Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Some rough edges

Who is in charge cleaning up all the resulting redirected links?

Cleaning up after a page move can be a laborious task. Several options I can think of, feel free to add your own ideas:

1. It's always the responsibility of the admin who does the delete/move
2. It's the responsibility of the requestor, though the admin is free to help out
3. Make a second section on this page for listing redirect cleanups, which anyone (not just folks with delete privileges) is free to help out

Thoughts? • Benc • 19:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion is:

4. It's everyone's and nobody's responsibility. That's what a wiki is like. Departing from this principle will just cause more problems than it is worth. The requestor should be prepared to do it (guideline) and should do it if nobody else does first. If we say the sysop must do it, that means that sometimes a sysop will not do a move because they haven't the time to do the cleaning up which anyone can do. But most sysops will do the cleaning up when they can, because that way it stays messy for the least time, and will only do moves when they can't clean up afterwards if the list is getting too long and old for comfort. Why? Because we're all here as volunteers who spend our time building the very best encyclopedia we can. Make a section for cleanup help if you like, I suspect the KISS principle is better. Andrewa 20:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Somewhere between 2 and 4 (which is not too far from 2 anyway - it is a Wiki, there's nothing to stop somsone from helping, even with 2), but closer to 2. I'm worried that if we don't have a strong guidance, they will fall through the cracks. And yes, I know, they will get caught eventually - but for grins, try going to any disambig page and see how many content pages link to it... Noel 17:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why cannot it be automated? — Monedula 15:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do we handle controversial page moves?

Not all page moves are good. Several options I can think of, feel free to add your own ideas:

1. Handle everything on a case-by-case basis
2. Have a loose set of guidelines in place, e.g.:
   • "Avoid requesting a controversial page move. If you are uncertain whether a page move will be controversial, please discuss it on the article's talk page before requesting the move."
3. Have a strict set of guidelines in place; e.g.:
   • "If an article has more than one non-anon active contributor, the requested page move must be announced on the article talk page at least three days prior to the actual move, without any objections."
   • "If an article has more than one non-anon active contributor, the requested page move must be seconded by a majority of editors either here or on the article talk page."

Personally, I strongly favor options 1 and 2. I really don't want to see this page to become a "Votes for moves" if we can avoid it; the purpose of this page is closer to Wikipedia:Cleanup than *fD. If it ever becomes a problem the community will evolve stricter guidelines to keep things running smoothly. • Benc • 19:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concur with trying to avoid formal rules. Formal rules always seem to be Procrustean anyway; there's always some case it fits poorly. And you can waste an immense amount of time arguing about them, trying to handle every conceivable contingency up front. This page is going to be little enough used that I don't see a problem in setting out some guidelines, and going from there. Noel 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other small things

• Justify your existence. Add a brief, one or two sentence-long explanation of why this page is distinct from WP:RFD.
• Inevitable question: we have dozens of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, do we really need another?
• Be sure to refer admins to the proper policies:
  • Deletion guidelines for admins
  • History-only undeletion

• Benc • 19:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If this page takes off, we need to add it to MediaWiki:Articleexists in place of WP:VP which is already really overloaded. Noel 21:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance?

Since page moves are not the only thing that people need assistance from perhaps a new Wikipedia:Requests for assistance page could be made. This could be used for:

• Page moves
• Image manipulation
• Table/template/infobox help
• Others?

