Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Closing instructions

"WP:RM" redirects here. For general guidelines, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. For route maps, see Wikipedia:Route diagram template.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts:

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 our article titling policy and our 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, such as when a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or if the page to be moved is protected from moves. In these circumstances, administrator help is required to move a page. To request such help, please see Requesting technical moves.
  • A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus. To place a formal request for a potentially controversial page move, please see Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users do not have the capability to move pages. They must request moves using this process.

Most move requests are processed by a group of regular contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, non-binding precedents, and page moving procedures. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, or if the requested move is uncontroversial or technical, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow more time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". For the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. For a list of all processed moves, see Special:Log/move.

To contest a close, the Move review process is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

When not to use this page[edit]

Shortcuts:

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. In line with BRD, if you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you can not 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 without following the procedures laid out in Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves[edit]

Shortcut:

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. In either case, if you are unable to complete/revert the move, request it below.

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in Uncontroversial technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below.
  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to a technical move is another page in the way, you can request the other page be deleted. This applies for example if the the other page is a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. If it has a single history line, see WP:Move over redirect instead. To request the other page be deleted, add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

Shortcut:

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, as this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Requesting a single page move[edit]

(To propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.)

To request a single page move, create a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

== Requested move ==
{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The subject/headline field should be left blank; a section header named "Requested move" will be created automatically. If there have been previous move discussions on the talk page, use == Requested move xxxx == where xxxx can be the year if that is appropriate, or "2" for a second discussion. Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically.

As an alternative, you can click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and insert

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 15 September 2014", along with a location for survey and discussion. Also note that the template must be substituted. The template will automatically include your signature.

Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the policy on disambiguation and primary topic. After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example,  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...). Most nominators, however, simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should.

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

== Requested moves ==
{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any web results. Do not sign this.
}}

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Relisting[edit]

Relisting of a discussion moves the request out of the backlog (or wherever it is in the queue) up to the current day.

Relisting of a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. Preferably, a reason for the relist will be given, to help focus further input. Relisting does imply another seven days of discussion. A relisted discussion, if over seven days old, or if revealing a consensus, may be closed at any time by another uninvolved experienced editor.

To relist a move request discussion, simply type <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small> before the initial requester's first timestamp (see this diff for an example), or the previous relisting comment. This gives the request a new timestamp which RMCD bot will use as the date to relist the entry on the requested moves project page. This can also be done by using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically.

If the discussion has become stale, or seems that it would benefit from the input of more editors, do not simply relist, but consider more widely publicising the discussion. Some editors will notify at least one relevant WikiProject of the discussion. The template {{RM notification}} could be useful for this. These WikiProjects can often be found by means of the banners placed at the top of many articles' talk pages.

Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut:
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format.

