice as many requests posted here are screwed up in some way so are not moved than attract more than 5 people to express an opinion. Given that most of the >5 go through with the minimum of fuss after five days is it worth creating a more complicated system to deal with what is a very small number of moves? The way most moves end up on this page they would fall under the proposed "Wikipedia:Naming discussions" because after a normal move fails it is posted here before it is discussed on the talk page. Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Intermediate step suggestion

As an intermediate step, how about simply splitting the page into a couple of additional sections (by which I mean ==headings==), and seeing how that goes. This can be done (and undone) immediately. Suggested structure and blurb:

Where to list proposed moves:
  • Wikipedia namespace - proposed moves regarding Wikipedia namespace pages (like this page itself)
  • Speedy moves - proposed moves that are likely to be non-contested because
    • they relate to obvious misspelling (this does NOT include variations in spelling like British/American or diacritics)
    • they relate to usage where naming conventions are clear and unambiguous - in which case the specific naming convention(s) should be cited and linked. Note that naming conventions may contradict each other, in which case do not list here, but under Naming policy.
  • Naming policy - proposed moves that may raise wider issues in regard to naming policy; i.e. moves which imply a logic that would require changes to a significant number of other articles, or where naming conventions contradict each other. (Consider instead suggesting revisions to naming policy at Wikipedia talk:naming conventions.)
  • Other - proposed moves that don't clearly fall elsewhere
Moving entries:
  • A speedy move that is contested should generally be moved to another section. Editors may move entries to speedy move if they feel it is appropriate.

Rd232 15:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy. Similar criteria and approach could work here. Thoughts, anyone? Rd232 talk 14:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we're trusting listers to self-identify their listings as "non-controversial," a pretty risky move. Are you suggesting that these "speedy moves" would be implemented more-or-less automatically by admins without waiting for discussion? Sounds like a great way to get one step ahead in a revert war. If your goal is to make it easier for people just browsing the page to ignore noncontroversial items, it won't work, because I wouldn't trust people to self-categorize their entries. You say "a speedy move that is contested would be moved to the other section" but that only happens if everyone looks through the speedies to verify whether they're contestable. I just don't see any benefit to this, regardless of whether it's on separate pages or by sections on this page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Admins' discretion on whether to speedy moves remains as at present and should be employed judiciously, as at present. They should still check Talk pages for instance to ensure that there is no ongoing discussion on the matter (and add notice of move made), as well as use judgement on whether it meets agreed speedy move criteria. Self-classification would be only initial - subsequently, anyone who disagrees can move the nomination to another section. And as speedy move would be the second section on the page (after Wikipedia namespace, usually very short or empty), people would see them. Abuse of speedy move classification would be treated by the Wikipedia community as they treat abuse of any other community mechanism. Selecting out probable speedy moves benefits both those pages (swift correction) and the others (less distraction, more discussion). It's really not that different from WP:CSD or Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy renaming. Rd232 talk 23:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Unclosed discussions

talk:Laozi#Requested Move

Admin page

Recently a separate admin page was created to move the administration sections off this page. I think that was an improvement. What do others think? Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In general yes, but there's still a section addressed to admins (near the bottom), and I can't find the page you refer to. Did I miss something? Rd232 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I think RN has deleted it but Revision as of 00:23, 19 October 2005 shows how it was done for a short time. I did not read the page I assume it was the sections from this page which covers administration. Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin removal of history on the target page

I have noticed that instead of moving a page, in some cases the admin has just removed the history on the target page which prevents any user moving a page. I think that for many uncontriversial moves, or moves where it would create a lot of double redirects that this is a good idea as it reduces the admin's work load. What do others think and should it be added to the admin's section as a technique to be encouraged? Philip Baird Shearer 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk page notice

Why is there only a notice on the talk page of articles? It's not very visible, and on less popular pages no one will vote. -- Kjkolb 19:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the page

I am a little confused. On the one hand this page serves to organise and promote discussion about possible article moves (a bit like AfD), and on the other hand there is the unrelated organisation of admins to make make moves. It would make sense to seperate out these two processes. That way, a page (or category) like "Admin assisted page moves" could be created which listed:

  • moves that already had consensus
  • obvious moves that are blocked by an existing redirect

So why the two processes combined on this page?--Commander Keane 17:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