What do you think? violet/riga (t) 10:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with the village pump for general requests? If you want to do that, you probably ought to discuss it there. As it is the VP has been split into sections. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought about that - perhaps a new section of the VP could be created: Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). The original idea of this, I believe, is that things get lost in the VP. violet/riga (t) 17:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As it stands now, the post-split VP hasn't a good place for these requests. I think Requests for assisatnce is a really good idea, but maybe Wikipedia:Requests for help since we already have a WP:RFA and WP:RFAr. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you want to wait four days before moving a page? What is this additional policy supposed to solve? I suggest you add in an exception for clearing up vandal page moves. Having Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress at Wikipedia:Willys in progress for four days, which is where it was moved last month, does not seem a good idea. Angela. 19:06, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Uncontroversial moves and reverting of vandalism sometimes need speedy deletes in preparation for moves. These should remain speedy deletes. Andrewa 21:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concur. Vandalism repairs should all be "shoot on sight". Noel 17:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not clear whether admins would have to list pages here before moving a page. If not then that would be introducing an unnecessary distinction between admins (able to move pages immediately) and other users (only able to move pages after four days wait). If so, then this is still introducing an unnecessary complication to a system that works just fine. I would say that if a move is controversial it should be discussed on the talk page before a request is made. Moves can be reversed and are visible to all so are not a problem area. Let's not make moving a page as policy laden as deletion has become. -- sannse (talk) 22:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I oppose treating admins any differently when it comes to the procedure they have to go through. Admins have access to tools which can do damage, which is why we restrict them to people who are deemed more responsible. However, in all other ways they ought to be equal to other Wikipedians - so e.g. they don't get to win edit wars.

I do have a suggested change in the procedure, which is to "require" moves to be discussed on the article's Talk: page. Also, rather than archive any move discussions on Wikipedia:Requested moves/archive, they should be put on the article's Talk: page. The reason is simple - when new people come along in the future, they should be able to easily find out why the Foo page is at Foo, and not at Bar. Requiring them to knowing that they have to check on some obscure system page to see if it was ever debated is not the way to go. I say "require" in quotes because I don't want it to be a hard and fast rule - rather, I would encourage it, e.g. by saying that request moves which have been discussed on the Talk: page don't have to wait the N days, they can be done instantly. And we could make the delay for pages that come straight here fairly long, to really encourage people to go that way. Noel 17:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How long should we wait before doing a move?

So how long do we wait before making the move?) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest a week, same as for most other such things. If this is OK with all, we can add text to that effect to the top of the page. Noel 13:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ooops, it already says 4 days (above). I need to read more carefully! Well, I still prefer a week, but if all think 4 days is better I can live with that. Noel 13:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4 days is more than sufficient. Moves do not (generally) destroy anything - the exception being when done in conjunction with a delete to accomplish a history merge. Since data isn't destroyed and a redirect is left behind, the results are easy to follow and discuss after the fact. - UtherSRG 18:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So maybe moves which are going to merge should have a longer time? Noel 14:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If simple uncontested moves like this one don't happen reasonably quickly then what is this page for? If I had asked on the Village Pump it would have been done in an hour... Gdr 12:33, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps it might be better to go ahead and move articles immediately, if they seem uncontroversial, and leave the request on this page (or somewhere) for a week or so, so that people can review and only if necessary, make corrections. Bkonrad 08:40, 25 Oct 2004

No, because it's a fair amount of work to do moves (especially if you can't simply delete the redirect because it has history too, as in this case) - and you have to fix all the redirects, yadda-yadda. The world won't come to an end if it takes a couple of days to do the swap - refences to either one still work, people can add content, etc, etc. Wheres the harm in a little delay? If it saves having to unto one move, it'll be worth it in my book. Noel 18:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but if a person can get it done more quickly using other avenues, then why should they bother with this page? Is the point to facilitate uncontroversial moves that non-admins cannot accomplish or is it to become a bureaucratic bottleneck? older≠wiser 18:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

You still haven't pointed out any harm entailed by a short wait. Noel 20:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is no harm. But if given a choice of waiting for four days as with this page vs. getting more immediate satisfaction through other means (i.e., VP or contacting an admin directly), I suspect most people would opt for the quicker route. Speaking for myself, I have a hard time recalling what I was working on four days ago. I mean if the point of this page is to provide a forum to discuss possibly controversial page moves, that's fine, but it doesn't really strike me as being a very convenient service for non-admin users to request page moves they are unable to complete on their own. Perhaps the page should be renamed something like Wikipedia:Submit a page move request to be mulled over for a few days before it gets moved older≠wiser 20:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, it's a Wiki! If they can find someone to do it for them, go for it. (We'll send them your way! :-) Me, I've almost lost count of the number of page moves I did that I thought were non-controversial, only to find out later that other people thought I was off my rocker. So you'll excuse me if I'm a little cautious - especially since there's no harm in a short delay. And, no, we don't forget the request - that's what this page is here for. Noel 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How ironic. Check this out. This is exactly the kind of thing I was just saying I wanted to avoid - and here it is. Now, imagine that this was the kind of page that have about 15 redirects to it, and they'd all been changed (to prevent double redirs), and the eventual consensus was to leave it where it was - someone would have to go change them all back. Plus all the griping back and forth (and occasional ill feeling). Noel 23:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention this, which went through the procedure here, although IMO people were a bit to quick to do it the instant the deadline was theoretically up. I personally would have left it a few more days, just to be safe, especially as it's such a major page. Noel (talk) 19:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. I would expect admins to exercise some discretion in fulfilling move requests. I know that may be expecting too much from some firebrands, but most have a pretty level head and aren't too likely to do things lightly that will have great impact. After once (or twice) doing a move that had to be undone, an admin will hopefully be a little cautious about recklessly moving things around--it's part of learning the ropes. I mean, I really don't care if people post requests here to leave them ripen awhile, it just seems a bit overly cautious to me. older≠wiser 23:52, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

