Wikipedia:Requested moves

Requested moves is used to ask for, and vote for, moves that are not particularly straight-forward or those that require the assistance of Wikipedia's administration. This will either be because the destination of such a move requires technical expertise to transfer or merge one article's edit history to the intended destination, or when the move proposed is controversial. If the talkpage is blank, it may generally be assumed that the move will not be controversial, but a note to the Userpages of the main contributors always promotes collegiality.

If there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion here, it is eligible to be moved. An archive of the discussion and votes on this page regarding the proposal and its outcome is then copied to the talk page of the article.

It is advised that a discussion regarding a proposed move be initiated on the talk page of the articles in question with the hopes of achieving a consensus among those that frequently contribute to the article. If a consensus is reached, a move may be achieved by contacting an administrator directly who may decide to complete the move, or recommend further discussion here.

However, if despite this initial attempt to discuss a move a consensus is not reached on the talk page, it is beneficial to raise the question here as it opens up the discussion to a wider audience of Wikipedians that were not involved in previous discussions who may offer suggestions overlooked, impartial opinions, and other comments in the process of voting on the request.

It is important, for the ease of navigation from request to request and simply because of the chaos posed by jumping from talkpage to talkpage in order to observe discussions all over Wikipedia that discussions regarding a requested move and voting on that proposal take place here on this page.

Instructions on requesting a page move

In order to notify other editors of this request, add a note to the article's talk page (not the article itself), using the Move template. This template should be inserted at the top of the page using the following text:

{{move|new name}}

Replace "new name" with the name of the page to where you wish to move the article. This produces the following text on the page where you inserted it:

Next, add the details of the requested move to the list below (new items at the top). Please create the request in the style:

====[[original name]] → [[new name]]====
{reason for move} -- ~~~~ 
* Support/Oppose - reasons for your vote (optional) ~~~~ 

Please sign and date all votes and comments, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. Remember, pages should be named in accordance with naming conventions.

Notices

Please add new notices to the top of this section.'

February 14

Rudolph I, King of Burgundy → Rudolph I of Burgundy

also

Rudolph II, King of Burgundy → Rudolph II of Burgundy

In keeping with Guidelines for naming monarchs. Requires admin assistance because target pages are already occupied by redirects. Shimmin 18:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency

