Wikipedia

Talk:List of The Wire episodes/Archive 1

< Talk:List of The Wire episodes
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Anþony in topic Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire

Move discussion

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

There is a proposed move of several episodes of The Wire that don't follow standard wikipedia naming conventions. More info and voting/discussion at WT:TV-NC#Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure this is clear to everyone -- There is currently a massive dispute at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). As part of that dispute, a group of editors has taken it upon themselves to ignore existing objections, and work their way through Wikipedia, changing category after category to a different naming convention. The next target on their list is "The Wire", and they are planning on moving many articles. If you like the Wire categories the way that they currently are, please go to the "Proposed moves" poll, and say Oppose to try and stop this change. If, however, you like the idea of changing everything around, you should Support. --Elonka 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This massive dispute is currently 13-3 in favor of moving in compliance with the guideline. Elonka's objections have been heard, but are not sufficient to negate the application of the guideline. If anyone has any problem with the guideline or the move specifically, you are more than welcome to contribute to the discussion at WT:TV-NC. –  Anþony  talk  15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that would be 14...as nominator, my support is a given. Is it generally acceptable for the nominator to add an entry in the "voting" list? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Being nominator automatically means you support. But i don't think there's any reason not to add an entry in the voting list. Most people just don't bother i guess. --`/aksha 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The majority of people supporting the move, are the disruptive group of editors who are working their way through Wikipedia, ignoring valid objections. For awhile, they'd been moving pages and claiming, "See, no one's complaining." Then, once complaints started, they switched to, "Well, not many people are complaining." Then, more complaints came in, and they're now, "Too bad, we have more votes than you." This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Consensus: "at times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors ... This is not a consensus.". --Elonka 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
An example will be nice Elonka. For example, how about you provide us with an example of a complaint? That is, a complaint made by an editor NOT involved in this conflict, regarding us moving an article which they edit on?
Because from what i've seen, the effects have been quite the opposite. I can remember times when outside editors from affected articles (and/or wikiprojects) have noticed the moves, and obviously approved by chipping in and helping. --`/aksha 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd second that request. Virtually all the complaining I've seen has been from Elonka and Matthew. Consensus is rarely unanimity, and when the minority can't get their way, it's not "ignoring objections". Whether an objection is "valid" is a matter of opinion - if consensus says an objection isn't "valid" enough to act on, that's the way it goes. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the full version of the guideline Elonka quoted, it reads a bit differently when it's not selectively edited: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys (Milo H Minderbinder, `/aksha, Anþony) keep insisting that it's just me and Matthew, but you know damn well that's not true. You've gotten complaints at the TMNT pages, complaints from Star Trek and The Wire editors, and a long list of other names too, but you seem to just shrug them off, rather than acknowledging that there are multiple (easily over a dozen) editors disagreeing with your actions. Please stop being disruptive. --Elonka 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have all those pages watchlisted and certainly not everyone's talk page, so I may not be privvy to everyone who's issued a "complaint" -- perhaps you'd like to englighten me if there are so many. In my statement above, I noted only that the move request is currently passing by an overwhelming margin, typically not something that I would expect from a "massive" dispute. I also encouraged anyone who disagrees with the application of the guideline to make their opinion heard, which is what JeffStickney did. Several other editors who were not previously involved in the debate have also voiced their opinion in support of the move. That's how these things go. Some people want the move, others don't. It's pretty clear that a lot more do than don't, so I really don't see how it's disruptive. –  Anþony  talk  21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, where exactly have I said "it's just you and Matthew"? I have said it's a relatively small number of people. I have said it's a minority. But where have I said that. There's a place on WT:TV-NAME where editors can object to this move, and right now I count four objectors. I don't consider that "many", I don't think the average reasonable person would. I don't think we can be expected to assume the opinions of others who don't make the effort to participate in the discussion. I don't "shrug off" the dissenting opinions. But since the consensus clearly goes the other way, I'm not sure exactly what you expect me to do with those opinions in regard to naming articles, what do you propose? I'm not sure specifically where you get your "over a dozen" number, but I'm sure if the same inclusion criteria were applied to those who disagree with you, we'd see greater numbers there as well. Virtually any action on wikipedia can draw complaints - but action doesn't come from the presence or absence of complaints, but the comparison of those complaints with the comments supporting the action. And I think in this case that comparison has been made clearly and repeatedly.
Finally, you continue to make the accusation of disruption with no specifics to back it up. What exactly have I done that you consider disruptive? Requesting RMs, on which people offer their opinions over a period of several days, and an admin declares consensus or not and moves the pages or not? Do you consider that disruptive? Is it disruptive to point out that those complaining are few in number? Is it disruptive to point out that the quantity of your complaints has far outnumbered the number from people actually editing the pages that have been moved? Please clear this up for me: what specifically have I done that has been disruptive? And might I ask that you reserve accusations of disruption for situations that warrant it instead of using it as a veiled personal attack? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend letting the RFAR play out and quieting things down here. The messages are getting longer and nastier. I'm sure Elonka will produce a list of easily over a dozen people disagreeing with the actions. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles are currently in Request Moves, which is the proper way of getting contraversial moves through. Although i disagree that this move is contraversial at all, Request Moves is a fair and open method to carry out any move. If there're many people unhappy about the move, then it should show in the Request Move survey. --`/aksha 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire

