Meta:Proposed page moves/Archives/2012

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Yes check.svg Done: No opposes in over 7 days, so moved all pages as per above. The Helpful One 02:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose to move Oversight (and subpages) to Oversight policy (history); as it happens with CheckUser policy. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 12:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Talk:MediaWiki FAQ/Meta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Yes check.svg Done. The Helpful One 22:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In order to copy Talk:MediaWiki FAQ to, it was moved to this location (as we wanted a separate archive page, rather than merging the history into the existing page). Now that the import has taken place, it should be moved back to its original location, however I don't have permission to delete the redirect that now exists there.

Can someone with appropriate permissions please delete the redirect and move the page back to its original location. You should not need to make the /Meta page redirect to the new location as it was only there temporarily, and for a short time.

--HappyDog 22:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


PedophiliaChild protection - previously discussed at Talk:Pedophilia#Proposed_rename. The move would focus the policy better, and match en:WP:Child protection. Rd232 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Support on the grounds of naming consistency across projects (w:wp:Child protection, commons:com:Child protection), while noting the policy is clearly a response to concerns re pedophilia, rather than the full scope of the meaning of "w:child protection" (as I mentioned at: Commons:Commons talk:Child protection#The_descriptor "child protection") -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose The page in question only exists because of statements made by the Executive Director of the WMF regarding "pedophiles", not "child protection". The discussion here on META was recently re-ignited when an admin on Commons blocked a user who had apparently been previously incarcerated for the distribution of child pornography and ran his own porn site to which he invited Commons users. The users who have supported this rename in the talk page discussion here are, for the most part, the very same users who are opposed to a ban on self-identified pedophiles. Most of them have come here from Commons, following a long and disruptive public discussion of the case previously mentioned. One of the most vocal opponents to this policy here is User:Dcoetzee, who un-blocked the user on Commons. The attempt to rename the page is nothing less than an attempt to divert attention from the real reason that the policy exists. Diluting a short, clear statement -- "editors who attempt to use Wikimedia projects to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked." -- will only prolong discussion on this subject and prevent the policy from ever leaving "draft" stage. While a true "child protection" page may be useful, it would more appropriately take the form of guidelines and could easily reference Pedophilia. The only reason that the page on the English-language Wikipedia is called "Child Protection" is because the page title was already in use by a Wiki-project. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - This discussion is now already open for about one two month and only two users expressed their opinion here. However, it would probably be of more use if we'd get some more input here. I'm willing to wait for another week before closing this, however, as of now we'd just stick to the current page name as there is no consensus here to do something. -Barras talk 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Support I watchlisted this discussion long ago but forgot to comment it. Note that the discussion has been open for about two months, not one. What is important is to protect children from any problems which pædophiles may pose to them and not necessarily to fight pædophiles. The two tasks (protecting children & fighting pædophiles) are related, and in many cases doing one thing will mean that you would also do the other thing, but in some cases, the two tasks may require different (and possibly incompatible) actions. In these cases, choosing the action which means protecting children would be the most appropriate action, and so "Child protection" would be a more appropriate page name. It would also mean naming consistency with other projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I forgot that there is also a month called April. ;-) I just fixed that. -Barras talk 13:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Question: There is a long discussion about a potential move at Talk:Pedophilia#Proposed rename with both proponents and opponents. Shouldn't those votes also be taken into account, despite being on the wrong page? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the comments are at the very least worth reading and also may influence the result here. -Barras talk 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the page - it's been three months, there's only one person opposing, and if we put this behind us maybe we'll notice that we still have a "proposed policy" notice at the top of this page! Wnt (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Board meetings

There are many Wikimedia Boards (see Wikimedia Chapters - each Wikimedia Chapter has a Board), and as such the description of "Wikimedia Board meetings" is very ambiguous. Moving this page, and the subpages, to Wikimedia Foundation Board meetings would significantly clarify the context of these pages. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014 bids/Sydney to Wikimania 2012/Bids/Sydney

  • This bid was moved forward but does not have anyone currently championing it. Discussion started at Talk:Wikimania 2014 bids/Sydney, with the previous champion agreeing that it should be moved back. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Adding my Support Support almost seems redundant, this seems like an obvious move. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that this use of sub-pages lends itself to exactly this kind of difficulty. If somebody's going to go to the trouble of setting up a bot, I'd rather see it remove slashes from titles and use categories instead. (There are occasional circumstances where sub-pages are useful, but in the vast majority of cases where they're used on this wiki, categories are a better tool. I've made this change throughout the more recent Wikimania category tree; if you're interested, it might be worth poking around there.) -Pete F (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Pete F (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not moved