Reason: One, the proposed name is the most frequently used by far and so should be chosen under the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Google News shows the following number of news articles using each name: "iraqi insurgents" 3,220, "iraqi insurgency" 1,050, "iraqi resistance" 420. Two, "resistance" is POV. From a careful reading of dictionary definitions, "resistance" strongly implies a legitimate struggle against illegitimate authority, while "insurgency" weakly implies a struggle against a legitimate (or at least well-established) authority. While there is no truly neutral term, "insurgency" is the more neutral term. Some additional discussion is on the talk page. ObsidianOrder 07:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - why switch one POV term for another? "Resistance" implies they are doing good to oppose the 'government' and "insugence" implies they are doing bad or doing nothing (it is therefore obvious why one term sees preference in Western media). Can't a truly NPOV title be found? --Boco XLVII 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I would support something more along the lines of Government opposition in Iraq as an NPOV solution. --Boco XLVII 13:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, because although "insurgency" implies a weak POV, it's certainly not nearly as strong as "resistance," which is why media organizations eschew the latter in favor of the former. A.D.H. (t&m) 08:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support First of all, "resistance" is a POV term; "insurgency" is not. Secondly, the news media consistently uses "insurgency", so this is the more common term and the article could be moved on that grounds alone. -- Curps 08:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, after some reflection I agree that "resistance" is too POV. — Ливай | ☺ 08:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Michael Moore lost the election, so we don't have to call his Minutemen the Iraqi "resistance" ;) --Daniel11 12:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I resent the unfounded insult. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • lol - and just what insult might that be? Are you Michael Moore? Did I even insult him? --Daniel11 15:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support It is clear by now that the insurgency is not a resistance group, it is an anti-democratic fundamentalist sectarian force opposing the internationally recognized Iraqi government. With al Qaeda led forces claiming credit for the great majority of the bombings and attacks, there is serious doubt whether the insurgents and suicide bombers are even Iraqis. "Insurgency" is perhaps too NPOV, suggesting little more than unconventional conflict.--Silverback 13:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course many here will disagree with your analysis. If this becomes a pro-war vs. anti-war vote, we'll never get a consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I wholeheartedly disagree with the reasoning given by some above users voting support, but I agree that "insurgency" is a little less POV than "resistance", and I agree that it is the more common term in the English language. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a question of legitimacy of armed groups, that's not a judgement for Wikipedia to make. It is not an insurgency, because they are not targetting an established authority. Instead they are resisting the establishment of a new authority. They are Iraqi armed groups whose main targets are (1) foreign occupying troops, (2) the new forces being trained by the foreign occupying troops. These groups form therefore a resistance movement (whatever their aims beyond resisting the establishment of a new authority may or may not be), and the word insurgency is inadequate. Please note that groups targetting civilians, such as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad, and whose aim is to further sectarian violence and bring about civil war, cannot be classified as being part of the Iraqi resistance. - pir 14:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are a number of armed groups which attack a variety of targets, including military, governmental and purely civilian. Do you have any evidence that the groups which attack civilian targets operate independently of the groups which attack legitimate targets? Do you have any evidence that groups which only attack legitimate targets even exist? I think they all work together to attack all types of targets in a very fluid way; there is no operational distinction, except that each group may have different reasons. Any distinction based on excluding civilian-targetting groups such as JTJ is purely artificial. Moreover, JTJ and similar groups which you admit are not part of the "resistance" are a major topic of this article. I will write a longer reply at Talk:Iraqi_resistance, let's continue there. ObsidianOrder 14:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. Properly speaking it's probably a resistance, or a collection of resistance efforts, to an ongoing occupation. However it has become known as the insurgency through common usage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that if various Canadians, Mexicans and Americans got pissed off at George W. Bush and started bombing American churches, that would be resistance? Or even insurgency? Is there an option other than support/oppose, to suggest renaming instead something like "Terrorism in Iraq"? --Daniel11 15:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT: No Daniel11, we usually call that an unprovoked act of war by a sovereign power. And the Mexicans did that once, under Pancho Villa, burning a border town to the ground and killing like a dozen or two of the inhabitants. The American response, while not a war (since we weren't fighting Mexico, just invading Northern Mexico to follow the perpetrator), was called the Punitive Expedition. As to the Canadians...check out the Aroostook War...even though people say it was bloodless, the Lumberjacks did fight a few quasi-battles and burnt down settlements in Northern Maine. If Americans did it, it would be domestic terrorism and probably investigated by the FBI (like the racist church bombings in the South during the 1950s and 1960s). —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That was my point -- I was only asking the question rhetorically. Of course we wouldn't call the bombing of American churches by a bunch of terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, any kind of a resistance or insurgency. We'd call it what it is, terrorism. Hence, why should we call al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists in Iraq a resistance or an insurgency, when they're doing the same? We shouldn't, we should call it terrorism. --Daniel11 16:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

oh, and by the way, those weren't Canadians at Aroostook, they were Britons. :) --Daniel11 17:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I don't see either resistence or insurgency as a POV word, however, "insurgency" and "insurgents" appear in more headlines (print and online) and tv news segments than "resistence." I don't think I've heard "resistence" used at all during this war. After all, it isn't organized like the French, Dutch and Czechs were against the Nazis. But that brings up another idea...how does Wikipedia (that is, if we do) treat the non-military largely civilian and partisans who resisted the allies with grassroots guerilla warfare in Germany in 1944-1945? Perhaps we could look at other insurgencies and see if there is a consistent terminology. In the meantime, though, I support. —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subthreshold Leakage → Subthreshold leakage

Reason: Improper capitalization for an article name. This move requires administrator help because the page Subthreshold leakage already exists (and unfortunately it redirects to the misspelled Subtreshold Leakage). Please move the article contents as above and delete the page Subtreshold Leakage. — Brim 22:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: Because I vehemently hate that arbitrary and unaesthetic naming convention regarding capitalization. —ExplorerCDT 22:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point violet/riga (t) 10:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, because this is not the venue for lobbying to change convention. ADH (t&m) 23:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 01:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is a pretty straightforward, non-arbitrary decision. For example, you wouldn't find this capitalized in the middle of a sentence. — Ливай | ☺ 04:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Something like this shouldn't need to be voted on, because (like ADH says) this isn't a page for debating the rights and wrongs of the naming conventions. Proteus (Talk) 08:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the united states → Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States

