This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure articles
I propose to merge Incidental main motion into Main motion. The distinction is not really significant enough to require a separate article, and both articles are stubs right now. Merger would produce what is arguably at least a "Start-class" article. Neutron (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merge, but there should be a section in either the incidental motion or main motion article with the heading "Incidental main motions" and incidental main motion should redirect to that heading. This is needed because many other articles on specific motions will likely want to wikilink to that, so that readers will be able to easily read more about what an incidental main motion is, without each article having to explain it. 129.174.54.204 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily have an objection to having an "Incidental main motion" heading in the Main motion article. The way the merger was done today (by an alter ego of the above anon, apparently) was basically ok, though it still needed some editing. However, the merger has now been undone, apparently due to the sockpuppetry issue. (Just as an aside, all of this really needs to stop. It is putting these articles in a very unstable condition, because any one of 1,000+ admins can come along at any time and revert changes, including changes by uninvolved editors (such as me) which may get caught in the middle.) The one problem is that the article that was blanked/redirected was not the Incidental main motion article, but the Incidental motion article, which really has nothing to do with this merger. Although similarly named, these are two different kinds of motions. Fortunately, the redirection has been undone as well. I am going to let this sit for a few days, in hopes that the situation surrounding all of these articles will stabilize, and the merger and other changes can then be done in peace. Neutron (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge. An incidental main motion is a main motion. Robert adds the adjective 'incidental' to main motions that can't be objected to. Other authorities don't bother with this. Therefore it might be best served to combine the articles - at least until there is enough for one article and we recognize a need to split it for clarity. (I've always liked the table contrasting main motions with subsidiary counterparts - but you don't really need to call them incidental main motions to get the value of the chart, you can always label the chart "Motions with corresponding incidental main motions" and not lose any instructional value.) Parlirules (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The larger issue I have with all these stubs is that this existing collection/structure of articles is biased towards Robert's Rules. I think that bias needs to be recognized. If the Parliamentary Procedure Project is about parliamentary procedure, we should arrange the articles around parliamentary procedure and not be lulled into creating separate articles that primarily mimic the structure and concepts of Robert's Rules - like incidental main motions. (RONR is still the greatest authority, IMHO.) This Robert's rules bias is natural. What I see so far is that this collection of articles rests on a foundation built upon a Robertarian parliamentary procedure world, with contrasting initiatives by lesser known authorities - this charge led by TSC. Looming out there and not quite fitting in is the legislative parliamentary procedure and corporate/company parliamentary procedure arenas. And this doesn't consider the other dimension that all three of these arenas are, more and less, represented differently in different (mainly English-speaking) countries. Ok ... back to the main subject... I support merging all articles that are currently separated because that is how they are recognized, treated, created, engineered in Robert's Rules. Not because I dislike RONR, but because I think there is a need to approach this from a holistic view and not start with the one dominant American authority. Examples provided upon request. Thanks for listening. Parlirules (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of that. The story of how things got to their current state is a bit complicated and more than I have time to write right now (if ever). But, one major factor is that very few of us have exhibited any knowledge of any authorities other than Robert's Rules. I have a copy of the Standard Code, re-created the article on it a few months ago, and have added material from it into some of the articles; see, for example, Subsidiary motion, Table (parliamentary) and Reconsider. Another editor, who has edited under various names and IP addresses, and is currently blocked indefinitely (which is where the story gets really long and complicated), has added some other information from TSC as well as some from other authorities that I am completely unfamiliar with, such as Demeter's and Mason's. But the overall result is that, yes, there is a definite bias towards Robert's in these articles. We can discuss on the Wikiproject talk page how this might be corrected. I agree that some of the articles should be merged or renamed; however, perhaps other articles on motions that derive mainly from Robert's should remain, for example, Postpone indefinitely. Neutron (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