See above #Admin page... But there should not be two different lists for moves as it is not possible to know in all cases which moves will be controversial before they are listed here. So any page can be listed here and then moved after five days if there is a consensus to do so. If the moves are simply "obvious [none controversial ] moves that are blocked by an existing redirect" then either an admin at his or her discretion will move them before the five days are up or more likely wait the five days and then move it.--Philip Baird Shearer 19:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
As an admin dealing with disambiguation, I'll often work with cases where (after gaining consensus on the talk pages) a non controversial move needs to be made (that involves deleting a redirect first). So I go ahead and do it on the spot. I was hoping to afford the same ease (speed, no need to list on WP:RM for five days, less clutter on WP:RM) to non-admins, possibly with something like Category:Candidates for speedy move. The problem you alude to is a page move may be listed on the category inappropriately and then need to be formally put on WP:RM. Is the idea workable?--Commander Keane 03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk page discussion closure

Step 3 for requesting a move says to place a discussion area (including a voting area) into the talk page that the request involves. Unlike AfD nominations though, once a requested move has been processed there's not always an easy way to determine (as a 3rd party) if the time to vote has elapsed or if the discussion is over. I'd like to suggest that the following two templates be used to "close" a requested move discussion/debate/vote: {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}}. You can see an example of this template in use at Talk:James E. West. They should, like the AfD close templates, be subst'd when used. Instructions for use are at each templates talk page (the instructions are identical). These templates should make it clearer that discussion has ceased and the requested move was already voted up/down. (I know the talk page template that indicates a move is requested is removed by the closing admin, but newbies may not even know of the template). Thoughts? —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 09:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea.—jiy (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. =) If enough people agree that it's a good idea, I propose it be added to the admin instructions. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent idea, and well implemented. Some people are already using it, and I intend to start myself. I think the suggestion has been here long enough, let's add it to the instructions. Andrewa 20:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Primary to Equal dis-ambiguation

