Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Approval voting?

The second paragraph of the instructions begins as follows:

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days...

I do not understand how approval voting could be used for these discussions, nor how one could obtain a 60% consensus (or indeed, any sort of consensus). Could someone explain? I don't believe I've seen any approval voting on requested moves. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When a proposed move is suggested usually there is a clear choice. Either move it to a new name or leave it where it is. But occasionally before the move takes place, or slightly more frequently as the discussion takes place, it becomes obvious that the people involved in the discussion are proposing more than one option. Usually this is where no-one likes the current name but they can not agree on one other alternative name. See these two examples:

Rather than put all this into the "requested moves" page and to keep the instructions simple, it is clearer to say that "Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page" as the the usual format for the survey, as given in the example on the requested moves page, is a specialised approval vote involving only two options "move" or "not move".

Personally I would like a separate opinion forming system involving multiple choice which allowed oppose opinions to negate support one, but as no-one has written the detailed instructions for such a system, the most comprehensive set of instructions for a relatively simple multiple choice vote is approval voting.

See Wikipedia:consensus. The archives are full of why 60% was chosen for this particular process. But as the majority of moves involves less than five editors (see a survey I did in October 2005: Stats and Archive 5:summary) and 60% number works well for moves less than five editors (see: Archive 4:consensus). It has been suggested that when there are more editors involved in discussions that the threshold should be higher, the trouble is that this leads to instruction creep, as a moved page (unlike a delete) can always be moved back in the future the benefits of such an arrangement are in my opinion outweighed by the complications of the instructions and the complications of policing it. For example if the threshold was set at <5 60%, 5-10 66% , and >10 75%, I can just imagen the arguments about the 6th and the 11th vote being valid or not! --Philip Baird Shearer 07:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The archives are full of why numeric criteria should not be used. Kim Bruning 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why there would need to be more editors to make the decision. Most moves are clear-cut, they should be done even if the only person involved is the one person who proposed it. If there weren't a redirect in the way, it could be done entirely without appeal to this Requested moves process. The 60% consensus is also bogus; if someone is supporting the official, commonly used name citing sources and Wikipedia:Naming conventions and everyone else is blathering about what spelling their Grandma uses, the Requested move should not be closed, it should either be moved in favor of good reason, or relisted to get more reasonable people into the discussion. Even moreso than other processes, Requested moves is not a vote. —Centrx→talk • 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, this text was already changed a month ago. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

relevant discussion

i can't move pages and i'm logged in. i think that's false 

Turnip Wars 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Template question

Is there a template to put on the main article page to announce that a move discussion is happening on the talk page? Or is there a reason that this should only be flagged on the discussion page? --Elonka 22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC

Operation names as article titles

Regarding the operation name articles listed for move I would like to point out that they had been previously been tagged but not listed here and practically no one had voted on it. There is a discussion about them at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Añoranza 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has been told numerous times that location is not appropriate for the discussion. They participated in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Using_operational_names however ceased participation after being asked to prove some comments they made. The listing was up for over 10 days without a concensus for a move. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Help please

In The City - festival and music industry conference is obviously incorrectly named. The problem is that I don't know what to rename it (I would probably go with In The City (music festival)). There is also a possibility of moving the article In the City to In the City (album) and then renaming the article about the festival to "In The City" (or "In the City", if the capitalized "the" is inappropriate). What should happen? —EdGl 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewording of the page intro

The page currently says that:

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after...

Shouldn't it instead summarize and link to Wikipedia:Straw polls, and indicate that the closing admin will measure the arguments of opposing sides (if any) rather than mere vote count? For example:

An opinion poll is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus, assessed by the closing administrator (within his/her discretion) by vote counting (usually, 60%) and assessing weigths of presented arguments, if a dispute occurs. The normal time for discussion is five (5) days, but may be extended if a consensus has not emerged.

Opinions? Duja 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the vote aspect should be downplayed further. —Centrx→talk • 22:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Polls are evil. Other pages in which a semblance of "voting" takes place (such as WP:AFD and WP:CFD) have moved to explicitly deprecate voting in favor of discussions and consensus-seeking. IMO, refering to approval voting and having a specific numeric figure only exacerbates contentious moves. Policies and guidelines should carry more weight than majority votes. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I do agree also, so, how would it be reworded (instead of just deleted)? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Overwrite Redirects

If a redirect has a history, a normal article that someone wants to move to the redirect page and overwrite it cannot be moved there. I think this should be fixed so any article can be moved to overwrite a redirect. Yonatanh 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea; what if a vandal changes Page A (a legitimate article) to a redirect, and then moves Page F (an unrelated article) on top of it? Where do you put the edits of Page A in the database? -- nae'blis (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing where a page's tab points

Let me illustrate this with the actual problem:

1. I typed "Barbara Bush" in the Main Page's Go box and got to a disambiguation page with three entries: Barbara Bush (born 1925); Barbara Pierce Bush (born 1981); Cathy whathername (she's not germane to the problem). So far, so good.