Reason:Capitalisation of the US. The correct title is therem but it redirects to the uncaps United States version.--nixie 06:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yes But keep old one as redirect. Zantastik 06:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Done The only reason this couldn't be done is because the creator made two edits in a row one minute apart, the second to fix the first. Both were redirects, an there was no other history. So I just went ahead and deleted and moved it, I don't think there's any controversy here. A lot of pages link to the lowercase version, though. -- Curps 08:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 13

====Rastafarianism → Rastafari==== because of the offensive nature of the the word Rastafarianism to Rastafarians both excludes believers and as a title is not from an NPOV but from an anti-rasta viewpoint. There has been a consensus to cchange the name on the talk page but the dissenting voice asked for the change to be put here. i think it is very wrong in an encyclopedia like this to use a term offensive to believers. This is not a question of free speach. It is a question of being inclusive, and encouraging rasta believers and all religious believers to come and share their knowledge, both about their religion and other subjects. Rastas, for instance, are a mine of information about reggae music. I paste below the talk page comments.--Squiquifox 01:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the article changed to Rastafarians or Rastafari, Rastafarianism is a terrible name.--Squiquifox 18:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. I was surprised to find the article under this title really. I suppose it isn't really a big thing, but common courtesy suggests the title shouldn't be one that adherents have a legitimate objection to. The only problems I envisage are,

• 1) Making sure we don't lose the edit history of the existing article. I think the history can be moved, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know?
• 2) Working out what exactly to move it to. Rastafari itself is a disambig page, quite rightly since it could refer to Haile Selassie or to the religious/social movement. I suppose that means putting this page at something like Rastafari (religion) or, my preference, Rastafari (movement).

While we're at it, I suggest we create a policy page Wikipedia:Too much 'ism' and 'schism' to help people get along. I'm joking, but it would be fun, eh? Mattley 15:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adherents to the Church of Christ may believe themselves to be the only true Christians, but that doesn't mean we disambiguate at Christianity. This move (i) asserts a Rasta POV in the most visible area of the article: its title, (ii) subjects the page to unnecessary disambiguation, and (iii) violates our naming conventions, which, for better of for worse, prescribe titling under the common names of things. Bring your proposal to WP:RM if you like, but I advise you not to act without clear consensus. ADH (t&m) 02:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the idea that anyone intends acting without clear consensus. This is a tentative proposal, as I think the above contributions make clear. Leaving that aside, you raise some interesting points, some better than others. The Church of Christ example is hardly germane. Aside from having to do with religion it is a completely different situation. A more relevant example might be mormon and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As for the unnecessary disambiguation, well that already exists. A lot of people with a more than a passing interest in the subject will, I suspect, type in Rastafari and have to go through that page. That isn't to say it must move, but you know, rastafari is a real term that people really use, so we're stuck with the problem of disambiguation whatever we do.

The other two points, on the naming conventions and the assertion of a rasta POV in the title are more inclined to make me think again. Whether or not it really does assert a rasta POV in any meaningful sense could probably be disputed, but that is something to be reflected on. Mattley 11:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested that anyone would act without clear consensus, but I've seen enough people jump the gun on similar moves (only to later have them reversed after a lengthy and often pointless WP:RM process, the redirect then having an edit history) to know that preemptive advice is certainly prudent. The disambiguation scenario already exists, yes, but only for certain cases, whereas it's proposed that it be disambiguated for all cases. "Rastafarianism" is the common, neutral term, and the one more likely to be referenced in article text—that's justification enough for me. ADH (t&m) 12:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