September 15, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Equity and gender feminismEquity feminismProcedural nomination; discussion has run since June, but was not tagged as an RM and will never close until tagged as such and put into the RM discussion queue. See below for rationale from actual nominator.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AmoebaAmoeba (genus) – The article Amoeba, as the lead and taxobox make clear, is about a single taxon, the genus Amoeba, which contains a relatively small number of Amoebozoan species. However, microbiologists and others customarily use the word "amoeba" (lower case, no italics) to describe a common type of cell (one that uses pseudopodia to move and feed). This sense of "amoeba" is a much larger and more important subject, encompassing many thousands of species, very few of which are in genus Amoeba. The article that covers this subject is Amoeba (amoeboid organism), which I believe should be the primary topic. Most of the existing Wikipedia links to "amoeba" are not actually intended for the genus Amoeba at all, but for other amoeboid taxa, or for "amoeba" in the looser sense of the word. I reviewed the first 100 of the the incoming links to Amoeba. The only links genuinely intended for the genus "Amoeba" were in the few pages that use the Template:Amoebozoa, in which Amoeba is included among many other taxa. The template can be easily adjusted to link to Amoeba (genus). A few links were aimed at the species Amoeba proteus (a common experimental organism), and one was for a men's magazine called "Amoeba." If there is consensus on the move, I will review all incoming links to make sure they are properly directed. The page receives a fair bit of traffic (lots of school kids doing biology homework) so it's important to get it right. See: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/amoeba Deuterostome (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AntibondingAntibonding orbital – The term Antibonding is not used as a noun in chemistry, but rather as an adjective to modify Orbital. The article is actually about Antibonding Orbitals. Dirac66 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 14, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Salim MatarSelim Matar – According to the personal website of Selim Matar, his publications and the french version of Wikipédia, "Selim Matar" is a lot more used than "Salim Matar". Bass39 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mecca MasjidMakkah Masjid, Hyderabad – There are various mosques around the world with the name Makkah Masjid, including for example Makkah Masjid, Chennai. I suggest Makkah, rather than Mecca as this is in the info box, but a disambiguation page should be made. The current page Makkah Masjid only points to this one example, but should be a disambiguation page. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 13, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Operation PoloIndian integration of Hyderabad – Much of the article is background, prelude, and aftermath. The battle only takes up one section and is the weakest part of the article, with very few references. The aftermath is very briefly described. The suggestion is to write a comprehensive article on the integration, with the background and prelude, as well as the aftermath, described in more detail. With the new name, political factors can be given more space, rather than purely military matters. The battle can be a section in the article, like it is now. Currently the page has a military name, and is included in Category:Violence against Hindus, Category:Violence against Muslims and Category:Religious violence in India, which is not ideal because most of the violence did not come from the Indian military. There is precedence for this name, see Indian integration of Junagadh, though that article is very weak. Here is a link to "integration". Kingsindian (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 12, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Chromophobia (fear)Chromophobia – The target title is occupied by an appropriate disambiguation page, however, the "fear" appears to be far more notable in terms of long-term significance than the Chromophobia (film) and Chromophobia (album). The subject described in this article appears to be the root of the concept, both the film and album titles are derived from the meaning and is evidence for the primacy of that meaning. Therefore, it would seem more appropriate for the subject to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nothing Broken But My HeartNothing Broken but My Heart – "but" is a both a coordinating conjunction and a preposition, and WP:NCCAPS discourages capitalizing coordinating conjunctions and prepositions of four letters or less, like "but". In this case, the title of the song treats "but" like a preposition, and "but" has just three letters. However, the cover art of the Celine Dion song capitalized it into "But". Also, unlike dot the i, the current title is not unique and has no reason to be unique. Sources do not mention why "but" is capitalized. Shall we apply the guideline to the song, or shall "common sense" overcome the guideline? Speaking of common sense, I wonder if capitalizing "but" matters to the masses, especially when English is dumbed down nowadays. Edit: I didn't realize that "but" is also an adverb. Nevertheless, the title doesn't treat it as an adverb, so "but" shall not be treated as an adverb. George Ho (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Better Than TodayBetter than Today – The title treats "than" like a preposition, WP:NCCAPS says not to capitalize prepositions of four letters or less, and "than" is listed in the list of English prepositions. If it was treated as a subordinating conjunction, then "Than" may be capitalized. However, the whole title is a fragment sentence, not complete. Somehow, titles, like Star Trek Into Darkness, are encouraging people to dumb down English language mainly because... I don't know, probably of fandom of Star Trek. Unlike dot the i (the film), "Better Than Today" has no reason to be unique. Whilst "dot the i" is shown on film poster, the single cover of the Kylie Minogue song says "BETTER THAN TODAY" (all caps). Grammatically, "better" is a complement (also an obsolete alternative spelling of different word "compliment"), and "today" is an object of the preposition, which is "than". Somehow, I haven't met someone who knows "complement" nowadays, and I don't know who treats it as the spelling of "compliment". In the wake of Talk:Love You like a Love Song, perhaps I am requesting a seemingly ridiculous (hopefully understandable) proposal, like this. George Ho (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 11, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Drew HolcombDrew Holcomb and The Neighbors – Drew Holcomb is the lead member of this music group. While the article talks about him, the article should and will discuss more of the whole band. His official website is for the whole band and not himself even though the domain suggests this. [1] This request come from Drew Holcomb and his management. Zachmorris2001 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dimension (mathematics and physics)Dimension – per WP:BROADCONCEPT, basically. Note that the article was previously moved away from dimension after light discussion above, and dimension still redirects to it. Also, the current parenthetical disambiguation, "mathematics and physics", is erroneous as the article includes sections on literature and philosophy. For those concerned about primary topic status, beyond even the indications of WP:BROADCONCEPT, my cursory examination of page views indicated this article to be more viewed than all other articles combined on Dimension (disambiguation). For those concerned about topical specificity, may I suggest peeling off separate, dedicated (single-word disambiguated) articles as necessary. ENeville (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mike Barnett (ice hockey)Michael Barnett (sports executive) – "Mike" is an informal name, Michael is the proper name. Additionally, "(ice hockey)" is limited in it's scope (Michael Barnett has worked as an agent for athletes of other spots as well as non-athlete entertainers). Sports Executive is more accurate as his most recent work has been managing and scouting for various teams. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Jjbarne1 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alan Dawa DolmaAlan (Chinese singer) – She has never been credited as Alan Dawa Dolma in English, her stage name in English since her Japanese days in English has always been alan (with a lower case "a"). I do understand the political sensitivity of Tibetan vs. Chinese but that shouldn't be reason not to move the page to the right place, and the Chinese label shouldn't be controversial since she clearly identifies with it. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Moon Tae-jongJarod Stevenson – Moon Tae-jong is the name on his South Korean passport. While he was born in Korea, he didn't become a Korean citizen until 2011 when he was around 36 (near the end of his long career) so that he can represent Korea internationally, while still retaining his American citizenship.[2] Therefore he didn't really change his legal name, just having to adopt a Korean name for his naturalization. Being the English wikipedia, I think the "English name" takes precedence (especially since he's not that fluent in Korean). The French, Turkish and Italian pages all use "Jarod Stevenson" so it's also not like he only became notable after playing for the Korea national team. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

