Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 8: Line 8:
If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the [[#Incomplete and contested proposals]] section below.
If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the [[#Incomplete and contested proposals]] section below.
<!--Please place new uncontroversial proposals at the BOTTOM of the list, with a blank line between separate proposals, using a copy of: {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} -->
<!--Please place new uncontroversial proposals at the BOTTOM of the list, with a blank line between separate proposals, using a copy of: {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} -->
* '''[[:Burn it Down (band)]] → {{noredirect|Burn It Down (band)}}''' — caps — {{#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|no||—[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User

* '''[[:Alfred N. Duffié]] → {{noredirect|Alfred N. Duffié}}''' — New information — {{#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|no||[[User:Amvros|Amvros]] ([[User talk:Amvros|talk]]) 15:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)}}


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

Revision as of 16:18, 23 May 2009

Administrator instructions

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 media restoration, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration.

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 requests

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 reasonable 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 relist 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 proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. If you support an incomplete or contested move proposal, please consider following the instructions above to complete the proposal, and move it to the "Other proposals" section below under the current date. Proposals that remain incomplete after seven days will be removed.

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

23 May 2009

22 May 2009

  • Ace Hotels → Ace Hotel —(Discuss)— Ace Hotel is the proper name of this company. There are NOT multiple "Ace Hotels". There are multiple Ace Hotel locations, but these are never referred to as different "Ace Hotels". There are many Mariott hotel locations but their page is not titled "Mariotts". It is confusing because the common noun "Hotel" is in our name, but "Ace" is not its adjective. I work for this company and can confirm that "Ace Hotels" is improper usage. --Notbot (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21 May 2009

  • Astana Team → Astana (cycling team) —(Discuss)— I'm not a big fan of parenthetical qualifiers when they can reasonably be avoided, but I can find no indication that the word "Team" is in fact part of this team's name (same thing happened a while back with the article that used to be called Team Garmin-Slipstream). The UCI-registered name for the team going back through 2007 is simply "Astana" (even the old ONCE team that was briefly called Astana was just called "Astana" and not "Astana Team" by the UCI). The team's logo and official website say "Astana cycling team" but I believe this actually backs me up - the Toronto Blue Jays baseball club, for example, is known formally as exactly that. With the use of {{ct}} becoming more common, and with it gradually replacing regular links in old pages (many of which, by the way, were Astana), not a whole lot of effort needs to go into bypassing the new redirect. Astana Team would still be a perfectly valid redirect, actually, as a likely search term. --Nosleep break my slumber 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Nosleep break my slumber 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matthew Sean Mason → Matt Mason (cricketer) — (Discuss) — Move over a redirect to a disamb page. Not known as "Matthew Sean", the reference and Cricinfo pages use Matt, not Matthew and as he's Australian, but mainly notable in England, using a country qualifier could be confusing. The Welsh cricketer only just qualifies on notability ground (3 games vs over 160), so a hatnote to him is appropriate. — The-Pope (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


20 May 2009

  • Raymond Ashby → Ray Ashby —(Discuss)— Sources naming him as 'Ray' = 4/4; as 'Raymond' = 0/4. The editor who created this article does this same thing with almost all that he creates. I've brought the naming convention guideline to his attention but he ignores it, thinking he knows best. While it is good that he's busily creating all these articles, I've been following him around cleaning up after him for a while now and it's becoming tiresome. Perhaps if an admin could have a word? --Jeff79 (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhondda Cynon Taff → Rhondda Cynon Taf —(Discuss) — Sources with 'Taf' = thousands, sources with 'Taff' = few, and dwindling. Background — Rhondda Cynon Taff was, at one time, the English name of a County in Wales, while the Welsh name was Rhondda Cynon Tâf. Six years ago, a minor council rebrand saw the two named 'merged'. Since that time, all Council literature, media, street furniture, documentation and peripheral items have used the Rhondda Cynon Taf name exclusively.
    All Government documentation reflects this, although only Wikipedia still seems to be promoting the extinct name.
    There is no linguistic problem associated with the change in name, as both Taff and Taf are pronounced in exactly the same way.
    A definitive decision is urgently needed.--Monkeynuts2008 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19 May 2009

18 May 2009

17 May 2009

  • 2000–2009 → 2000s (decade) —(Discuss)— Current article name is inconsistent with all if not most templates that use "2000s" (i.e. Category:2000s music groups) and the general popular consensus that the decade be called "2000s". The actual term "2000–2009" is not notable and is used nowhere outside Wikipedia. A similar move to this has been requested before, but this was for a move back to "2000s", not "2000s (decade)", which is my request. I feel the latter gives enough disambiguation to address the concerns of some users of moving the article simply to "2000s". — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 06:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16 May 2009

  • Plenty of article titles have characters not on a standard keyboard; also, why is the Challenge M portion being dropped? This is not uncontroversial and should be discussed first. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swap Array data structure and Array data type —(Discuss)— Data types are primitive (e.g. Machine data types), whereas data structures are higher-level and more abstract; therefore, the present "data type" article, which describes the more abstract concept, is misnamed. The opposite is true for the sister article. This is all a result of the very recent split of Array. I raised the same issue on the talkpage prior to the split's execution, but there was insufficient input and thus no clear consensus as to the right nomenclature. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Ibm and not IBM? (My point is this is an acronym, and the dominant use is KM3NeT. Other variants include Km3net, KM3NET, KM3Net..., but the all-across wikipedia use is KM3NeT, as well as in most scientific publications). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "NeT" does not stand for network, it stands for Neutrino Telescope. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tea Party protests → Tax Day Tea Party —(Discuss)— The current article seems to cover only the Tax Day Tea Party protests, but with brief statements on the history of Tea Party protests and how they started. This is OK for the article, however, it is encyclopedic to have an article about one event (April 15 Tax Day protests) that suggests it covers all Tea Party protests. The current article also does not cover the different organizations that started the February 27 Chicago Tea Party protests, but instead, the article assumes the same organizations that started a previous event also started the April 15 Tax Day event. This is not the case. Different organizations started these two different Tea Party events. So it not correct to claim the generic article name "Tea Party protests," when in truth the article is only covering the Tax Day Tea Party protests. The allegations between both events are different, and the organizations that guided the events are different, and the outcomes of each event are different; thus, this calls for the generic name "Tea Party protests" to be moved to a clearer name of "Tax Day Tea Party." --Tycoon24 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 May 2009

Backlog

Move dated sections here after seven days have passed (August 7 or older).

Please see discussion/survey at Talk:Bitch#Requested move
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=291831283"