2. Clicking the first link -- Barbara Bush (born 1925) -- takes you to the wife of George H. W. Bush. Also OK. BUT:

Clicking the "Discussion" tab takes you back to the talk for the disambiguation page. I couldn't get to Talk:Barbara Bush via a tab link. It's this problem that I really want to fix, and I suspect it takes an administrator to do it. (No, I don't want the job; I just want to bring the problem to someone's attention.)

And while I'm on the subject of Barbara Bush, I'll mention two other problems:

a) Do both the mother of George W. Bush and his daughter have the same full name of "Barbara Pierce Bush"? I found this confusing, as the disambiguation page gives the names differently.
b) At the bottom of the page for Barbara Bush (1925), the successions of First Lady and Second Lady are out of sync. --Chris 14:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody did a move without the "move talk page too" box checked, so it got lost. The actual talk page was left behind at Talk:Barbara Bush (First Lady). As to your questions, yes, the granddaughter has the same name; and I don't see a problem now with the box. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't see a problem with the "Successions" box? That's hard to figure. But I'll take it to the talk page for that article. --ChrisWinter 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but you are right... Or, in modern parlance: "D'oh!". I was led astray by the section title: "Succession of the First Ladies" and read the box as intending to deal with two different people in the same administration. --ChrisWinter 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete requests

There seem to be quite a few, i.e. where the proposal fails to indicate where discussion is taking place, or that have failed to add the template to the Talk page.

  1. I see some moves are thrown back because of incompleteness.
  2. Should we be helping complete them, if interested? I've done this a few times for pages that interest me but it gets tedious. As a non-admin I don't feel I should be throwing them back myself, of course, for the admins that's just as much work as completing it for them.
  3. Should we otherwise be ignoring incomplete requests? Natural consequence theory of parenting.
  4. A better notice at the top of the page, perhaps? If you do not follow all these steps your move request may be removed from the list. Something like that.

--Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree; it's quite frustrating to have incomplete requests. A better notice could certainly help. I favor delisting any requests that don't have a notice and discussion section on the article's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's fairly easy to create a discussion section; just start commenting under the move, if no more formalism seems warranted - and in these cases it rarely is. Ones without a move notice are more justified rejections, especially if some time has passed without the regualrs on that page knowing about the move request here. Septentrionalis 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
But should we be doing that? It's a courtesy, but wears on my interest in haunting RM, and I'm getting tired of the truism that sometimes it's easier to fix something yourself than to tell people how to fix their own goofs. I think we should be encouraging people to follow procedure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One or two of the incomplete entries seem to be uncontentious moves that the editor simply doesn't know how to do. Would it be OK in that case for me, as a non-admin, to delete them from here and leave a message on the poster's talk page telling them what they need to do? Or is it really implied that edits to this page should only be made by admins?--MichaelMaggs 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

VoteQuestion

Is there a closing date for the poll on Talk:Wladyslaw II Jagiello? The thing has been going for ages (since June) with pretty much the same result and no-one has come to close it. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Backlog

Is anyone working on the backlog? --Basique 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a backlog when you don't have to be an Admin to make a move? Anyone can move a page. Folks who nominate a page for move should be given the option to get instructions on moving pages, rather than have this material accrete here waiting for an admin. Williamborg 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Some moves, as is usually the case here, need the destination page to be deleted before the article can be moved. This usually occurs from a redirect with a history.--liquidGhoul 02:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks - Williamborg 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Many admins are working on the backlog but some articles need more than a week to gather consensus which explains the large backlog. Joelito (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I know how to move a page, I don't know how to merge an existing page into a redirect, which is why I requested Admin assistance. --Basique 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The lost requests

There are about 500 pages in Category:Requested moves but only about 100 listed here at RM. Presumably this is associated with people using the {{move}} tag, but never coming here to complete process. If anyone is feeling especially industrious, that category could definitely use some cleaning. Dragons flight 01:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone has cleared a lot out. Part of the problem is moves not being properly closed, so it is not always clear if the move was closed, or wasn't properly listed in the first place. Also some moves get listed on multiple pages. -- Beardo 04:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Too new