It's precisely because I've been involved in several controversial moves (well, I thought they made sense - and seen some of them undone), and seen a number of others, and seen the trouble and bad feeling that result, that I am quite cautious about doing moves. Noel (talk) 19:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keeping it tidy

I am in strong favour of the system of keeping sub-sections of pages like this in sub-pages (see VFD): should we start as we mean to go on and get this up and running here? --Phil | Talk 15:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need it; the page (so far) doesn't really get enough traffic (nothing like as much as WP:VP or WP:VfD) to need it. WP:RfD isn't using sub-pages, and we have no problems at all, with roughly the same amount of traffic. Noel 15:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. However, in the same interst of tidiness, I'd like to add date headers. If I hear no complaints by late tongiht I'll add them. - UtherSRG 17:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'd endorse adding page headers. Some of those requests have been on there for upwards of three weeks. —ExplorerCDT 20:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Queries

1. As an admin, can I just go ahead and do the deletions/moves/etc without waiting for the requisite four-day period? Obviously, I would be expected to sort out redirects, delete the {{move}} template, etc., and put everything back the way I found it if I moved something inappropriately... 2. What do we do with moves that are completed? Just delete them? Or are we keeping an archive of the discussion? 3. I have experimentally reformatted WP:RM - my preference would be for a heading for each article, as per WP:COTW and WP:FAC, rather than date headings, as per WP:RFD, (or, as at present, both date and article headings). I expect (as seems to be the case) that there will rather more discussion than in WP:RFD. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, as for #1, it is a Wiki, and there's no rule that says you can't! (See length discussion about this immediately above. :-) However, I generally prefer to be slow (as pointed out above, again, there is no harm in delay), but there are exceptions (even for me :-) e.g. I went ahead and did Schismatic Temperament early because a cut-n-paste bogo-move had happened, the longer it was left the harder cleaning it up might be, and all active editors seemed to agree that a move was the right thing.

True enough - I didn't think that Montreal would turn out to be particularly contentious (although Talk:Montreal shows that this issue has come up repeatedly). I'm leaving the difficult ones (be bold for example ;) ) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For #2, the original theory was that completed discussion would be put in an archive here. I suggested (above) that they go in the article's Talk: page, where they would be easily accessible to future Wikipedians who weren't around for prior debates. Hearing no disagreement, I added this to the Instructions for Admin section (but have yet to delete the option of archiving here) - probably we should definitively pick one.

I agree, moving to the talk page sounds like the best idea. What about the "requested moves" that have already been actioned? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I already put them all on the appropriate pages when I removed them from this page. Noel 20:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On #3, the new look really bugs me for some reason. Maybe it's because I'm so used to the WP:RfD format, maybe it's the large amount of screen space it uses (I do a lot of my wikipediaing from a small laptop), but I'm not big on it. Actually, WP:RfD does generate really long discussions on some points - if you look at the /Precedents page for "George Washingtin" (or whatever it was) you'll see one, and there are more recent ones in the log. Noel 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK - how about headings by articles rather than by dates? I've done another experimental heading change to gauge reaction. Revert if you hate this too :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A new theory of dismabig pages?

(Generic discussion retrieved from an individual requested move.)