Latest comment: 17 years ago65 comments24 people in discussion
This discussion was originally held at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), but has been copied here for archival purposes. –  Anþony  talk  15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. I am aware about the ArbCom case and all the wikidrama, but, as lawyers would say, "an appeal does not stop the process"; the supermajority seems to be clear. Duja► 09:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey I

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support votes

  1. Support per nom. --Serge 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support All per nom. And I commend him for doing a WP:RM when every destination page was a redlink. Nice show of compromise. Unnecessary but still a nice gesture. Should set a good precedent moving forward. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, although the nominator should really have posted a notice at Talk:The Wire (TV series). Andrew Levine 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support the moves, and support the nominator. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per the reasoning behind the existing guidelines, not just because they are guidelines. Jay32183 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate. Nohat 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support since target names have no naming conflict and are simpler. --Polaron | Talk 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, no need for unnecessary disambiguation. --Brian Olsen 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, per all above, previous comments, etc etc. Details available upon request. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, per nom. I don't even see why this is necessasary. All the target pages are red links, couldn't we have just had them moved without going through WP:RM? --`/aksha 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, we could. This request is merely a courtesy, one which ideally should show that the moves are not controversial or disputed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support for all the same reasons. Just to comment on "future-proofing" though. This would make sense for only the very obvious one (like we once went through with "School Reunion"). That being said, the absence of even those "obvious" ones means that there is no article name conflict; if it's that important, once the more "obvious" article is actually created the page can be disambiguated/moved/whatever. If it's not, then it makes little difference since there's not going to be any information on that page for the reader to find anyway. So first past the post is the simplest solution. Also note that the question whether there is an article name conflict also should take into account uppercase and lowercase letters, e.g. "School Reunion" may have no page of its own but "School reunion" might, so that situation needs disambiguation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support This is further evidence that RMs for every move is unnecessary. –  Anþony  talk  04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per all above. Disambiguation is a necessary evil for resolving namespace conflicts, not a categorization mechanism. --Fru1tbat 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support The nomination says it all. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong support (Not that IMO putting "Strong" before the vote make it any more important .. but have to counter those "Strong opposes"..) This vote is not even necessary. There was no consensus for pre-emptive disambiguation of episode titles. -- Chuq 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support (as nominator) --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. There is no need to disambiguate if there is not going to be a naming conflict. The pages should be moved as suggested, and in the future, we will deal with the individual pages' disambiguation if the issues arise. —taestell 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support: Thank you Elonka for notifying me of this discussion. As the author of many of these articles I apologise for not following the naming convention as many people see it in the first place. I can see this has consumed quite a lot of time already. I would like to request that anyone moving the article pages updates all the links that relate to them.--Opark 77 14:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose votes