September 10, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Sound of the Desert (TV series)Sound of the Desert – There have been many English titles for this drama throughout its filming, and the only official English title the production company has given was "The Song of Desert" (see title in pictures), which was used when the Chinese title was still 星月传奇. Now that the official Chinese title has been changed to 风中奇缘, they have also changed the official English title, which is now the more grammatically correct Sound of the Desert, which is also a literal translation of the novel it is based on, 大漠谣. One of the earlier titles, Story of a Wolf Girl, was NEVER an official title released by any official sources. HuoyuDMY (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AcrospiromaHidradenoma – The Andrews clinical dermatology textbook from which this article is primarily based is incorrect, or at least in disagreement, with other authoritative dermatology textbooks (e.g. Bolognia) and from dermatopathology standard classification. While the term "acrospiroma" is sometimes used more descriptively as a general category of benign sweat gland tumor inclusive of both poroma and hidradenoma, it is traditionally synonymous with hidradenoma and I believe it best to go by the dermatopathologic definitions because these are diagnoses that entirely depend on the histologic appearance of these tumors. According to a 2007 review article from the Journal of Clinical Pathology[1] (#10 on Google Scholar list of top Pathology publications), which is in agreement with the hidradenoma entry in Bolognia's Dermatology.[2] Thus, I move that this page re-direct to hidradenoma page, which is itself almost totally undeveloped. Dr G (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary UnderbellyKitchen Confidential (book) – I normally dislike proposing "(book)" because almost no one types it for any title. I disambiguated the book because Kitchen Confidential (TV series) is equally popular as the book. I did use "(book)", but I figured that I can use subtitles instead of parenthesis disambiguator. However, due to Talk:Like a Virgin (book), probably "(book)" should substitute for the subtitle "Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" due to the length of the current article title. I thought nominating the article for deletion or tagging it as possibly non-notable. However, the book inspired the fictional TV series, and it may have existing reviews. Despite the article's current shape, the book may be notable at its own right. Therefore, I am doing the test proposal to inspire other proposals on books with long titles. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