I am coming to the conclusion that all pages of the form {foo} (disambig) should be redirected to from the main foo location, with no article actually at foo, not even the main meaning, because it enables us to quickly check for articles which have linked to foo, without the writer checking to make sure they got the right meaning of "foo". I see so many instances of this to disambig pages I created that it's not true, and when you have a popular page like tree, it's impossibly painstaking to go click on every entry in "What links here", and look through the page to find the reference, to make sure it's to the right one. And before you ask, the reason for not putting the disambig page at foo is that only people who really want the disambig meaning will link to foo (disambig), and all links to foo will probably be wrong. Noel 16:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's going to be a lot of pages to correct 132.205.15.4 19:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, my primary concern at the moment is to not make any more of them. As to what to do with the existing ones, yeah, that's a big question. Still pondering what to recommend there. Noel 18:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there a policy discussion somewhere on this that you've started? 132.205.64.218 04:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, been too snowed-under with other stuff. I was thinking of taking it to WP:VP, but it's so full of stuff at the moment. Is there are a better place, anyone? Noel 12:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. You might have to check the archives. If I understand what you're suggesting -- essentially doing away with primary topic disambiguation -- I suspect that you will encounter considerable opposition. older≠wiser 15:43, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Saving page move discussion for future reference?

When moving a page is proposed, after the request is granted or denied, is the discussion erased or does it get saved for future reference? Nathanlarson32767 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I transfer any material discussion to the article's talk page (whether I move it or not); if the discussion is just a series of "support"s or "oppose"s, it is not really worth saving specifically somewhere else: it is in the edit history here in any event. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving categories?

How does one go about getting a category moved? Recently, a request I made to move rhythm video game to music video game took effect, leaving an unfortunate inconsistency with Category:Rhythm computer games. This page should be moved to Category:Music video games. Should this request be made at WP:RM? --LostLeviathan 02:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You would need to edit all of the pages in that category to change the category: ultimately, that should make the category disappear (I didn't have time). If not, WP:CFD may be able to help. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense... thankfully, there are few articles in the category. Thank you! --LostLeviathan 22:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Small style change for the move template

In the interest of consistency I offer the following style change to template:move. This is used on many other "message boxes" and I reckon it's a good step forwards. Do please note the use of the image - it's only temporary until a better one is found/created. I was thinking of an image something like O→O. (17:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC): Used new image)

Would this be better? violet/riga (t) 16:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I reckon it is! I'll do this in the next few days unless there are some objections. violet/riga (t) 18:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, by all means do, nice job. --fvw* 19:10, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. Rd232 19:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done - it messes up when viewed at template:move (because of {{{1}}} inside a template inclusion) but is fine in articles. violet/riga (t) 11:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common names

There seem to be dozens of people on this page voting to move pages to their "official names". Wikipedia policy is to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), and it seems nonsensical and absurd to be allowing such moves when they are so clearly in violation of policy, especially a policy that is one of the most central tenets of the entire naming conventions. If people disagree with the common names policy, they should attempt to change it (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) would seem to be the obvious place to start), rather than attempting to subvert community consensus on this relatively low-traffic page. Proteus (Talk) 12:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree - except that Requested Moves clearly has higher traffic than the relevant talk page (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)). People who are aware of this talk page should mention it on RM whenever the issue arises, to help direct people's attention to it and reduce duplication of discussion. Rd232 13:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a case that that page is misnamed (or perhaps prejudiciously named)? Shouldn't it be "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (proper names)" instead? (Compare dictionary.com definition of "proper name" v "common name", especially the proper name (grammar) meaning.) Rd232 13:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move consensus - the scope of wp:rm

This page seems to be growing into a "consensus to move" system rather than just an "administrator required to move this" request. I reckon this is a positive move as some move decisions are best discussed but an article may not have enough talk participants. I suggest one of the following changes:

1. It is changed to a "Votes for Move" (VfM) page that operates something similar to VfD
2. An extra section is added that links to pages with active move discussions

Personally I'd worry about the page bloating if it becomes like VfD, but it would give a handy archive system. My choice would be option 2.