Any opinions on proposing a new sub-project of this that involves changing titles from primary to equal dis-ambiguation?? Please explain with whatever opinions you have. Georgia guy 22:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to do a lot of this for WP:DPL. You still need to get consensus and wait for five days or so, so what's the benefit of a sub-project?--Commander Keane 04:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I am quite upset now at how some editors seem to be gaming the system on article title moves. Nidhogg was changed to Níðhöggr without consensus and was immediately objected to and moved back an an editor. The same editor who moved it without consensus came back, ignored the discussion page, moved it back to his preferred spelling, and then changed the redirect so that it simply could not be moved back to the original name again. Now we are going through a Request for a move, but the template there is worded that a clear consensus must be needed to move it... It seems to me in this case that the eidtor's actions are gaming the system by requiring a "clear consensus" to move it back to the original version when it should instead be moved back unless there is a "clear consensus" to stay at the name. I would appreciate other editors' comments on this and what might be done in this situation to guarantee that true consensus is reached and to prevent such distortions of policy in the future. DreamGuy 19:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is quite a distorted view of what actually took place, as anyone can see from looking at the page histories. See Talk:Níðhöggr for more comments. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This is not a distorted view, as clearly can be seen from the page history... You moved it without consensus, against the wishes of more than one editor trying to preserve the old article title with no discussion. Furthermore, as predicted, once the article was at your preferred location and a move request had to be filed because it no longer could be moved back to where it has been for months, the move back did not get concensus because you brought people in from outside, but then keeping it at the new name did not get concesnsus either -- Therefore it now sits at the new name, which did not have consensus at all, solely because you gamed the system. There is no consensus for either version, but it currently sits where you want it because of a quirk in the system. As there was no consensus for either version, it needs to be moved back to the version it was at previously as you moved it without discussion even when peoplpe objected. DreamGuy 05:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Why so bent out of shape about this? Are you an expert in Norse mythology? Do you even care about the article AT ALL except for arguing about its name? I just don't get why you and a few others care so damn much. I can understand why User:Haukurth cares; it's his field of interest, after all.
I am also rather unhappy about the personal attacks, unwarranted speculation as to other users' motives, and ad hominem arguments made by several users who wanted it at Nidhogg. It's really not cool at all to behave that way. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 05:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You are unhappy with personal attacks and unwarranted assumption and think they are really not cool at all while you yourself are actively right now making personal attacks and unwarranted assumptions against myself and "several users"? WTF, dude. So then you admit you are totally not cool then or what? Come on, got real. I'm an expert on mythology, yes, though Norse isn't my main specialty, but the point is that we can't let people arbitrarily decide to use centuries-old archaic Icelandic for names of topics and articles just because they decide that there isn't a common enough English name for their purposes (because of course, if there were then they wouldn't get the name they prefer, so of course they decide there isn't one), while ignoring the fact that we are supposed to Wikipedia:Use English (and if people dispute that policy on an English-language encyclopedia then the lunatics really are trying to run the asylum), not to mention the fact that the particular archaic version on the name they choose to use isn't standard either. It's just the personal preference of a handful of active editors going against the common usage because they find it beneath them. That is so completely against both common sense and how this encyclopedia is supposed to work. DreamGuy 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The point I've been trying for so long to get across is that those names are "centuries-old archaic Icelandic names" even if you strip them of diacritics and nominative endings. The name Níðhöggr is still Old Norse even if you spell it "Nidhogg". Or what do "nid" and "hogg" mean in English? The choice isn't between an Old Norse name and an English name - it's between different representations of an Old Norse name. People can rationally disagree about which representation is most appropriate for Wikipedia and you had a perfectly legitimate case for the form you wanted to use, even if you did not succeed in convincing the majority of those who commented.
When some phenomenon becomes so commonly known that it can be considered a household name (like "Thor") then it has arguably entered the English language. Thus I think "Thor" is no longer just a representation of the Old Norse name "Þórr" but an English name in its own right. Some contributors (User:Io and User:Pádraic MacUidhir) disagree and think we should use the accurate Old Norse spelling even for Thor (Þórr) and Odin (Óðinn). I think that's getting a little inaccessible and I'm fine with using those well-established English forms.
I've seen you do a lot of good work in keeping modern inventions, inaccurate non-sense and trivial references to fiction out of mythology articles. It's a difficult and thankless task and I'd like to thank you for it here. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
In DreamGuy's defence, though he has a very abrasive and confrontational style, he does make a lot of good edits to mythology-related articles - sometimes including Norse mythology articles.
As for the page-move issue I won't address it materially here. Comments from the closing admin can be found here [3] and the debate is archived at Talk:Níðhöggr. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The concept that arbitrator's can't step in an pick a version is ludicrous, because that policy in itself means that they are allowing those who game the system to pick the versions they want and those who follow the rules will always lose. That's simple and obvious, and you can see that right from what happened with this article. The closing admin is yet another example of someone so caught up in the thrown together process of doing things without looking at the end results to see if they make sense in the slightest. DreamGuy 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to look at the history of what happened here. It started when Haukurth moved Nidhogg to Níðhöggr at 12:14, 27 November 2005. He made no announcement on that talk page then or prior to that move. About four hours later, Jonathunder moved it back and said on the talk page "...I don't think this page should be moved from the common English version of the name. Feel free to list on WP:RM if you disagree, of course." Less than two hours later, Haukurth moved it again and responded on talk, arguing for his move. Jonathunder responded by moving it back, said on the talk page that it should not move without discussion and consensus, and then listed it here [4] as a move from the original title Nidhogg to the proposed title Níðhöggr. AFTER it was listed here on RM, Wiglaf moved it to Níðhöggr. It was moved still more times, by more people, while voting went on. The outcome of the vote was "no consensus". The result seems to be that it will remain, not at its original location, not where it was when first listed on requested moves, but where those who were willing to use the most reverts moved it to. If this is allowed to stand, people will likely follow that lesson and just fight out page moves with reverts and this requested moves project will be entirely meaningless. Those who do not learn from this history will be condemned to see it repeated in countless page move wars. No Account 18:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have elaborated on before I disagree with this representation of events. I won't go into that yet again but I'd like to add two things.
There was significantly more support for the Níðhöggr version than the Nidhogg version - especially among contributors with more than 100 edits. You're making a procedural argument as to why your view should prevail even though you were in the minority. So from my point of view it is you who are trying, to borrow DreamGuy's phrase, to "game the system".
That said I now regret having contested this to begin with. I should probably just have let Jonathunder have his way. The energy that went into this debate and the ill will that it generated are just not worth using the more accurate spelling. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You say that, but then you immediately go and move Emiliana Torrini yet again, even though you are the only person arguing for it to be moved on that talk page and others have said we should stay with the much more common version. You are doing exactly the same thing there as you did on Nidhogg: keep moving, keep reverting, and if there is no consensus the one who moved it the most wins. CDThieme 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Your accusations have less and less basis in reality. A week ago I posted a question on the relevant talk page asking if anyone would object to a move. No-one did and one person enthusiastically supported the idea. Two days ago I moved the page and that is the only time I have ever moved it. At that point you stalked me down, moved it back and deliberately made a pointless edit to the redirect. Just now you moved it again and again deliberately damaged the redirect. As usually, you have never edited the article in question or shown any interest in it. Anyone can see what is really happening by looking at the page. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This change of Emilíana Torrini's redirect from Emiliana Torrini to Emilianna Torrini (and then immediately back) does look rather suspect. Olessi 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_5&oldid=1136056687"