Wikipedia:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 24: Line 24:




* '''[[:Template:NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsMen’sStillRings]] → {{noredirect|:Template:NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsMen'sStillRings}}''' — The special character needs to be removed — [[Special:Contributions/70.20.79.51|70.20.79.51]] ([[User talk:70.20.79.51|talk]]) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
* '''[[:Template:NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsMen’sStillRings]] → {{noredirect|Template:NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsMen'sStillRings}}''' — The special character needs to be removed — [[Special:Contributions/70.20.79.51|70.20.79.51]] ([[User talk:70.20.79.51|talk]]) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


==Incomplete and contested proposals==
==Incomplete and contested proposals==

Revision as of 03:15, 14 October 2008

Administrator instructions

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Uncontroversial proposals

Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any possibility that it could be opposed by anyone. Please list new requests at the bottom of the list in this section and use {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} rather than copying previous entries. The template will automatically include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required.

If you object to a proposal listed here, please re-list it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.

  • WFHGWFHG-FM — Need history for WFHG moved to WFHG-FM (currently a redirect). Will be making WFHG a disambig page and seperating the AM and FM stations as they are now seperate stations and not simulcasters. — NeutralHomerTalk • October 14, 2008 @ 03:10 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Incomplete and contested proposals

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move request, please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move request, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

  • Hokkien dialectHokkien - The linguistic classification of Hokkien is disputed and this "Hokkien dialect" is inappropriate. Whilst "Hokkien" can also refer to Fujian Province, its most common use by far is in reference to the language. A disambig. page is not required at Hokkien as anyone seeking the article Fujian could be redirected by a disambig. at the top of the page. --Vox latina (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian mediaMedia of India — Literally all other "media by country" articles follow the naming convention "Media of x". There is no objective reason that the media article for India should differ from this standard. Neelix (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure that this standardization is necessary? "Indian media" sounds much better to me than "Media of India". I also think it should be "Media in India", rather than "of". (NB, to clarify, "all the other articles follow the naming convention" because Neelix recently moved quite a few others.) 87.115.34.24 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Front Row (software)Front RowFront Row currently redirects to Front Row (software). As the software has been recognized as the primary article, the qualifier "(software)" is unnecessary. Neelix (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How was it "recognized as the primary article"? The only discussion on the talk page about disambiguation is inconclusive at best. olderwiser 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is currently recognized by the project as the primary article because Front Row redirects there. I'm not saying that it is the primary article, and I'm not suggesting that any amount of discussion at all has resulted in this recognition, but the current state of affairs makes such a recognition. I would be quite happy if the disambiguation page was moved to the Front Row title instead, but having Front Row as a redirect anywhere unacceptable. It should either be a disambiguation page or the primary article. Neelix (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LinuxLinux (GNU/Linux) —(Discuss)— this would allow both names to be treated equally, without bias to either one. And neutrality is one of Wikipedia's top mandates after all. Ensign Q (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, endless discussion of this in archives and general agreement that the current title is the most common one. Parentheses misused in the proposed name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but Sun Microsystems and a bunch of other companies use the term GNU/Linux. So simply ignoring the name is complete bias.
However, I also understand that the name Linux to describe the operating system came first, and is used widely, so I won't ignore that name either.
I further understand that this issue will never be solved, ever. It is simply impossible. Had Linux-GNU/Linux been made by a company, it would have been simpler. But it wasn't. We simply have to accept the fact that there are two official names to describe this operating system; there is no "right" answer. We shouldn't force the name "Linux" to the readers; we should instead let the reader decide for themselves which name they prefer, and that means we can't make the article give prominance to one name over the other. It is is simply unacceptable.
The reasoning behind renaming the article "Linux (GNU/Linux)" is:
a) It respects both names.
b) It respects that the name "Linux" to describe the OS came first.
c) It makes each name equal.
If it isn't to your liking, then we could go for "Linux-GNU/Linux" or "Linux*GNU/Linux" or similar.
In the end though, the current title is not respecting Wikipedia goal for neutrality.
64.230.125.250 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (aka Ensign_Q)[reply]
  • Value (philosophy)Value (ethics) — The whole article deals with "ethic or philosophic value", but ethics may be regarded as a subdivision of philosophy, and the whole article, as far as I can see, only deals with that subdivision. For instance, intrinsic value already has (ethics) as an attribute. I know many redirects need to be changed, but I can deal with the main part of that. — The world deserves the truth (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit messy, but it does speak about values other than ethics (e.g. economics). It would be sensible to discuss before moving. 87.114.17.201 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it doesn't clearly mean ethic value specifically probably contributes significantly to the mess. Value (economics) already has an own article - the article just describes the possible correlation between it and ethic value. I suggest this discussion be continued on its talk page. The world deserves the truth (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