Hello! I can't move articles right now because my account is too new. How long will it be before I can? I only want to correct the capitalization in new articles such as Michael chapdelaine. Jay Gatsby(talk) 07:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind...I read the project page and learned that it was 4 days. Thanks anyway! Jay Gatsby(talk) 10:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten move

On the article Humanism (belief system)'s talk page, there was a 'vote tally' all in 'favor' of the move to 'Humanism (life stance)' in March; I still added my vote and arguments in favor. It would be awkward however, for me to perform the move because some voters seem to prefer 'lifestance' above 'life stance' and I do not wish to be the judge. The votes do make clear that any spelling would be much better that the current 'belief system'. — SomeHuman 2006-08-04 02:39 (UTC)

Some moves were removed

Why did 172.164.52.93 (talk · contribs) remove some move nominations? Nobody's closed the Naruto or Holocene extinction event discussions yet. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article equals moving article?

I am about to suggest that the title of an article be changed to a more precise one. Should that involve some kind of moving procedure?--Húsönd 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same procedure. Unless it's a housekeeping/totally uncontested move, it can be brought here for a wider consensus. -- nae'blis 04:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility

I am thinking that before any decision on a requested move, some body should be indicating, in the appropriate talk page, acceptance of responsiblity for the eventual decision. I know of at least one move ("City of Aberdeen" → "Aberdeen City")) without anybody taking responsibility for the decision. Laurel Bush 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

It's right in the page history, though. Kjkolb moved it, after unanimous support for the move request. Kafziel 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As well as moving the page, it's usually also a good for whoever does this to note it on the talk page - i.e. remove the template:move notice, and add a message about the move, possibly using {{moved}} or {{moved-n}}. See Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators (though note page moves don't always have to be completed by an administrator). --Vclaw 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Certainly the discussion should be closed and the move template removed, but I don't know what you mean by "taking responsibility". It is clear who moved any article, and everyone is responsible for their actions; the many hundreds of requested moves don't need an extra note—already beyond saying "this was done". Anyone who has a question about it can ask the mover. I don't see what the problem is. —Centrx→talk • 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Relisting

This may not apply to most relistings, but requested moves can be reasonable and uncontested and in such cases should be done even if only one user proposed and there has been no other discussion. Moving is, after all, a function that any user can perform if there weren't a page blocking the move.

Sea God/Emperor of the Sea may be a good example where it should be moved rather than relisted. In this particular case, the user provides several examples and the external links and a Google search seems to confirm his reason. If a user in good standing is making a request with good reason and there has been no objection, then it probably should be moved. Of course, if the person reviewing the request objects, then they can add the reason for their objection and relist it here; or if the request is confusing or nonsensical too, but in that case it might be better to ask for clarification on the article's Talk page, or to decline the move request. —Centrx→talk • 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Page naming

It is hard trying to follow the guidelines. It shows what to do when you have a page name but what am i meant to add in "21st August" when i do not know what to rename the article? All i could really follow was the small section in step 2. The other steps say Move blah new name. But what if there isn't a new name yet decided for the article. As i have said, i can only follow the small section in step 2 and thats it with {{moveoptions}}. Can someone please help me out as to what i am meant to do next? (yes i have put the move options template in the talk page). Simply south 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use a question mark or something. In general, if you don't know where it should be moved, you should ask about it on the article Talk page and see if there are any responses, before posting it here. If no one responds, it may be better to ask on the relevant Wikiproject or post a Request for comment. Requested moves works, but you should first see if there is anyone else watching the article who might have advice rather than floating an uncertain proposal here. —Centrx→talk • 19:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just realised

I want to move something to an already existing page, which is a redirect, but just realised i do not know how to do it without cut and paste. When the discussion is over (give it a few days or more) will i have to move it (somehow) or is an administrator going to do it? and would i have to request this to someone? Simply south 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So long as it's been flagged as a requested move per the instructions, one of those fine administrator folk will take of implementing the outcome. Best wishes, David Kernow 20:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Counting votes

Is Requested Moves just a tally of votes in support and in opposition to a move? What is the policy if no valid reasons are provided by one side (particularly the side that opposes a move since status quo is on their side)? Can people just oppose without providing a valid reason? Would the closing admin take that into consideration in tallying votes? --Polaron | Talk 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves and similar processes are not a vote. The reasons are what is important, the reasons are what is evaluated (the reasons are also what would influence fellow participants to change their "vote"). References to sources and to policy are paramount. Though the support/oppose can be helpful—and when dealing with reasonable editors who have read the discussion they are an important indicator—they are properly a minor consideration. They should perhaps be de-emphasized in the Requested moves template. —Centrx→talk • 01:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I definitely think closing admins need to consider the naming policies and guidelines when reading discussions. A policy-compliant move request I proposed quite recently failed just because people voted oppose. Extraordinary Machine 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Making requesting a 1-step-affair through a macro?