Disagree here. I think too often this page is becoming the first line. Somebody has an idea to move page, and comes here first. I would like us to emphasis first of all, that each request must be made only after discussion about the move has happened elsewhere, like the articles talk page. Next, I think we need to rewrite the intro to point people toward Wikipedia:Naming conventions and state which one they think applies to the move they are requesting. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

But that's the point of option 2 - too often these discussions are not seen by enough people and need advertising somewhere. By adding a section that simply lists talk pages where there is a move discussion we could get more input on the debate while not overly cluttering this page. violet/riga (t) 21:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think a section for listing active discussion could work. What do you think of my suggestion about putting more emphasis on referencing Wikipedia:Naming conventions? -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I think it certainly has merit and reckon it would be better if people would quote that. I'd like to avoid people being lynched if they don't do so though, so perhaps it could be worded that it's advisory for people to consult the article first. violet/riga (t) 17:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As an illustration, I suggested on the 4th of November that computer display was moved to visual display unit. There haven't been any responses in two months. Do I just go ahead and do it or should I continue waiting until someone finally comes along and discusses it? violet/riga (t) 11:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be more cautious about moving heavily linked pages

When considering moving a page, we need to remember that we can only currently see the first 500 'what links here' entries. I just happened to stumble onto a broken/double redir that was created by the recent move of Washington, DC to Washington, D.C. (why it got moved is a separate question--8 to 5 hardly seems like sufficient consensus to move such a heavily linked page), that (hopefully) wasn't fixed because it doesn't show up on 'what links here'. Niteowlneils 04:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act

