Talk:Consumer Watchdog (Botswana)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

Move request withdrawn by proponent.

Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) → Consumer Watchdog — There are presently two organizations sharing this name, one in Botswana at Consumer Watchdog (Botswana) and one in the United States at Consumer Watchdog (USA). The Botswanan article was originally titled Consumer Watchdog, until the USA article was created this year, and the Botswanan article renamed as a compromise. Outside of the United States, neither article is demonstrably more notable than the other, and in Southern Africa the Botswanan article would be the more likely target of a search. So to remove the redundant disambiguation page, I propose that this article be restored to its original name, with an appropriate dabhat linking directly to the article for the organization in the USA. MuffledThud (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Proposing a simultaneous page move is wp:pointy bordering on disruptive. You should have linked to the other move request from here, which I was coming here to do. Oy vey. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, this proposal was ill-advised at best. —David Levy 23:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No pointyness or disruption was intended: both proposals should be evaluated side-by-side, since they are two approaches to the same problem. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. My apologies for not linking your proposal from here - it's a good idea, and I'll do it now. MuffledThud (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too late: David Levy already has. MuffledThud (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to propose an equal and opposite move in response to another requested move you disagree with. If that's the case, you make your objection there; if that request fails, you can then propose the same here following the close of that discussion. For that matter, if that request succeeds, you can then propose the same here. Two simultaneous discussions can make it difficult, or perhaps impossible, for an administrator to take action on either request. You need to withdraw your request here, make your case there, and following that discussion, you can address the issue again here (should you so choose). user:J aka justen (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Initiating a second, simultaneous move request only serves to potentially split the discussion and generate confusion. —David Levy 00:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly want to stick to process, but I don't see what you're recommending documented anywhere. If you can find the link for me, I will immediately withdraw the proposal. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of demanding a policy citation, would you care to explain how it makes sense to address a single issue via two simultaneous discussions (with the potential to end in conflicting outcomes)? —David Levy 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain wp:sense applies. I'll reiterate: if you wish to oppose the other, the proper process is to make your opposition and proposal known there. Upon the close of that discussion, you can then make the proposal here. Once again, you may also wish to review wp:point, because it outlines scenarios almost identical to the one you have created here. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this part of WP process, so I'll be grateful for any help you can give with this: can you please point me at the docs for it? This isn't pointyness: I really want to know, so if I'm making a mistake I won't repeat it. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all sincerity, there isn't a policy or procedure for everything. As I intimated above, we have to rely on our common wp:sense. Likewise, again, despite the negative connotations, wp:point really does describe scenarios exactly like what you've created above. You should quickly review both, and I think you'll come away with a better understanding of why your proposal here was seen as out of process. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read both, and think I see your intention, but I believe your well-meant advice isn't applicable here. Both proposals are visible side-by-side on WP:RM. I should have linked to your US move request from my Botswana move request, but that's now been addressed. I don't believe that as things are now having two alternative proposals side-by-side on WP:RM will confuse or misguide anyone, but if I'm wrong then please correct me. We could re-word our move requests to include a reference to the other, if you think that will be useful. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you could read wp:point and miss the glaring similarity between your proposal here and the examples listed there... The discussion needs to stay in one place, and your inability or refusal to acknowledge or understand why that is the case is really stretching the limits of wp:agf. Nevertheless, I'm done here. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "Centralized discussion" under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices. It's widely considered inappropriate to conduct two separate, simultaneous discussions regarding the same issue (and especially inappropriate to intentionally initiate a second discussion with knowledge of the first discussion's existence). We want to keep the discussion of an issue focused in one location (to eliminate the need to read and write the same things twice and the possibility that ideas will propagate on one page and not the other). —David Levy 01:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... bit of a stretch, but you're right, this guideline comes near enough to qualify as applicable here. OK, I'll withdraw the second move request, and expand on my position at J's. Thanks for the heads-up. MuffledThud (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but you really should base your actions on what makes sense, not on the invocation of policies and guidelines (which are primarily descriptions of consensus, not laws handed down from above).
And I don't see any sort of stretch. This is precisely the sort of situation that the community seeks to avoid. —David Levy 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Watchdog (Botswana). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Watchdog (Botswana). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Consumer_Watchdog_(Botswana)"