The current title will put off rastafarians and people who support rastafari coming to read the site as a source of information, and then becoming wiki editors and adding some much needed information to this article. So we need these people to make a good quality article. What do you think would happen if the articles on Christianity and Islam had pieces in the article that the believers of said religions would find so offensive that they would be put off either reading or editing said article and possibly anything else. It is the believers in Christianity and Islam who can add much rich material in a neutral way to their articles. We must not exclude rastafarians from this article, or any other. We could do with some knowledgeable help in the reggae section, and this title does not help there either. So I agree, the title is not NPOV, it is anti rastafarian. This in the title itself is a disaster. i think the consensus is in favour of changing the title. I would like to call it Rastafari (religion), and redirect rastafarian and rastafarianism to it but leaving open the disambiguation page. I would like to do it quickly, and if it isn't done quickly I would like to NPOV the article. Until this issue is sorted I have removed the following point of clarification. The proper name of the faith that worships Haile Selassie I is "Rastafari." Referring to it as "Rastafarianism" is like calling Buddhism "Buddhistism." Added by User:67.41.144.251I. I take this as another vote in favour. --Squiquifox 01:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support (I think) - Rastafarianism is a "white people" word - it's a polite, sanitised word for what were a gritty underclass...still are really, despite the popularity in the "metropole". I don't know if Rastafari (religion) is the best name for it. Does Rastafari really need to be a disambiguation page? I always thought Ras Tafari for the man (or the race horse), Rastafari (or Rasta) for the people. Not my field, but I always thought it was two words for the prince, one word for the people. Guettarda 03:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree about moving it to Rastafari, it should not be a disambiguation.--Squiquifox 05:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My position on this has changed a bit since this discussion first started (and before it was moved to this page). I'm still sympathetic to the original idea of altering the article title, but I can also see the point of some of the objections raised by Austin Hair. I'm also sceptical of the idea that we should be actively recruiting followers of particular religions to contribute to articles on said religions, which is likely to take things too far in the other direction. Put me down as an abstention, for now at least. Mattley 14:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, oppose, because although my concerns about disambiguation have been addressed, the principal one—neutrality and common usage—has not.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines Rastafarian as "an adherent of Rastafarianism." This is the usage you will find in print media, independent publications, other encyclopedias, and everyday speech, not to mention elsewhere in this encyclopedia. The Rasta objection to the term is based not on the fact that they've given their faith another name, but rather that it isn't a "faith" or "-ism," simply the Truth. This is hardly a neutral point of view.

And I seriously doubt that the article's creator had an "anti-Rasta POV," as Squiquifox suggests. Lacking any evidence at all, I'll assume the best of intentions in his choice of title.

If we're to pander, a more neutral title like Rastafarians would be acceptable, but I cannot conscionably support this. ADH (t&m) 18:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am not wanting to actively encourage believers of a particular faith to participate. I am wanting to not actively discourage them! I never suggested the original author was knowingly coming from an anti-rasta point of view. Giving good faith I imagioine he was ignorant of the objection to this article's name. Actually there is dispute including in the academic world about the use of the word rastafarianism, eg see Joseph Owens, book Dread, so it not starightforward as Austin Hair seems to think. I repeat, I do not see Rastafarianism as being other than a POV attack on Rasta, and clearly I am not alone. This issue will not go away, because the article offends rastas. Shall we make this argument about NPOV? --Squiquifox 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have put a neutrality note on the article until this issue is resolved. --Squiquifox 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You must be joking. ADH (t&m) 21:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I definitely was not joking. You cannot deny there is a dispute aroud this title. See my further comments on the discussion page. I think it is entirely apprpriate, and do not understand why you think I was joking. --Squiquifox 22:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This earlier discussion on the talk page may be of interest, but I don't consider it to have votes in the current debate. --Squiquifox 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rastafarianism or Rastafari?

I have been told that it is more strictly correct to call the Rastafarian religion "Rastafari", instead of "Rastafarianism". Any thoughts on the matter? (Rastafari currently redirects to Haile Selassie.) --Suitov 13:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have only ever read it "Rastafarianism" I recently reverted some edits on this page (probably by an anon) that changed all the words "Rastafarianism" to "Rastafari". The reason why I reverted the edits and why Rastafari redirects to Haile Selassie III is because Rastafari or more accurately "Ras Tafari" was the name of Haile Selassie III before he was crowned Emperor. Ras was his first name and Tafari was his last name. I have never met any Rastafaris I am just a student of religions (technically nuclear engineering) so I don't know what they like to be called these days. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 14:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression Rastafari is a more correct (or more commonly used by insiders) term for Rastafarian or Rastafarians. AFAIK, the religion itself is usually called Rastafarianism. Rastafari should be a disambig page, then, I think, since it could point to Rastafarianism or Haile Selassie. But I could be wrong (ordinarily, I would see what religioustolerance.org uses, but last time I checked, they had nothing on the subject, which is unusual for them) Tuf-Kat 16:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