Perhaps someone here can explain exactly what happened with the proposal to move this page? I nominated this page to be moved on Jan 3. Two people supported the move, but then on Jan 4 VioletRiga also nominated the page to be moved (presumably not noticing my own nomination). As more people had voted on her proposal, I decided to incorporate my proposal into her one. A few days later, I noticed that someone had refactored the proposal and in the process had removed my comment and support of VioletRiga's proposal. So I decided to restate my support. Then with this edit [1] Netoholic removed the proposal with the following comment in the edit summary - "rmv. no clear consensus after 12 days listing. Continue discussion on article's talk page". I have to admit to being somewhat suprised by this. By my reckoning including VioletRiga's nomination there were 10 voices supporting the move and 4 votes against it. This looks like a more than a 2:1 majority to me (2.5:1 actually). When I asked aNetoholic about the removal of this nomination, he said that that - the "Freedom of Information Act discussion was not active and not clear on any direction". Firstly, the most recent comment was less than 24 hours before Netoholic removed the entry and secondly, since when does a 2:1 majority not indicate clarity in a particular direction? I again took this up with Netoholic on his talk page. I have just checked his contributions and can see that he was active for about 2 hours today, but he has not responded to my query. So I am bringing the subject up here. Can anyone please explain what exactly is going on here? Jooler 12:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correction! - I missed User:Raul654's vote which was not in bold. The vote was 10:5 including the nomination which is still a 2:1 majority. Jooler 13:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The articles haven't been cleaned up yet either, linking to redirects and seeming to have a very poor structure. I strongly object to the main article being the US one when there are clearly numerous other similar (and same-named) acts. I'd support redirecting Freedom of Information Act to Freedom of information legislation. violet/riga (t) 13:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As Violetriga pointed out earlier on this talk page, the main page has strayed substantially from what it was apparently designed to do. Many of these moves do not require administrator support. But it is not a Votes for Move page, and there is no fixed procedure for determining the result. If we are looking for consensus before a move, we seldom find it, and we certainly did not find it here. (I do not, in my own mind, believe that consensus must be absolutely unanimous, but also do not feel that 10:5 is consensus.) Do we just follow the will of the majority? If so, after how long or how many votes? If consensus, what is consensus, and how long do we give for it to form? I preemptively argued that my own vote was not US-centric, for fear that it would be taken that way. I am a cosmopolitan. But the arguments for moving centered on two facts: (1) there are several other things of exactly the same name (since the article is a proper noun, I discount other “freedom of information acts”, if there is such a class), and (2) some of these have been much talked about in the news recently. I argued, and would still argue, that these two points do not in themselves constitute enough reason to uproot an established page for what has been the primary use of the expression. The present arrangement will work until it becomes clear that, after the media interest dies down, the newer FOIAs have taken on the same importance that the US FOIA has. I will concede the point in a few years; or turn WP:RM into a Votes for Move page, and I will concede immediately. It was my understanding that, in all cases, the default position was to leave the page as is unless a consensus emerged to move it. (I am therefore resigned to GW staying as is, even though virtually everyone links to George Washington University and not The George Washington University.) But we are all basically making this up as we go along. And that isn’t just true on this page. The whole encyclopedia works that way.
— Ford 01:20, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Ford - The issue of the UK Act being in the news is the reason why the anomaly of the US Act being at this page first came to the attention of both Violet and I. Presumably, like myself, she was as suprised as I was to find that the US legislation occupied this page. Your attempt to discount argument 1 is invalid - There are at least four English speaking nations that have enacted legislation specifically titled - Freedom of Information Act - those four nations are Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States - if someone outside of the USA hears the words Freedom of Information Act, how many are thinking of the United States Act? Nobody in the UK is thinking of that, nobody in Australia is thinking of it either, and nor is anyone in Ireland. Using your rule of chronological precedence, we should move British House of Commons to House of Commons because it is centuries older than the Canadian House of Commons and we should move Boston, Lincolnshire to Boston. Chronological precedence comes way down the list when it comes to things like this. Our primary concern is usefulness and I'm afraid hosting the USA page where we should have a disambiguation page is reducing usefulness because the rest of the world are not thinking of the USA act. You speak of once "the newer FOIAs have take on the same importance that the US FOIA has" - The US FOIA has no importance for me whatsoever because I do not live in the United States and nor do a very large number of Wikipedia's contributors or readers. Jooler 10:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ford's description is very accurate with regards to this page. Obviously, the disposition of FOIA and related pages needs more discussion, but this is not the place to do it. If were to try to solve every naming problem of this sort, this page would grow tremendously in size (moreso than it has already). I suggested to Jooler to follow this up with a mention on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. As it stands right now, if there is no consensus for a name change, the listing on this page should be removed with no immediate action after fives days. The FOIA item was kept a bit longer, but can't be kept here forever. That's why the discussion was archived to it's talk page - so that more discussion can take place. As a matter of fact, discussion should have taken place there first, rather than brought to this page. -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Netoholic - This issue should be dealt with here and it should be dealt with now, please do not try to sideline it. The issue was initially raised on talk:Freedom of Information Act just before Christmas. I suspect both Violet and myself thought this would be an uncontroversial issue which is why we both independently nominated it for moving. What is your definiton of consensus? There was a 2:1 majority in favour of moving the page and the last comment was by User:NeilTarrant less than 24 hours before you removed the debate. Your claim that "discussion was not active and not clear on any direction" is plainly false. You removed this discussion, which was dated 4 Jan, and yet you left discussions dated as far back as December 31. I am curious as to why tyou did this. I specifically asked you on your talk page "Would you object if I re-instated the debate?" - as you have not replied directly to this question I am asking it again here. If you do not object I will restore it. Jooler 10:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jooler, this is the last message I'll post on the subject, until you tone down this attitude. There is only one reason that items were left dating back to Dec 31 – those items have clear consensus to support the move, and they remain listed until such time as an admin comes to this page to perform the necessary actions. If you can convince an admin to do the work for the FOIA, that is your business. Personally, I don't think there is solid enough justification, right now. The disposition of all the related pages needs to be mapped out first. If you can gather clear direction, then do it. Do not expect this request to site here on this page idle. -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