September 09, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)SfogliatelleSfogliatella – There is no reason why we should use the plural form, which also in the literature and in the article is recognised as such. If this were an americanism, then it should be used and declined using the singular verb (e.g. "Sfogliatelle is a cake"), but this is not the case, so it is implicit that the singular form sfogliatella is known also in english. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Alex2006 (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rachel Lee (actress)Loletta Lee – Per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Look at the references and external links, as well as the Japanese, Russian, and Azerbaijani titles. The relatively recent "English name change" should not carry enough weight to move the title as well, considering her career was most notable when she was much younger under "Loletta Lee". Not to mention per WP:NATURAL disambiguation is best avoided. Timmyshin (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dong Chang (Tang dynasty)Dong Chang – Per WP:2DABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Hatnotes would suffice. Timmyshin (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Li Cunxin (dancer)Li CunxinWP:2DABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." The dancer is clearly primary in English-language sources, and I'm actually the one who wrote the other Li Cunxin page. Timmyshin (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chess (Mac OS)Chess (OS X) – I'm suggesting a move for a couple of OS X applications. OS X is the current name for the operating system, and it's well-known and accepted. Mac OS might be appropriate if this was an app that remained from 'classic' Mac OS, but it's not: it only ever ran on OS X. Blythwood (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Preview (Mac OS)Preview (OS X) – I'm suggesting this pattern of moves for a few OS X articles. OS X is the current name for the operating system, and it's well-known. Mac OS might be appropriate if this was an app that remained from 'classic' Mac OS, but it's not: it only ever ran on OS X. Blythwood (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Calendar (Mac OS)Calendar (OS X) – OS X is the current name for the operating system, and it's well-known. Mac OS might be appropriate if this was an app that remained from 'classic' Mac OS, but it's not: it only ever ran on OS X. Blythwood (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dashboard (Mac OS)Dashboard (OS X) – OS X is the current, official and widely-known name for the operating system. Mac OS is inappropriate as it was never actually a part of Classic Mac OS. I'm suggesting a move for this and a couple of other OS X-only applications on the same principle. Blythwood (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