14 October 2008

13 October 2008

  • SeattleSeattle, Washington —(Discuss)— This page was improperly moved last month without achieving proper consensus, and with a very vague reference to the AP Stylebook. The longstanding consensus is that US city articles be named using the consensus of 'city, state' and not 'city', per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), and the discussion that was previously brought forth did not produce any valid reasons for overturning this long-standing naming convention. It is clear that more discussion needs to be done on this, and circumventing this process by having discussion only on a single city's talk page without informing the community is a violation of our democratic principles that we, as wikipedians, should value so dearly. If you're going to use the AP Stylebook as our convention, then fine, let's use it; but instead of selectively applying that criteria to a single city, let's apply it to all articles that they mention. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, there are currently two similar discussions for possible moving open, as the rogue city movers want to move other cities without properly informing the community of their intentions. Please see Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana#Requested moves and Talk:Boston, Massachusetts#One more attempt at a move to "Boston" for these discussions. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the Seattle move and the New Orleans move were listed on this page (see below under 9 October for the New Orleans one), which is the place for "properly informing the community of their intentions." What exactly are you objecting to? Deor (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WLFFWSYN —(Discuss)— The change on WSYN was a frequency change, not a format change, so the new call letters and format for the former WSYN frequency were irrelevant after all --Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WSYNWLFF —(Discuss)— It could be argued that WYAK became WLFF and simply changed its frequency, even though a name change and minor format change were involved too --Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • StrikerForward (association football) —(Discuss)— The current title of this article is not appropriate. The term "striker" may encompass centre-forwards and second strikers, but it is not commonly used to refer to wing forwards such as Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi. I certainly would never refer to either of those two as a striker. The term "forward", however, refers to any player who plays in an advanced role, whether they be a striker, a second striker or a winger. The disambiguator "association football" is only necessary to disambiguate from other articles about forwards. --– PeeJay 09:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2008

  • Morion (helmet)Morion —(Discuss)— A GoogleFight revealed that there were more hits for "morion" the helmet than for "morion" the mineral. I think it would be more helpful to have the page "Morion" link to the article for the helmet, and to have the mineral article be renamed "Morion (mineral)") --Witan (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11 October 2008

10 October 2008

  • Aravane RezaiAravane Rezaï —(Discuss)— The move will re-instate the diacritic, which is accurate, appropriate, and in accordance with naming conventions and all other articles where diacritics are used. --Maedin\talk 18:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested: WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. I think a blockbuster that grossed $112m is more important than erotica. 87.113.103.202 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYUSAGE does not apply here because Twins (film) is already Not a primary page. See Talk:Twins (film) for more discussion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9 October 2008

  • American Association of Blood BanksAABB —(Discuss)— article was moved inappropriately to expand an acronym, but the name is no longer an acronym as explicitly cited in the article from the organization's own web page. It is now just a four letter name in capitals. The current location should obviously redirect to the correct location instead of being a disambiguation page. The article was formerly hatnoted for the other definition, which is an acronym. --SDY (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (May 28 or older).

  • RightRights(Discuss) — target name is currently a redirect to current name; very old consensus on talk page suggested this move, but it never happened — Pfhorrest (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has resumed. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israeli navyIsrael Navy —(Discuss)— See talk page (#Name of this article) - no objections for move for a month. Also in line with other major Israeli security forces units like Israel Defense Forces, Israel Police and Israel Prison Service. --Ynhockey (Talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]