OpposeMany of the titles, ie "Straight and True", "Game Day", "Stray Rounds",etc are common expresions even if such articles don't exist at the moment. The current way they are names "future-proofs" the articles and keeps them all consistant in how they are named.JeffStickney 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Resign from debate While I have not changed my mind on what would be more appropriate, I believe keeping this project on hold is doing more harm than good. A lot of people have put a great deal of work into this growing "The Wire"'s entry from a stub to a major project with a featured article at its core. Updates were done frequently and regularly but now it seems to have stalled with 4 episode articles yet to be written, and if this debate is stalling the project then it is not worth it. Of the 4 yet-to-be written articles, "Final Grades" would require a disambig as there is a novel named "Final Grade" (without the s but too similar of a title). The others can probably be named directly. Also, the support votes include Andrew Levine, a "Wire" editor and administrator who has put a lot more work into this project than myself. I watched this project grow up from a stub and don't want to see it dragged down by all this petty bickering. If you guys want to put in the work to move the articles I won't stand in your way. On this particular issue, I quit.JeffStickney 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed with this Jeff. Thank you for placing the overall quality of Wikipedia ahead of your personal opinion on the matter. I agree that "Final Grades" vs "Final Grade" will almost certainly confuse people. Jay32183 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Strong oppose. The articles are just fine the way they are, the guideline page is clearly in dispute, and this move is a violation of WP:POINT. Rather than working through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, a group of editors is trying to force agreement with their side of the issue by systematically working through multiple categories and pushing through moves before the dispute is resolved. This particular move of the episodes for The Wire is just one more attack on a long "hitlist" of television series.[1] Thousands of articles are being affected by this small group of editors, and this pattern of disruptive behavior must stop. --Elonka 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose — Mainly per Elonka; also consider the fact we are writing for a reader.. the suffix makes it much easier for them (I believe that is what Jeff is saying as well?) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose: as per Elonka. If the interested editors involved decided that this worked best for their show, and their naming/linking practice is clear and consistent, I fully support their judgment and practice. Riverbend 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Whether this naming convention is in dispute is irrelevant. Last I checked, WP:DAB was not in dispute, and it states quite clearly: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate. No matter what this category-specific guideline says, it does not trump a Wiki-wide guideline. --Serge 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(responses to JeffStickney's vote, moved here)

Could you clarify if you oppose all, or if you oppose some, specify which? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Out of 50 episodes only 19 were nominated for a move, and the reason so few were is that the titles themselves are common expressions. "Back burner", "cleaning up", "Stray round", "Moral Migetry", "Game Day", Pager and Detail (without the word "the") are common expressions, and "Soft eyes" appears to be a local expression. Moving these articles will lead to disambig conflicts in the future. The ones I have listed would narrow the list down to 11. Eleven articles named with one convention and 39 named with another (or 19 named one way and 31 named the other)would serve no purpose other than to confuse editors and put a lot of bad links into articles. The way it is currently set up is completely consistant, completely organized, and runs no risk of future disambig conflicts. The proposed moves guarantee confusion.JeffStickney 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually this move would bring all of the articles into following the same guideline. You seem to be looking at it as all articles have disambiguation and then you remove it when it isn't necessary. You should actually look at it so that no article has disambiguation and then add it only when necessary. That's the most effective way to keep things simple. Nothing will happen to the links because redirects will be left in place. Page moves are easy so there's no reason to worry about future confusion, we can move the page back if and when it's needed. You may also want to think about what would happen to Wikipedia articles if you extended your argument beyond the scope of television series articles. Jay32183 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The "guideline" is in mediation right now, and a specific dispute is when exceptions are to be made. One exception specifically mentioned on the mediation page is the case where the majority of the episodes would require disambig. This show's episode list was proposed WHILE THE POLICY IS IN MEDIATION and BY THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION DISPUTE. That makes the proposed move a bad faith nomination as per WP:Point as mentioned below by Elonka. The people proposing moves for show after show after show need to cease and desist UNTIL THE MEDIATION IS SETTLED. This is akin to the police making arrests to enforce a bill before it becomes law.JeffStickney 08:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The formal mediation will fail, and the informal mediation is.. well.. informal.. -- Ned Scott 08:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is exactly why the naming-convention-police should not be going to show after show after show to enforce strict adherence to one specific rule. You just gave one of the best arguments for opposing.JeffStickney 08:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The mediation is unlikely to go forward, primarily because of what you just said. If the minority is going to use mediation itself as rationale to advance their cause, it's hard to accept that they're entering mediation with good faith. Most of us would rather not have our agreement to discuss the issue turned against us. –  Anþony  talk  08:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that at least four of the supporters here have had little or no involvement in this discussion. Among the opposes, only JeffStickney has had no involvement. 4 to 1. The overall voting is 12-3 which is a ratio of 4 to 1. The counts of the original poll was 26-7 or a ratio of nearly 4 to 1. The counts for the Lost moves was 15-3 or 5 to 1. No matter how this issue has been sliced, the ratio comes out around 4 to 1. If WP:POINT is to be alleged or faith questioned, surely it should be in regards to people who keep seeing a 4 to 1 ratio and still loudly and publicly claim that there's no consensus. When have you seen a 4 to 1 ratio of people carried all the way to two forms of mediation and - ultimately I figure - ArbCom? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Jeff mentioned "future-proof"ing, so I think he meant that there could be a future conflict with some other concept. If that's true then it would have to be reasonably predictable, as with ship name. I'm not sure these are reasonable predictable, as in there's no garuntee that there will be another thing with that name, but there is always the chance. Jay32183 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(response to Matthew Fenton's vote, moved here)