What rastas don't like about rastafarianism is the ism. To them the world is too full of isms, and all religious sects are just more isms. Rastas don't see Rastafari as another ism, but as something radically different. Hugh Mundell and Prince Lincoln Thompson in Mecanical devices from his Natural wild album both rail against various isms. Gone dung says Prince Lincoln about isms. So there is no doubt that ideologically Rastas do not like the word Rastafarianism. Squiquifox 04:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was 82.182.134.91 who changed rastafarianism to rastafari, but had his work reverted by Sunborn. Another example of a person being offended by the word rastafarianism. --Squiquifox 22:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I personally bitterly oppose freedom of speech being lost in the name of religion e.g. in the case of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti but i think this is not about freedom of speech it is about having a wikipedia open to as wide a range of people as possible. I am not even suggesting all references to rastafarianism be removed from the article or wikipedia, merely from the title. There is also a wider debate on this issue than just at Wikipedia. If we decide to keep rastafarianism we are making a statement within that debate whether we like it or not. I am surprised people are supporting an excluding policy? It could be argued this exclusiveness has rascist overtones if it is actively and knowingly done. Or do we just want rationalist white middle class educated people (like me) to contribute to and read wikipedia. --Squiquifox

I have just added this to the article itself.

Rastafarians claim to reject isms and schisms. They see a wide range of isms and schisms in Babylon society, and want no part of them. They strongly reject the word Rastafarianism, because they see themselves as having transcended isms and schisms. This has created some conflict between Rastas and some members of the academic community studying the Rastafarian phenomenon, who insist on calling this religious belief Rastafarianism, in spite of the disapproval this generates within the Rastafarian movement. The reason the academics call it Rastafarianism is to do with the structure of the English languge, which tends to demand the use of the word Rasstafarianism (and at the very least the writer or speaker has to make an effort in order to avoid using the word) when talking or writing about the Rastas in an academic way. Rastas see no need to talk about their religion in an an analytical and objective way. (See Vocabulary section below). They use their minds to figure out life through a rastafarian perspective. --Squiquifox 16:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• If it's really that offensive to Rastafarians, I say go ahead and move it to Rastafari, and slap a disambig notice on the top to lead to Ras Tafari. After all, I'd like to believe that, had Wikipedia existed 50 years ago, we wouldn't have had an article on black people under "Nigger", even though that word was constantly used for them. Place a redirect at Rastafarianism, of course, but we shouldn't allow a naming convention to result in us insulting a group of people like that. Rules are made to be broken, after all. --HBK 17:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why Austin Hair thinks I am lobbying at WP:RM when the only reason I went there was after his suggestion to do so if I wanted to change the article name, and in respect of his strong objection to changing the title. I am not lobbying, I am trying to generate a debate within the community about the subject. The democratic way to try to build consensus where there is conflict. The history of this article is clear evidence that some people who read the site have felt offended, but those who have changed things to counteract this trend have been inexperienced users, and haven't done it skillfully. Indeed I removed a paragraph to this effect from the article at the start of this debate that was not wiki style or appropriate for an encyclopedia. I strongly disagree that the common word is Rastafarianism. It is not a word used either in rastafarian communities or the many popular third world places where rastafari is popular. It is a label given to the rastas by a small, educated, elite.

• Personally, I've never heard it referred to by another name, but I've heard of it infrequently enough that I can't say that the usage I've heard is authoritative. I don't care if the community prefers another name -- common usage should prevail (and it's important to note that in the popular third world places, they may not be speaking English, so perhaps the grammar is a bit different there and -ism isn't a common suffix in their language. This is just a comment and not a vote -- I don't feel comfortable commenting on the standard English term because I've heard it so infrequently. --Improv 18:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Therer is now also a debate about this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and I will include the comments on that page as well when trying to see what consensus has been reached on Friday. Both the Spanish and portuguese wikipedias say rastafarianismo and are not recent translations of the English article, whereas I am sure most Latin Americans don't say rastafarianismo. I suspect the same is true for French (French wiki says Rastafarisme but that may well not be what the African french speakers call it?). So I think the language issue is a red herring. Even in the rich English speaking world I am sure the great majority do not think of Rasta as Rastafarianism. This is plain common sense. Where in reggae (a vital source of information about rastafari) is there a reference to Rastafarianism. So apart from being offensive it is not common usage. --Squiquifox 18:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch wiki uses Rastafari as does the German for the title.--Squiquifox 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 12

Khaled Mamud → Khaled Mahmud

The second one is the one with the correct spelling.

