Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Backlog: one completed
m →‎6 August 2008: Withdraw move nom, per later discussions as OLD BUSINESS
Line 36: Line 36:
*
*
*
*
*'''[[:Autonomous okrugs of Russia]] → [[:Autonomous districts of Russia]]''' —(''[[Talk:Autonomous okrugs of Russia#Requested move|Discuss]]'')— en.wikipedia names ought be consistent with English terms, not loan words that can be covered in the article... since in this case, there are several kinds of [[Administrative divisions]] which need covered in any event. --<b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
*<!-- Withdrawn same day, AS OLD BUSINESS, albeit undocumented... per talk '''[[:Autonomous okrugs of Russia]] → [[:Autonomous districts of Russia]]''' —(''[[Talk:Autonomous okrugs of Russia#Requested move|Discuss]]'')— en.wikipedia names ought be consistent with English terms, not loan words that can be covered in the article... since in this case, there are several kinds of [[Administrative divisions]] which need covered in any event. --<b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC) --->


*'''[[:Côte d'Azur International Airport]] → [[:Côte d'Azur Airport]]''' —(''[[Talk:Côte d'Azur International Airport#Requested move|Discuss]]'')— The word "international" is not part of the airport's actual name --[[User:Jasepl|Jasepl]] ([[User talk:Jasepl|talk]]) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''[[:Côte d'Azur International Airport]] → [[:Côte d'Azur Airport]]''' —(''[[Talk:Côte d'Azur International Airport#Requested move|Discuss]]'')— The word "international" is not part of the airport's actual name --[[User:Jasepl|Jasepl]] ([[User talk:Jasepl|talk]]) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 6 August 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.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • 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.

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.

Inappropriate move, per WP:ADJECTIVE. 81.98.251.134 (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

  • 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]
  • AnacondaEunectes —(Discuss). There is a consensus to move this article to its scientific name in line with the rest of the series. The current name is misleading: in the past many editors seemed to think this article is about one giant snake, while it's actually about a group (the genus Eunectes) of which not all are as large. --Jwinius (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (August 23 or older).

  • List of artilleryList of artillery weapons —(Discuss)— The term "artillery" on its own is meaningless in a list. The list opening sentence reads "A list of the world's artillery, by type.", but the sentence is unfinished because all artillery "types" are different, the gunners call them all collectively "ordnance" as opposed to the carriage or mounting, which is the other part of all artillery systems. See Chapter 4. Ordnance, p.45, Ryan, J.W., Lee, R.G., Col. (Gen.Ed.,), Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, United Kingdom, Guns, Mortars & Rockets (Brassey's Battlefield Weapon Systems & Technology), Vol.II, Brassey's Publishers, Oxford, 1982 --mrg3105 (comms) ♠08:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese wénChinese 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]
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]
  • KhalisaKalsa —(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]