Wikipedia talk:Page movement

Purpose
I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of the custom and etiquette surrounding WP:RM, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber stamping the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. As wikipedia gets larger and larger, it becomes more necessary to make more and more custom explicit to make our operation smooth and transparent to more people. This is probably a bit overdue. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass move proposals. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have m:Help:Moving a page, which is duplicated here at WP:MOVE. Perhaps you would care to edit that page? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: IMO this is Rulescreep and is not needed due to MOVE. I fully expect to see this at Afd, and will be quite surprised if it does not show there in short order. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is how to (and fills a page); this is whether. Two topics, two pages. This should in any case go to MfD, which will reject the proposal (but may suggest failed). Are there substantive disputes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rules creep is how custom turns into policy. That's what happens. Nothing special about the page move process. The custom surrounding WP:RM already has the weight of policy or at least of guideline, which I'm sure would soon be discovered by anyone who went around WP:RM closures. Pretty obvious really. Atm obeying WP:RM closures, avoiding cut-and-paste moves, and such things do not have a place in the policy pages. That's really not something likely to be long term, and is strange if you actually think about it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a regular at WP:RM, I do think there needs to be some expansion on page move guidelines. A specific concern of mine is that there is no policy that specifically prohibits cut-and-paste moves. This page, or Move (if it's decided to merge the content there) needs to state in no uncertain terms that c&p moves are 100% forbidden. There is also a discussion currently ongoing here that will likely have some impact on page moving policy (specifically, relating to moves that may be controversial, and the proper procedure to perform them).

Since M:Move is located on the Meta, and would in theory apply to all of the Wikis, not just en.wikipedia, it would be useful to have a separate supplemental page here for any en-specific guidelines (such as those suggested in the aforementioned discussion). Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that cut&paste page "moves" generally are not acceptable, because they do not move the edit histories. I do it now and then, though, when the edit histories are entirely my own edits.  Should that be disallowed?  Also, they are easy to fix, aren't they?  So I don't see that any new policy or guideline is needed here.  --Una Smith (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of these things are policy already. They're just not on policy or guideline pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Una, if the edit history is 100% your own work, then yes, there's no GFDL problem with cutting and pasting. In all other instances, though, it is a BAD THING.  And they are not always easy to fix, nor should they have to be fixed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this proposing?
I'm not sure what this is actually proposing. This seems to just be a compilation of existing guidelines, help pages, and process instructions. Its a good essay, but as a guideline, there doesn't seem to be anything new here. Mr.Z-man 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering the same thing myself. However, it is a good idea to have a centralized place that acts as a description of what current customs are.  WP:RM doesn't really lend itself to that, so this is as good a place as any.  Once this has been finalized, I would say we should put a prominent link to it at WP:RM, and leave it at that.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that description belongs on the existing help page, not a new policy or guideline page. --Una Smith (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I refer Mr. Z man to the purpose section above. It's not proposing anything as is. Merely to get some of wikipedia's policies about page movement in writing on a WP space policy page. Obviously, Una, rules about cut and paste and WP:RM aren't for a help page. It's preposterous that they have been confined to such places for so long. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary rules for requested moves are and should be Naming conventions. The last thing we need is more instruction creep and new pages added on the top of a zillion existing naming convention policy pages.   Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages? Polling?
If this is going to become codified policy/guideline, I would like to see a section about the proper place to discuss controversial moves. In my opinion, no page should be moved as the result of any discussion other than that which occurs on its talk page, unless it is part of a multi-page move with a section at its talk page notifying you of the discussion (at some other talk page, usually). I think such discussions should always happen on article talk pages, never on project pages or in the Wikipedia namespace. (Though I myself once broke this rule and brought a multi-page move proposal to my userspace. The recent Republic of Ireland disputes have shown me the error of my ways.) Secondly, a section about polling and how it should be used/participated in/evaluated by admins would be nice if this page is going to flesh out some detailed guidelines for controversial moves. [By the way, though this does not seem like a redundant guideline to me, I am reticent to see more guidelines to be created that have the appearance of consensus when they are by and large the work of a very small&mdash;and in the case of our oldest guidelines, defunct&mdash;part of the community.] Srnec (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, while I agree with you that article move discussions should generally take place on the article talk page, I'm hesitant to make it an absolute no-no. Could you please give us a deeper explanation of why it's such a bad idea? Thanks,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 10:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason a 'non-controversal' move -- the type that can be moved without ANY discussion -- needs to be talked about on the page if it's talked about at all. I've seen plenty of discussions on project pages about it (just yesterday for one, in fact), and noone's said it was a problem, not should it be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk)
 * Who's talking about uncontroversial moves? Srnec (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Address gamemanship
I don't think this is a good idea. But if anything is done along these lines, it should address which version is the default version. It should address the gamesmanship and posturing of people who start moving pages, then get an admin crony to move-protect the page once they get their version as the page name. And address the ludicrous notion often put forward that "protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Of course it is; if it weren't, people wouldn't be playing these games.

Far too much of the current process depends on who ends up having to request the move. There should be a general rule that any undiscussed move can be reversed on sight by anyone; if there is no controversy, it won't be, of course. But if it is going to be controversial, it is the editor who wants to move a stable article to provide sufficient evidence that it deserves to be moved. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bureaucratic
This entire page seems to be anti-wiki and overly bureaucratic. The move tab exists for a reason. If there's an issue, WP:BRD applies aptly. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)