• SUPPORT. However, as both are separate articles, no redirect present here, and not much content or page history to worry about losing, I think you could simply get away with merging the information from the former into the latter without much opposition or criticism with a simple redirect, and cutting and pasting the information lacking in the latter from the former. I think a google test of "Khaled Mamud" [1] responding with 41, as opposed to 16,200 for "Khaled Mahmud" [2], and a whopping 5 results for "Khalid Mamud" + cricket [3] and 13,500 for "Khalid Mahmud" + cricket [4] and lastly an enormous sum of 2 links for bangladesh national cricket team mamud [5] as opposed to bangladesh national cricket team mahmud [6] returning 5970 results speaks for itself. Now about making that article more than a bio-stub...perhaps getting a picture of Mr. Mahmud. Is that too much to ask? —ExplorerCDT 04:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Euthyphro Dilemma → Euthyphro dilemma

The problem is that both pages exist; the latter is a redirect to the former, but it should presumably be the other way round, given naming conventions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Handicapping → Handicap theory

Tried to redirect a new page I made "handicapping" to "Handicap theory" and made it FUBAR. Help. Handicapping and Handicap Theory should both redirect to "Handicap theory" THX --JPotter 00:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE: This requested move was inadvertantly placed beneath the February 11th request for Supercentenarian→Oldest person. Upon seeing this mistake, I took the initiative to separate it. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• OPPOSE STRENUOUSLY: Judging from the history, JPotter had started the article entitled Handicapping on 11 February 2005. And while his redirect can easily be fixed, I do not think Handicapping should be a redirect to Handicap theory as the primary use of the word "handicapping" is for the practice of (and mathematics behind) giving a scoring benefit in sporting events to lesser talented participants, not as a corollary to Darwin's biological theories. I expected this to be an article on the sports-related practice and its methods. As a former bookmaker in my college days, Handicapping should be an article about the scoring practice and methods, with a disclaimer at the top saying "if you are looking for Handicap theory, click here." —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given above. Isn't there an article about handicapping in sport? Kappa 19:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Unforunately there isn't, much to my surprise also. —ExplorerCDT 02:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE: As the fix was simple...no Handicap Theory page really existed...I redirected that to Handicap theory. I've contacted JPotter to see if he'd agree to the use of Handicapping to discuss the sports scoring practice and its methods with a a disambiguation disclaimer at the top of the article. In the meantime, I have started to put together some ideas for a Handicapping article and will start it when (if) JPotter responds positively to my comments regarding a compromise proposed from the above concerns on his talk page. —ExplorerCDT 02:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As of last night, I hadn't heard from JPotter so I made Handicapping into a different article with a disclaimer at the top disambiguating it to both Handicap theory and Handicapped. This request can now be deleted, but I do request archiving on both the Handicapping and Handicap theory talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 14:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 11

Supercentenarian → Oldest person

Which does the article look like more to you, an article on the concept of living to be 110 or an article on lists of oldest people of a specified kind?? Georgia guy 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I am neutral as to the proposed move, while it does have a list of oldest persons element, it is not exclusively a list. My biggest concern is whether "supercentenarian" is actually a word, since I have yet to find it in a dictionary, and as it does mean "over 110 years of age" it just means "people over the age of 100" (from super- = above, or over; and centenarius = of a hundred), a quality for which the term centenarian already adequately applies. On spec, and seeing how other words are put together artificially in English from Latin roots (like sesquicentenarian...which is already reserved for people over 150), I'm pretty sure the term for someone over 110 years would be decicentenarian. Further, to counteract a statement from the article... Strauss and Howe didn't really set out to popularize a term about over-100 individuals (actually, their book doesn't really broach the subject much at all), instead, their work was nothing more than a pitiful attempt to take Thomas Carlyle's writings and lectures on On Heroes And Hero Worship And The Heroic In History [7] (which were based largely on trying to identify with strong European autocrats through a post-Napoleonic worldview) and try to justify American hegemony and its growth over the ages. Lastly, as an aside, I do not feel that Oldest person is the proper name for the article, as it is an article about and list enumerating oldest people. —ExplorerCDT 19:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 9