September 08, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Slobodan MiloševićSlobodan Milosevic – This person is known as Slobodan Milosevic in English. It is the policy of English Wikipedia to use the common name the person in English sources. There is no question that Milošević is not the common spelling in reliable English-language sources. There are dozens of whole books devoted to the subject which use the spelling without diacritics perhaps hundreds of times. In fact, you will have a hard time finding sources which use the spelling with diacritics despite the incredible popularity of the subject. see WP:AT. Whatever the correct spelling in some other language or transliteration scheme, it is the policy here to use English. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which states, "do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name". The New York Times, an actual authority on correct English, uses the non-marked spelling exclusively, maybe hundreds of times, just like every other English-language source except, bizarrely, Encyclopedia Britannica. I could make a list of sources using the spelling I propose, or you could just look at literally ANY source in English other than WP and Britannica. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lü ZushanLu Zushan – Sources available all use the spelling "Lu Zushan". I was unable to find a single source which uses the current spelling with the diaresis. see WP:COMMONNAME if you are unsure how the above relates to the naming of this article. This change doesn't create ambiguity. Just do a simple web search to find out for yourself. He's not a popular topic in the English-language media, so you gotta take what you can get. Regardless of which spelling is more correct, it's not up to us to try to change the common spelling. see also WP:UE and WP:NOR. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Diagonal MethodDiagonal method – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upcased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match WP's formatting of laws, methods, rules, hypotheses, etc. Tony (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
  • (Discuss)Fort ColvilleFort Colvile (Hudson Bay Company) – Numerous wiki pages are linking to the Hudson Bay Company Fort Colvile, when they really want to link to a not-currently existing Fort Colville (US Army) page. I'm drafting a Fort Colville (US Army) page, but keep finding wrong links to the Hudson Bay page. Additionally, I am requesting a change in spelling for the HBC fort. It was spelled Colvile (one L ) in all HBC documents. Americans added the second L to their fort's name, the valley's name, and the district's name. Even reliable source documents on the HBC Fort Colvile page, like the map, show the correct spelling of Colvile. The HBC wiki page has the correct spelling of Colvile. More importantly, the actual archives for the Hudson Bay Company are at the Manitoba Archives, http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/hbca/, and they only use Colvile. Srichart4 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Andrea HarrisonAndrea (The Walking Dead) – With this edit, Goldenboy moved the article to Andrea Harrison based on a video game (The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct) revealing her last name as Harrison. And here, he added a citation for the name change. This move (the article title change) is a clear-cut violation of the WP:Common name policy. Name-wise, Andrea is clearly most well known simply by her first name. And I don't think we should be giving WP:Undue weight to what a video game states to be her last name. This move, because it has a chance of being contested (like I am doing now), should have gone through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process; that page states, "Use this process if there is any reason to believe that a move would be contested." Based on that, I would have moved the article back and then noted the WP:Common name policy here on the talk page. But I don't think that Goldenboy is familiar with the WP:Common name policy, and I didn't want to take the risk of him simply moving the article back to "Andrea Harrison" again. So I have started this move discussion instead. I will alert the WikiProjects that this talk page is tagged with to this discussion. From what I can see, the Andrea (The Walking Dead) article should follow the same path as the Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) article. Faith's last name was revealed in a role-playing game and has been used for subsequent material relating to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, but she is most commonly simply known as Faith and therefore that is the title of her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of largest known cosmic structures → ? – The "known" is not necessary, we can only list structures that we know about, so this would be called List of largest cosmic structures. The intro can specify that we don't know everything about the universe. Possibly call this List of longest cosmic structures as "largest" is not the same as "longest", and the list only specifies one dimension, making this a list of longest. Volumetrically, a long thin filament can be much smaller than a shorter spherical construct, or a long and wide construct. (this assumes "large" primarily deals with size, and not mass, where the most massive structures can be quite different.) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Taiwan Taoyuan International AirportTaoyuan International Airport – According to WP:UCRN, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. A search of "taoyuan airport" in Google news yields no particularly favorable name. There's "Taoyuan airport", "Taipei Taoyuan International Airport", "Taiwan Taoyuan Airport", "Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport" and "Taoyuan International Airport". Nevertheless, "Taoyuan International Airport" is cleaner and way more common in speech (nobody says the "Taiwan"). Not to mention the official name is already in the first sentence. Szqecs (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CaregivingCaregiving (sociology) – This article is currently titled "caregiving" while another article is titled "Caregiver". The content of these articles are completely different concepts. Confusingly, in discussion of either of these distinct concepts, these words are used interchangeably so effectively both articles have the same name. Consequently one should be moved. I propose to move this one because it describes the general sociological concept of caring for another person, which is the more narrow and less popular topic. The content of this