Hi, couldn't we create some sort of a macro so that adding a requested move boils down to just one step instead of 3 and a lot less documentation to read / manual labor? Is there a mechanism in MediaWiki for such macros or is a macro-mechanism planned someday? Peter S. 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass move of football (soccer) club articles

At the moment most football (soccer) club articles have titles with full stops in their abbreviations - e.g. Arsenal F.C. There's a growing consensus on WikiProject Football that it is desirable to remove full stops from the article titles (e.g. Arsenal FC) to fall into line with standard WP practice on abbreviations. But this is a non-trivial problem - there are thousands of articles, templates and categories in the current format. So I have two questions:

  • Where should a discussion take place in order to generate a full consensus? As there are so many articles to move it can't really take place on a single page's talk page like normal requested moves.
  • If the community decides such a move is desirable, what tools/bots that can help us in performing these renamings?

All help and advice much appreciated. Thanks. Qwghlm 12:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If no joy here (or, say, at the Village Pump) you could try posting your query at the Administrators' noticeboard. Seems a reasonable rename to me!  Regards, David Kernow 04:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Once there's a consensus at the Wikiproject, IMO the next move is to document the new standard in the naming conventions, which will require a general consensus. Then it's just a matter of the legwork to implement it, but at least new work should conform. And yes, there are some automated tools, I'm afraid it's not my skill but I know they are there.
For a mass move, we generally discuss on one talk page, and just put a link there from each of the others.
I appreciate your efforts not to clog the admin channels, and I'll try to keep an eye on this for when you need some admin time (and feel free to give me a heads-up on my talk page). Andrewa 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Why are the arguments above at #Approval voting?, and at just about every other process page where voting is discouraged, wrong? Why should a percentage of votes have anything to do with, for example, moving a page clearly in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions but opposed to several fans jumping up and down but saying nothing? Why revert a change to this page supported by 3 editors against 1, that is more than 60% support? —Centrx→talk • 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the archives on this talk page. The %age was chosen because not all decisions are clear cut and 60/40 was chosen because it works well with small numbers of editors expressing an opinion. The naming conventions are not at all clear, for example how about names like Dokdo, Zürich, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and Río de la Plata to name just a few which have passed through this page? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Why should there be a percentage at all? There are cases with 40% support where it is clear cut that it should be moved under naming conventions, common English usage, and other reasons, and there are cases with 80% support (or 100% with just the nominator or a few supporters) where it is clear cut that it shouldn't be moved. Often many of the people voting are fans only editing a couple of related articles, with no knowledge at all of naming conventions or policy. In other words, a voting percentage is not at all a sound way to determine whether it should be moved or not (3 vs. 2 or 5 vs. 3 is a reason to move!?). What is the reason for encouraging a vote? The more obscure the application of the naming conventions, the less likely the editors of that particular article are going to have any idea how to apply them. —Centrx→talk • 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone might take on some kind of expert system / natural-language processing AI project through which proposed names could be processed authomatically with reference to a policy and guideline database...  Regards, David Kernow 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any policies or guidelines on when renaming a page how to deal with the "What links here", specifically how to deal with redirects? In the discussion at Talk:Crusade#Requested_move, the vast majority of incoming links use "Crusade", and if we rename the article to "Crusades", will it be OK for the vast majority of incoming links to be redirects? Crusade->Crusades .. Or should those be cleaned up and fixed? -- Stbalbach 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally the latter, I guess, although you'd probably want to find a friendly bot operator to automate the process... I haven't visited Talk:Crusade, but I assume the rationale for switching to the plural (contrary to what I believe is Wikipedia's preference for the singular) is because the article treats the Crusades as a whole...?  Regards, David Kernow 05:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Header template

user:Centrx edited the page today and added a template: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header. I am of two minds over a header (and footer) template(s):

  • Yes it cleans up the page.
  • But it puts in a level of complexity for inexperianced users who wish to edit the page -- Should inexperianced user be discourage as these are instructions
  • And calling a template every time a page is accessed puts up the server load.
  • If we go for templates, we could instead place the days into template(s) instead of the header ....

