Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JPG-GR (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 7 August 2008 (creating section for new day; moving one to incomplete; cleanup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Administrator instructions

For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

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

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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.

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.

  • Orthogonality → Orthogonal — The intro sentence uses the adjective form rather than the nounal form. This form is also simpler, easier to use, and much more common in general usage. — Beefyt (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate move, per WP:ADJECTIVE. 81.98.251.134 (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army Air Corps → Army Air Corps (disambiguation); Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) → Army Air Corps — {Discuss} (and see also Talk:Army Air Corps (United Kingdom)#Page rename)
    • Army Air Corps clearly has one organisation that should occupy the page, with disambiguation done using a hatnote to a (disambiguation) page, because there is currently only one exact match for article title, which is also the official name for the organisation. However, it is currently occupied by a disambiguation page without the (disambiguation) qualifier. All other entires on the page are only partial matches, or alternate names, for which the hatnoe style over the direct list style is more appropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose What about the USAAC? 70.51.9.224 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The USAAC is the United States Army Air Corps, but it disappeared in 1947. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: The UK Army Air Corps is not the only organization to use the name "Army Air Corps". -Fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know why people are voting here rather than the talk page, per the instructions, but anyway. The above claim is being asserted often, without any proof outside of a local context. There is only one page with that title, others are only partial matches. Recognising local usage contexts is not what generic topic db pages are for. Read WP:DISAMBIG. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because you didn't centralize a place for discussion. I suppose I could register my response on all three talk pages. 70.51.11.219 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

7 August 2008

6 August 2008

  • Pakistani Briton → British Pakistanis —(Discuss)— 'British Pakistanis' is a commoner term than 'Pakistani Britons'. Googling (with Wikipedia filtered out) brings up 3,000 hits for "Pakistani Britons"[1], 8,000 for "Pakistani British"[2] while "British Pakistanis" gets 14,000.[3] --Cop 663 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 August 2008

4 August 2008

  • Queen Rania of Jordan → Rania, Queen of Jordan -(Discuss) I think we should make some difference between the present consorts and their predecessors (Queen Noor of Jordan for example). Queen Noor is styled HM Queen Noor of Belgium, while Rania is HM The Queen. As Rania is the queen and Noor is a queen, her article should be at "Rania, Queen of Jordan" (just like the article about Prince Charles is at "Charles, Prince of Wales", and the articles about his sons are at "Prince X of Wales". Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hits Radio (UK) → The Hits Radio —(Discuss)— There is no need for a disambiguation where there is only one instance of The Hits Radio, therefore, I believe this article should be moved to that name. However, as the article was created at The Hits Radio (UK) for a reason, this move will need to be discussed, as there is a small chance of opposition to any move as per WP:RM. ----tgheretford (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skate (video game) → skate. —{Discuss}— Every mention of the title both in the article itself, the game boxart, the official website, the game manual, everywhere has it as "skate."; the article was moved from the correct title ages ago, but now I feel it is time this is corrected. Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sedan (car) → Sedan —(Discuss)— Procedural move request. This was boldly moved in April, boldly undone, and then it was boldly moved again in July. Today a bot started fixing dab page redirects, which is when I (and most likely others) noticed the move. As a result here's been considerable discussion on the talk page today on the merits of the move -- basically a battle between whether "sedan" is the primary usage or American-centricity. I think the best thing would be to have a full and formal discussion. There's a limit to boldness when tempers are rising. --DeLarge (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 August 2008

2 August 2008

  • Novak Djokovic → Novak Đoković —(Discuss)— This is the correct spelling with diacritics. The original move proposal was allegedly withdrawn, but the discussion continued nevertheless. Discussion and survey are on the talk page. --Admiral Norton (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incomplete: No place for discussion. I also doubt this is timely; there was consensus to move to this English spelling in April. WP:CONSENSUS deprecates polling and polling and polling until you get your way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (May 16 or older).

  • Chinese wén → Chinese cash (currency unit) or something else —(Discuss)— Per WP:UE (use English for article titles), WP:UCN (use the most common name for article titles), WP:OR (no original research), and Numismatics Style guidelines (use the term for the currency that is most commonly used by standard English language sources.). The use of the romanization of the Chinese in this case appears to be largely a creation of Wikipedia. The title should reflect the common English name for the currency unit but the English name, "cash", has other uses in this context (see Chinese cash). A similar previous request was closed due to admin confusion over terminology but underlying multiple guidelines violations were not addressed. Relisting with wider notice to try and get more input. — AjaxSmack 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bank Street (Ottawa) → Bank Street —(Discuss)— This was an uncontroversial proposal that was reverted by a user from New York City, after he googled "Bank Street" and only came up with "Bank Street College of Education", which lead him to believe it was the primary use. Google tailors their results to your locale, that's why it happened. This college is by no means the primary use, in fact, the primary use of "Bank Street" is Ottawa's Bank Street. Even if the other uses were anywhere near notable, the names are completely different, and could not be confused. A hatnote to the disambiguation page, Bank Street (disambiguation) would clear up any possible misunderstanding. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York City → New York —(Discuss)— I believe that most people refer to the city when they think of New York, so that's what the primary meaning of the phrase "New York" is. As with the below requested move, this is pretty contentious, though. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • New York → New York State —(Discuss)— There is currently debate about what the primary meaning of the phrase "New York" is. I believe that the primary usage is for the city (see that requested move above), but either way, it is clear to me and some others that the primary meaning is NOT the state. Closing admin: this is pretty contentious, so please be careful in determining consensus (I'm sure you always are, but still...) Thank you. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest New York City stays as it is, while New York is moved to New York State, while New York becomes a DAB page for New York City and New York State. 89.243.180.26 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this course of action, which is reasonable and logical. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khalisa → Kalsa —(Discuss)— Kalsa is one of the four districts of Old Town Palermo. There is no reason to use the old Arabic name which was in use in the 9th century. Kalsa is a living district of the city so the name (and later also the content) of the article should reflect present-day reality. --Zello (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=230306364"