I fail to see how naming would make any difference for a reader, especially if the redirect exists (as it would if the pages are moved). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
First off, we're all interested editors. Any one of us can edit any part of Wikipedia and express an opinion in any matter, whether or not we have been actively editing articles related to it previously. I personally have WP:RM on my watchlist and frequently weigh in when a matter needs attention. It also leads me to find articles to which I can contribute positively but may not have discovered otherwise.
Secondly, there's no history of any discussion or agreement to use the dab tags and no rationale for their use was provided prior to this RM. Therefore, this RM is the decision, made among interested editors, to exercise our collective judgement and establish a practice appropriate for The Wire. The Wire may indeed qualify for an exception, but no convincing argument has yet been made. Feel free to suggest one. –  Anþony  talk  16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I didn't make a determination of who was or who was not an interested editor. Of course we can all edit wherever, and of course none of us should be limited to particular pages or topics. My goodness. I understand that a group of editors who have never been involved with a project can create a different concensus by going to each project and outnumbering whoever was already there. All I am saying is that I support the current disambiguation arrangment, however it was decided - I don't have the same perception of what should qualify as an "exception", and I would favor pre-emptive disambiguation for titles that are also common words or phrases. Everyone else can, of course, do whatever in the world they want, although I agree with Elonka that while there is still a dispute resolution process (or 2!) in the works regarding naming conventions people ought to be showing a little more restraint. I will continue to disagree with proposed moves as long as this is still under such stressful discussion and until the conflict has been resolved. Riverbend 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the decision. Now. It's not that consensus has changed, there was simply no consensus before this. So we're having the discussion and allowing everyone who wishes to express their views so we can establish that consensus. Further, I strongly disagree that mediation somehow negates the application of the guideline. I wish only to discuss the matter on a substantive level when other parties have been completely focused on bureaucratic details. I've invited you to explain why you think The Wire deserves an exception but you chose instead to talk about mediation and dispute resolution. How can we have a discussion if one side isn't willing to participate?
I've already said that I will not be participating in the MedCab case. The MedCom case is practically dead already, but I'm tempted to pull out of that if my agreement keeps getting thrown back at me as an excuse not to discuss real issues. –  Anþony  talk  08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wire discussion

Would you care to explain why you are starting a discussion here without leaving notification on the affected pages talks? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All the affected pages now have move notices on their talk pages, with a link directing interested editors here, within half an hour of Milo posting here. Let's not get hung up on insignificant procedural points. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to state for the record that I'm incapable of editing seventeen pages at once. Even with pages previewed ahead of time, I wanted to double check wikilinks and such. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Use a tabbed browser, open 17 tabs, paste in everything applicable, go through each window and hit "Ctrl+Alt+S" - or use AWB. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Give the man a break, Matthew. Not everybody has a tabbed browser, and not everybody can use AWB. (For example, I can't use AWB because I'm on a Macintosh.) He and others got the notices up within half an hour. Would it kill you to assume good faith once in a while? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What Josiah said... Now we're criticizing edit speed and computer literacy? I didn't think this little row could stoop any lower but I was wrong. One of my computers would probably crash if I tried to open 17 tabs - anyone want to take a pot shot at that fact? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: JeffStickney's arguments, what do you mean by bad links in articles? You mean redirects? Why are redirects bad? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the right page