""Do not expect this request to site here on this page idle" - eh? Jooler 14:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not know why, Jooler, you are so eager to paint me as a xenophobe. And the precedence issue was never my only argument. I merely think that the argument about the news is event-driven and distorts the prominence of the UK FOIA. I furthermore believe (but do not know) that, even if you don’t know anything about the US FOIA, the authors of the bills in the English-speaking states that you reference very much did know about it, which is why they gave their legislation the exact same title. I admit that Boston, Massachusetts, was named after Boston, Lincolnshire. If I were making a dictionary, I would list the original first. On the other hand, Boston, Massachusetts, is ten times bigger if you only count its governmental area, and a hundred times bigger if you compare its metropolitan area to the borough of Boston, so Boston, Massachusetts, would get a much-longer entry. The UK act is in the news now because it just came into force. The US act has been making the news for thirty years. It is a matter of enduring public awareness, rather than the unproven awareness of the UK FOIA, which, I repeat, is event-driven. And there are more people in the United States than any of the other states that have legislation with the exact name. After coverage by the BBC dies down, I think it far more likely that anyone in the “rest of the world” (that is, not living in the US, UK, Ireland, or Australia) will be looking for information about the US FOIA. It would not hurt my feelings if the US FOIA ended up at U.S. Freedom of Information Act. I was just offering my opinion based on available evidence, and a reasoning process that has not persuaded you. Very well; but your reasoning has not persuaded me, either. Nor am I persuaded that 10:5 is a consensus. I think you are right to seek rules. But the rules around here change all the time, so good luck.
— Ford 12:23, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Let me make this abundantly clear - The fact that the UK act is particularly in the news at the moment has never been an argument for moving any page and never has been, it is merely a point of fact. It is in the news because it came into force on Jan 1, 2005. However that act was part a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election and the issues surrounding it had been debated for many years. The act was passed five years ago in 2000. The UK Act resides at Freedom of Information Act 2000, because the current format for UK Acts of Parliament is to place the year following the name of the act. There was never going to be any possibility of the UK act occupying the spot Freedom of Information Act. The issue is - why should a page about something which is completely irrelevant (in law) to all of the people outside of the United States stay at a page which could easily refer to at least three other objects of legislation from other English speaking nations? - your arguments are as follows -

• "US FOIA has chronological precedence" - I've already demolished this argument.
• "It is a matter of enduring public awareness" - it is not a matter of enduring awareness to me and anybody else unaffected by it outside of the USA.
• "there are more people in the United States than any of the other states that have legislation with the exact name." - And you think "I paint you" as a xenophobe? This is a feeble argument which belittles every nation outside of the US.
• "I think it far more likely that anyone in the rest of the world will be looking for information about the US FOIA" - why should anyone in the rest of the world care two hoots about the US FOIA any more than any other piece of legislation that doesn't apply to them. Jooler

Can I suggest moving this discussion to the relevant article talk page? This one is for discussion of the WP:RM process. -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Please don't try to sideline this issue. Jooler 14:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On review of the situation I have decided that requested moves is not the right place for this, as dictated by the introduction on the page. I have suggested an change to the system above but to little attention. I have reworked the relevant articles as anybody would had this page not existed - no admin privileges were needed. If anybody wishes to argue the change, or suggest alternatives, then perhaps they should be taken to the primary article (Freedom of information legislation).

PS, one correction - it would all be done if I wasn't getting a server error every time I've submitted for the last 30 minutes. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- - -
After you have learned to debate more skillfully, Jooler, perhaps you will have the ability to “demolish” one of my arguments. But when you do, it will not be necessary to say that you have done it; observers will be able to discern this for themselves. Of course, you could not demolish the argument that the US FOIA has precedence. We both believe it does. You might argue that precedence has less importance than you think I have given it. But I have said that I believe precedence to be only one factor to consider, and I cannot imagine how you have “demolished” the idea that it should be considered at all. Perhaps if you had been listening to my argument, you would have done better at refuting it.

You state, colorfully, that no one outside of the US would care about the US FOIA or any other piece of US legislation. To be charitable, I will assume that you also believe that to be true about UK, Irish, and Australian legislation, namely, it is only of concern to those who live under its jurisdiction. If that is the case, then my point about the respective populations of the states in question is perfectly relevant: the more persons in each state, the more persons who will care two hoots about the corresponding act. So the fact that 80% of all those who live under a “Freedom of Information Act” would only, by your standard, care about the US FOIA means that it must be the primary meaning. Your standard is not mine, though: I credit some people in the world with being interested in what happens outside of their own countries, and thus consider population to be just one more factor to consider; but you seem to have missed that point entirely. Again, perhaps if you had been listening, you could have refuted the argument I was actually making.