article discusses an academic concept in sociology which is of limited interest outside of academic discussion. In August 2014 this article got 2300 pageviews. I expect that many of those pageviews were people searching for the article currently at "caregiver". The caregiver article is about the social role of providing mostly physical care to another person. While this is also a sociological concept, it is also a major financial sector in every economy, a target of regulation and legislation on national and international levels, and a field of health care specialization and professional practice. In August 2014 this article got 9900 views. Most articles to be found in Google Scholar by searching for either "caregiving" or "caregiver" are about the concept of providing physical assistance to a person with a disability.I want people who look for this article to find it but I want people who are looking for the more popular and broadly relevant article on "caregiver" to find that one first, so "caregiving" should redirect to "caregiver" and this article should be renamed "Caregiving (sociology)" or disambiguated in any other way. Comments from anyone? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cereus (disambiguation)Cereus – Until recently there were two plant articles: an article about the genus Cereus at Cereus (genus), and an article about ceroid cacti (cacti with a columnar growth form) at "Cereus". However, this latter title was misleading; all reliable sources use "Cereus" as the genus name and either "ceroid cactus" or "ceriform cactus" for the more general group. No-one dissented for over a year from my comment at Talk:Ceroid cactus#Muddled article that the article was muddled and the name misleading. So I moved the article at "Cereus" to Ceroid cactus. Cereus is now a redirect to Ceroid cactus, although I think this is wrong. (My attempt to make it a redirect to Cereus (disambiguation) was reverted.)I've been through all the article space links to Cereus; as of now there are none. The great majority should have been to Cereus (genus); a minority should have been to Ceroid cactus; there were a couple which should have been to other uses of the term.I propose that this page, Cereus (disambiguation), should be moved to "Cereus". Although the major use of "Cereus" in Wikipedia is to for the plant genus, there are other uses, and I think the best link is to a disambiguation page. The alternative is to move Cereus (genus) to "Cereus". The present situation is the worst possible, since "ceroid cactus" is much less likely to be meant by "Cereus" and it encourages editors to make an incorrect wikilink. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wang Yi (Zhao Ang's wife)Wang Yi (Cao Wei) – The main reason I'm bringing this up is that Zhao Ang is currently a red link. The subject has a disambiguation tag that implies their notability derives from someone who inspires so little interest that in the decade-plus Wikipedia's been around, noone's thought it worthwhile to create an article for him, not even a one-sentence stub. This is even despite the fact that said red link is currently in the first sentence of this article, which gets a not-insignificant amount of views (5336 over the past 90 days). I just think we can come up with a better disambiguation label than the current one, so I'm proposing this to see if anyone agrees. I'm not entirely happy with the label I'm suggesting, so if you have one you think would be better, feel free to suggest it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)3Arena (Dublin)3Arena – The venue has been renamed from The O2 to the 3Arena. A new (and unnecessary) article was created at 3Arena, which now redirects to here. Despite the move request, a non-admin has moved the page from The O2 (Dublin) to 3Arena (Dublin). As disambiguation is not required, it should be moved to 3Arena. Snappy (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Snappy (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)All Things Are PossibleAll Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album) – No clear primary topic. The album by Dan Peek (or its title song) actually seems like a more notable topic (especially in terms of long-term notability) than the album by Hillsong Church, so if one of them is the primary topic for "All Things Are Possible", it should probably be the Dan Peek album (or its title song). The Dan Peek album was the first solo album released by a highly notable artist – with a Grammy-nominated title song that reached "Top 10 in the A/C Billboard chart and number 1 in the Christian charts, becoming one of the earliest contemporary Christian music crossover hits". This contrasts with the lesser apparent notability of the Hillsong Church album – the sixth in a long series of albums released by a particular church, and "No. 16 on the Billboard Top Contemporary Christian Albums Chart". The Dan Peek article has had about 7 times as many recent page views as the current All Things Are Possible Hillsong Church album page. A good alternative approach might be to just replace the article about the Hillsong Church album with a redirect to the article about Dan Peek, since the current article about the Hillsong Church album fails WP:GNG, as it does not cite any sources that contain any detailed discussion of the topic. The only source cited in the article is an AllMusic page that says approximately nothing. BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Super MarioSuper Mario (disambiguation) – I believe that the primary topic for the term "Super Mario" is Mario, the character from the video game series; the term "Super Mario" was highly recognized to represent the character as a name back during the character's creation in the 1980s. No other subject, even games that have included the Mario character, have not seemed to even come close to the level of notability/connection the synonymous connection between "Super Mario" and the Mario character. In addition, the fact that all games in the Super Mario (series) feature the eponymous character essentially puts the character as the primary topic by default. For this reasoning, I believe that this page should move to Super Mario (disambiguation) so that the "Super Mario" title can become a redirect towards Mario. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Obaidat, N. A; Alsaad, K. O; Ghazarian, D. (2006). "Skin adnexal neoplasms--part 2: An approach to tumours of cutaneous sweat glands". Journal of Clinical Pathology 60 (2): 145–159. doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.041608. ISSN 0021-9746. 
  2. ^ Bolognia, Jean (2008). Dermatology (in German). St. Louis, Mo: Mosby/Elsevier. ISBN 978-1-4160-2999-1.