Elijah ben Solomon → Vilna Gaon

Simple issue of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Many Jewish sages have been known primarily by something other than their 'full and correct' name.--Pharos 15:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• support. He had dozens of other names but this one seems to have stuck. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• support, I think this is the single name he is best known as. Rje 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• support. "Elijah ben Solomon" is used in academia, but "Vilna Gaon" is the common name. The Google test says "Elijah ben Solomon" gets 3,100 hits, whereas "Vilna Gaon" gets 17,500. The six to one ratio is pretty compelling imho. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The redirect works fine as it is...it is not like Vilna Gaon is redirecting to some other guy known as the "Genius of Vilnius." Secondly, we don't move Albert Anastasia (Umberto Anastasio) the boss of Murder, Inc. to an article titled by either of his nicknames Lord High Executioner and the Mad Hatter (both of which appeared in the headlines of the New York Times more often than his actual name)...nor do we redirect Dwight Eisenhower to an article entitled Ike, John F. Kennedy to JFK or philosophers like Roger Bacon as a redirect to Doctor Mirabilis . Though, in these examples, the nicknames (as is the case with "Genius of Vilnius") were just as ubiquitous if not moreso. —ExplorerCDT 18:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• support under the "name most commonly used in English" principle. Jonathunder 02:17, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

• Have you looked through the 17,500 google responses for "Vilna Gaon" to see if all of them are English? I take it that you haven't as a summary of the first 1000 (I like 100 results per page), shows quite a few pages of transliterated Hebrew and Lithuanian. Google test shouldn't be the basis for everything, and should be taken with analysis...the proverbial bucketloader of salt. —ExplorerCDT 02:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I searched on it, google returned about 16,900 English pages for "Vilna Gaon" and only about 2,020 pages in English for "Elijah ben Solomon" Jonathunder 02:38, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

William Quinby De Funiak → William Q De Funiak

I moved this conversation to the talk page of the article, where it should be discussed further. The move does not need admin action to perform, only some consensus as to what is best. -- Netoholic @ 21:30, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Thomas A. Anderson → Neo (Matrix character)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I think most people would recognize the character by his name in the 'real' world. Also, this would allow the name to match the style of the majority of the names found in Category:Matrix characters -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Without a doubt, the saddest move I've ever seen proposed here. Uh... support, I guess. ADH (t&m) 06:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I would look for either "Neo" or "Mr. Anderson" (and the latter is already taken). —Mike 07:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I can't actually believe it's at that title. sjorford:// 20:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not that I am greatly interested in this particular subject, but technically wouldn't a Neo (The Matrix) or maybe more accurately Neo (Matrix series) format be better for this sort of thing?--Pharos 21:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Procedure for admins

It is important to check to see if the redirect has major history; major history contains information about the addition of current text. (This is sometimes caused by the accidental creation of a duplicate article - or someone doing a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) Never simply delete such redirect pages, (which we need to keep for copyright reasons).

The "right" way is to merge the histories, using the procedure outlined here. This is a slightly fraught procedure, which on rare occasions doesn't work correctly. There are also circumstances (e.g. duplicate pages) where it's not the correct choice anyway. Once done, it cannot be undone, so don't pick this option unless it's definitely the right one.

Alternatively, the article and the redirect can be swapped. This leaves the bifurcated history, but has less chance of causing problems. Simply move one of the pair to a temporary name, and then delete the new redirect which that move will left behind at the original location; next, move the other page of the pair across to the first one's old location, and delete that left-over new redirect; finally, move the first one from its temporary location to its new name. You will then need to delete the new redirect at the temporary location, and finally fix the old redirect to point at the article again (at this point, it will be pointing to itself).

Another option is for redirect pages with major history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into the article's talk page. (An example of such a page is a Talk:Network SouthEast, which was originally created as a duplicate article at Network SouthEast and later archived, when the original article was moved from Network South East.)

A minor history on the other hand contains no information, e.g. the redirect page Eric Tracy has a minor history but Eric Treacy (which incidentally is the correct spelling) could not be moved there because of a spelling mistake in the original page. Redirect pages with minor histories can simply be deleted.

Whichever of these various options you take, moving pages will create double redirects in any redirects that pointed to the original page location. These must be fixed; click on the "What links here" button of the new page location to check for them. It is the responsibility of the admin doing the move to fix these, though periodically a bot will fix any you miss.

When you remove an entry from this page (whether the move was accepted ot rejected), don't forget to remove the {{move}} tag from the page (alas, this has to be done manually). It's worth periodically checking either Category:Requested_moves or here to see if any pages missed this step. Checking either of these regularly has the side-benefit of finding pages where people added the {{Move}} tag to the page, but didn't realize they needed to edit WP:RM as well.

The discussion about articles that have been moved should be archived on the article's Talk: page, so that future Wikipedians can easily see why the page is where it is.

Admins volunteering to do tidying tasks should watch this page for new notices.