Since you are not really paying attention to what I am saying, I will say for anyone else’s benefit that I really am a cosmopolitan, as I have said. I just honestly believe that, for the near future, the US FOIA will remain the primary meaning of the precise term ‘Freedom of Information Act’, given the act’s longevity, the scope of its jurisdiction, and the proven role it plays in US society. But primary meaning is subjective anyway, so even if we conducted a survey of all anglophones we would not have agreed on how to define the question beforehand.

For the record, Netoholic, I was originally trying not to debate the move any further on this page, but rather, to discuss the implications of this case for the nature of WP:RM. But it is hardly effective to respond elsewhere to what is said here.
— Ford 01:05, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Well Violet has made the move now anyway so this discussion is irrelevant. So so this is the last I have to say about it, and it is a general point. All of Ford's points regarding the precedance or primacy and supposed international awareness of the US FOIA could be used as arguments for making the following pages exclusively about US subjects - Declaration of Independence- Civil War - Secretary of State - Postmaster General - Supreme Court - Bill of Rights - Georgia - Surgeon General dollar etc.. etc.. - but they arn't. I agree the use of the word "demolished" was inappropriate. "dealt with" would have been better. Jooler

Regarding the issues surrounding this particular argument as they affect this page - As I stated earlier moving the disambiguation page seemed like an uncontroversial move to me I had no intention of starting an argument. It could have all been avoided if only Netoholic hadn't decided to remove the debate when it was on the cusp of obtaining a consensus (it was one short - judging by the articles that Netoholic didn't remove). With no specific procedures laid down, he had no more right to remove it than I did to re-instate it. After it was initially removed I politely asked Netoholic for clarification of what procedure he was following. The inadequate and dismissive reply telling me to refer it to Rfc did not help matters and nor did the lack of reply to a request for further clarification. We obviously need to clarify the procedures to be followed for removing debates and deciding what constitutes a consensus. Jooler 10:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No longer supporting RM

"Sometimes you want to move a page, but cannot do so because a page of that name already exists. This page allows you to request action by a admin to perform such moves".

That is the lead of Requested moves, not "Should this article be moved". I've noted in earlier discussions (above) that I believe the focus of RM should change, or at least the wording should be altered. This system is supposed to be about moves that cannot be done because of existing article history but now it's become a voting ground. While voting is important and should be encouraged I think that RM should either change focus or move requests to the talk page if somebody opposes it. That therefore leads me to believe that there is no need for support votes. violet/riga (t) 20:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a way I have to agree. Not so long ago, a page move wasn't a big deal - except occaisionally you wouldn't be able to move a page because of a history conflict and you would have to ask an admin for help. The problem was, there was no easy way to locate an admin who was around to help - hence WP:RM was created. Now, in a short pace of time, it has blossomed into a whole set of policies, procedures and argument to and fro. You have to stop and think 'what happened?'. Perhaps it really indicates that moving is page is more of a deal than it is made out to be. Certainly quite a lot of people seem to care what the proper page title should be, and the argument often looses sight of the original guiding principle, that a page should be at its most 'natural' name so that if someone guesses a link in another article they will probably get it right. -- Solipsist 21:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's always a guide. If you can find an admin (like myself) willing to do a move, you don't have to list it here. However, once you list something to be moved, some folks will chime in with other suggestions, while others will pre-emptively support your request. Given that this is a concensus-based project, this only makes sense. I think it is best to see if you can find a willing, online admin to do the move before listing a request here, since that will get the most direct results. Failing that, the reasons could be (a) no admins are online, (b) none are willing to do the move because they are busy with other things or (c) the move is not a good idea. It is unlikely that (a) will be true.... there's how many admins now? Although figuring out which ones are online can be problematic. Once you've found an online admin (b) is also not so likely. I don't know an admin who won't be willing to take a moment to do a move or a history merge when asked. That leaves (c) and that should bring the community in to decide if the move is a good idea or not. That all said, I do agree that RM has become a little bit boggy - but that has come from the grassroots being dissatisfied with requests being handled too quickly. So perhaps we need to adjust the wait time again, maybe drop it down to 5 days instead of 7, and rewrite the guidelines so than admins can feel free to make obvious moves even sooner than that. - UtherSRG 22:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)