shouldn't this be on the Talk:List of The Wire episodes page? We are discussing edits to those articles, not edits to the "naming conventions" article. Longterm editors of "the wire" pages and people who have "the wire" pages in their watchlist are largely not seeing this or participating. Putting this discussion there instead of here would be a better test of whether there exists a consensus for that particular show, as to whether or not an exception is warranted.JeffStickney 13:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view no it is not, each episode should have an individual discussion, as you can see from above I my self had to give notification to the main article as the person nominating them only started a discussion here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely not true. I did give notification to the main article, as well as the episode list and each individual article nominated. I did not "only" start the discussion here. You did not "have to give notification", you were just unwilling to wait the few minutes it took me to add notifications to all the articles. I'd appreciate if you'd focus on the subject at hand instead of trying to distract from the discussion with trivial matters of process. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You made notification here at "21:05" and then to RM @ "21:08"; You started tagging @ "21:11". Sorry but this is far from trivial for me in such an extremely controversially disputed situation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
But the List of The Wire episodes article is the one article that encompasses all of the affected articles.The "naming conventions" article is not and this discussion page is supposed to be about edits to the "naming conventions" article only. JeffStickney 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you mis-understood me sorry, like you I don't think the discussion belongs here, your suggestions seems to be okay. As a note WP:RM does say: "Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does it matter where the discussion takes place? Every applicable article plus the list page were updated with a clear edit summary and in a non-minor edit. This would have lit up the Watchlist of anyone who had a vested interest like a Christmas tree. And arguing over a six-minute timespan?! That's downright petty. Please explain why that's supposedly an issue. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Because he may fo never given notification had I not started the ball rolling; at best he should of given notification first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Matthew. Milo could hardly have given notification of the page move request before he put it up: editors would have followed a link to nowhere! Of all the insignificant aspects of this inisignificant debate, this is probably the most insignificant. All the affected pages have been notified, and I believe they would have been even without your prodding. Please drop this aspect of the matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter exactly where the discussion takes place, as long as the talk pages have a clear note about where the discussion actually is. Remember, these are electronic files we are editing, not real "places". It really doesn't make a difference as long as all are informed. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the reason it's here is because there's currently a big debate/contraversy going on here. The tag on the talk page of all wire articles (including the main list) will inform any editors of Wire articles to come here. However, placing the discussion here also informs everyone who's participated in this debate to also participate in this request move. --`/aksha 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag "NOTE: this talk page is currently being archived very quickly due to extensive ongoing conversation. For earlier discussion in this RfC, please see archives" is one very clear reason why this talk page does not need to be cluttered with a discussion that should be placed elsewhere. The other reason is that "The Wire's" regular contributors are largely underparticipating in this debate (out of 19 voters only 2- myself and Andrew Levine are regular "Wire" contributors while the other 17 are regular contributors towards the "naming conventions" page).- That bias is the direct result of placing the discussion on the wrong page. Yes anyone can follow links, but its simple placement here guarantees overrepresentation by editors who otherwise have little interest in "The Wire" and underrepresentation by the people who have worked hard on "The Wire" pages. Lets put this discussion in the appropriate place, as per Wikipedia policy, so we can see where the consensus of regular "The Wire" contribtors truly lies.JeffStickney 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I support the move of this poll (but not restarting it!) to the Talk:List of The Wire episodes page per Jeff's argument. --Serge 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For all the same reasons everyone else has mentioned, the actual location of the poll while it's taking place doesn't matter. However, for the purposes of archiving the discussion for future reference, it should probably be at Talk:List of The Wire episodes. So I actually support moving the poll but I repeat Serge's sentiment that there's no need to restart it. –  Anþony  talk  10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, isn't it possible your friends just don't care? If an article's submitted for deleted, it's not discussed on the talk page; if a category is submitted for deletion, it's not discussed on the "category talk". The banners and whatnot might be discouraging, but if a person is genuinely interested- No. If these people really give a damn, why wouldn't they come here like you did? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to any closing admin: This move, and other requested moves, are currently the subject of an open ArbCom case. An injunction has been requested to stop all page moves while the case is in-process. For further information, please see the ArbCom workshop. --Elonka 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, you're statement is misleading. The Injunction has NOT been approved by the ArbCom. So there is no request to stop all page moves from the ARbCom, as youre statement implies. Also, an injunction means people like me can't move pages, but it doesn't mean to freeze all Request Moves. Further more, this Request Move is already over - it's been more than 5 days and has been placed on the backlog section of WP:RM. --`/aksha 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Wire_episodes/Archive_1&oldid=1136363976"