What do you think? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Server load is negligible unless a template is changed frequently and is transcluded in many places. The template is not called every time the page is viewed; it is the other way around: any time a template is changed, the pages that transclude it are updated.
  2. Day subpages would make it slightly more involved to create a new day, where now all that is needed is a new section created by any inexperienced user. Unlike many of the other process pages that use transcluded subpages, there is no need for a separate archive and the Requested moves page is much shorter. Whereas the header is edited rarely, this would be a hassle with no apparent benefit.
  3. One problem with placing days only into subpages is that the header history would still be mixed in with the days, which will have 3 changes for every day (creation, move to backlog, removal).
  4. If any inexperienced user wishes to edit this policy/process page, they are free to see the header or request their edit on the Talk page here, just as on WP:RFA, WP:RFD, and WP:CP, among other places. The header is rarely changed, and since you oppose any change whatsoever to the Requested moves page—even when it is purely formatting with no change of text—they would have to bring it up here first anyway, or they would be reverted; that is, unless you didn't notice the change because it was lost in the sea of moves. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

John Hewitt

I've mucked this move up, and am not sure how to list it on the Requested moves page. Today User:Allydross moved the original John Hewitt page (about the Nothern Irish writer) to John Harold Hewitt. He then created an article about a footballer at John Hewitt. The Irish writer is obviously more notable, so I copied and pasted the text of it back to John Hewitt and moved the footballer article to John Hewitt (footballer). I now realise that I've lost the edit history, and also that I'm a complete idiot. Could someone please list this, or tell me how to list this, so that John Hewitt remains to be about the Northern Irish writer and the edit history is restored. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been fixed. —Centrx→talk • 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Improperly indexed categories after moves are made

The people who are working on implementing requested moves ought to be aware of the fact that changing the name of the article will affect its indexing in category, and that any such move may result in a need to change the indexing sort key.

But apparently not everyone is, as is shown by this recent move of the article Deià by User:Wknight94. Gene Nygaard 02:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well how much can you ask of the admin performing the move? He/She has enough to worry about. Small details are best left to either the move requester or other editors of the article. Joelito (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
To me, it is far better to expect the pros at making these moves to be the ones to be aware of the implications of doing so. Gene Nygaard 03:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This is cute. Of course Mr. Nygaard didn't notice that the article was already wrong (according to him) at Deyá before the move. 20-20 hindsight... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That it was wrong before is immaterial. What matters is that it was wrong afterward. Gene Nygaard 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the sorting would only be wrong (according to Mr. Nygaard) if there happened to be another article (in the one category the article is in) that started with "Dey". Maybe it's time to find something more constructive to worry about. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Or if one is added in the future. You can't assume one won't be, so it was wrong when you made the move, before I fixed it. Gene Nygaard 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least if we keep fixing each other's apparent mistakes, as I've done for you here, we'll all come out winners, now won't we? Personally, I'll take a future category indexing error that would only become apparent in the remote case that a city starting with "Dey" is suddenly found on the Balearic Islands over your category glut error any day - but that's just me. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: our priority is doing admin job. Fixing categories is not strictly admin job. The backlog is big enough for us to be worried about it, not about category sorting. You don't need admin privilieges to do category sorting. --Dijxtra 11:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't generally need admin privileges to make moves which mess up the indexing, either. And while I will keep bitching about others who don't do so, you can bet your sweet bippy that I'm going to set the bar higher for admins doing so in connection with WP:RM. They ought to be held to a higher standard. Refusing to fix it, once you are aware if the problem, and when it is closely connected with the function of people working in this area, is much worse than someone else doing it out of ignorance. Gene Nygaard 14:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's resolve to try to remember to check/update category indexing after a move – similarly, to update the article's new name where it (or part of it) occurs in the text, something I try to remember to do – and give thanks that Gene will be doing so in particular. Thanks, Gene!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Let's also resolve that, instead of "bitching about others", we point out the issue in a civil manner? I routinely fix when others add articles to categories even though they're already in more specific categories (as I pointed out above) and I routinely fire up WP:AWB to fix a zillion links to Democratic Party and other dab pages - but pointing out those mistakes in an uncivil manner simply results in time-wasting nastygram wars like this one and everyone loses. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The convention is not all that well known—there are whole countries worth of material that are categorized in non-English fashion and one can still use the category page effectively. In this example I would have found Deià in the category page, regardless. Yes, we can do better, but short of a new Wikiproject on indexing categories or a training course for administrators, it is unlikely that every Wikipedian and every Administrator will know how to index categories properly after moves. If you are serious about a systematic fix, start a new Wikiproject on indexing categories or join the training discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship... Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 15:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not just non-English. It's usually also non-French, non-Spanish, non-Hungarian, non-whatever. The default just sorts by Unicode number of the characters, not by anybody else's alphabet either. Gene Nygaard 16:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_7&oldid=1137436386"