Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 35: Line 35:


*'''[[:The Dark is Rising Sequence]] → [[:The Dark Is Rising]]''' — No disambig needed, proper caps —[[User:Evanreyes|Evan Reyes]] 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''[[:The Dark is Rising Sequence]] → [[:The Dark Is Rising]]''' — No disambig needed, proper caps —[[User:Evanreyes|Evan Reyes]] 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

*'''[[:Language, Truth, and Logic]] → [[:Language, Truth and Logic]]''' — The title has no [[serial comma]], as a Google search or a glance at an actual copy shows. —[[User:Elembis|Elembis]] <small>([[User talk:Elembis|talk]])</small> 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
<!--New uncontroversial directly above this line.-->
<!--New uncontroversial directly above this line.-->



Revision as of 00:35, 21 March 2007

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

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 here proposals that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete. Things like capitalization and spelling mistakes would be appropriate here. If there is any prior discussion as to the name of the article please link to it. If there is any possibility that the proposed page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section. If the move location appears as a red link you should be able to move the article using the move button of the top of the article's page (unless your account is less than 4 days old) and don't need to use this page.

Please list new requests at the bottom and use {{subst:WP:RM2|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}}; do not copy, paste, and edit previous entries. No dated sections are necessary, and no templates on the article's talk page are necessary. Do not sign yourself, the template already does it for you.

If your request was not fulfilled, and was removed from this section, please relist it in the #Other proposals section below.


  • Lewandowsky-Lutz dysplasiaepidermodysplasia verruciformis — Stephen Stone, past president of the American Association of Dermatology indicates the title of this article should be epidermodysplasia verruciformis. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis currently redirects to Lewandowsky-Lutz dysplasia. The redirect should be the other way around.[1] —22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Niels Olson
  • Ring toneRingtone — Much more frequently used term; Google even suggests 'ring tone' is a spelling mistake! —Salaskan 20:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raleigh (disambiguation)Raleigh — The target of Raleigh has bounced back and forth for quite a while, but has been a stable link to its disambiguation page for over a month. In such cases it is standard to reverse the redirect and have the page at the plain title. —Dekimasuよ! 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southwestern University School of LawSouthwestern Law School — The name of the school has been changed to Southwestern Law School. Right now, a redirect link from Southwestern Law School takes the user to the Southwestern University School of Law page. It should be changed to the reverse (Southwestern University School of Law should redirect to Southwestern Law School). I will be changing the first sentence of the page to 'Southwestern Law School (formerly Southwestern University School of Law),' as well as all name references in the article. —A pion 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC);[reply]
  • Ruby (singer)Ruby (band) Ruby is the name of the band and not the singer. Another article should be created for Lesley Rankine. Or, really it wouldn't hurt to move Ruby (singer) to a Lesley Rankine article and then make Ruby (band) something other than a redirect stub. RedPenguin 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete and contested proposals

If a requested move is incomplete (not all steps of the procedure are followed), or if anyone objects to an "uncontroversial" proposal, it should be listed here until the proposer or anyone else completes it. After the completion, plese move the entry to the top of "other proposals" section. Please place newly moved requests to the top of this list, and either sign (~~~~) or just put the timestamp (~~~~~) at the end. Proposals that remain here longer than 5 days are subject to removal.


  • Insitu AerosondeAerosonde — Simpler name. Nobody can tell me what the old name means. Aerosonde is currently a disamb page to this article and Aerosonde Ltd, a company that makes these things. I have added the disamb for the latter at the top of the article. —Bduke 10:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name is explained on the talk page. Moved from uncontroversial awaiting confirmation that the move is still desired. --Stemonitis 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edward Collier (buccaneer)Edward Collier — Page got moved (twice) over an attempt to disambiguate. There is only one Edward Collier so we should have the page there to avoid unnecessary redirects and save the need to fix internal links. —Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved from uncontroversial; the artist may be more well-known under that name. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 10:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time after Time (Cyndi Lauper song)Time After Time (Cyndi Lauper song) — Proper capitalization for prepositions of length five or more letters —GassyGuy 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved from uncontroversial; that practice is a moot point [2]. --Stemonitis 08:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lauper spells it "Time After Time" on her official website.[3] This song hasn't been around for 1000 years in 117 languages. It was written late in the last century and has an official title. Shouldn't Wikipedia just use that, ie the title Lauper, the songwriter, gave to it, or does Lauper use both capitalization in different places? KP Botany 00:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

All of the proposals listed below need to have a discussion set up on talk page of the article to be moved. Please use the template {{subst:WP:RM|Old Page Name|Requested name|Reason for move}} and, if necessary, create a new dated section.

  • The Welsh AcademyAcademi —(Discuss)— to move poor English translation to the correct name. It's called Academi, and its website uses that name and not "The Welsh Academy", which is hardly ever used except by English academics in England —Trident13 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Rgds, - Trident13 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mayan cichlidCichlasoma urophthalmus —(Discuss)— Ambiguous common name (many others in use). The name Mayan Cichlid is not used for this species at all in Australia. Different to the common name given on Fishbase. Common name not in common usage outside the fishkeeping hobby. —MidgleyDJ 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single (music)Single —(Discuss)— Looking through "What links here" to <Single> (a disambiguation page), I discovered that the word was used to mean "song release" in more than two thirds of incoming wikilinks. I moved <single> to single (disambiguation, but now I want to move single (music) to single and I can't because of the page history. —YechielMan 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC) YechielMan 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have four opposes and no support for this so far. However, we have a small problem. After the "bold" move, another user has restored the content at single, wrecking the history of the page which is now at single (disambiguation. Would it be possible to sort that mess out when the time comes to close this, instead of going through the whole RM process again from scratch? Cheers. --DeLarge 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PhotoreceptorPhotoreceptor cell —(Discuss)— These two pages were merged after the "photoreceptor" page underwent a change in topic. Originally, it was about "photoreceptor proteins" instead of "photoreceptor cells" and many incoming links created over the course of the page's existence now don't make sense at all. I would suggest replacing it with Photoreceptor (disambiguation) and moving the current page back to Photoreceptor cell for disambiguation. —tameeria 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jordanhill railway stationJordanhill Railway Station -(Discuss) Move to Jordanhill Railway Station, because it is a proper noun. I moved it earlier, thinking it wasn't that significant because it was capitalization, but someone apparently objected, so I listed it here to make sure it was okay with everyone. I realize it was the 1,000,000th article, but it should me moved. Anyways, comments appreciated. BlackBear 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Our normal convention is to capitalise only the placename in a station name, not the words "railway station". See Category:Railway_stations_in_Glasgow - every single article uses "railway station", not "Railway Station". The proposed change would thus be completely inconsistent with the current nomenclature. As a matter of grammar, "railway station" is a noun phrase rather than a proper noun like Jordanhill, so it doesn't need to be capitalised. -- ChrisO 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acre, IsraelAkko —(Discuss)— this wikipedia article, by the name of acre, is reffering to the Israeli city of Akko - this city has been by the name Akko since even before the days of the Kingdom of Israel (i.e. pre-2000BC) and it is belived that Abraham went past it on his way from nowdays southern syria to Shchem (his path is illustrated by a mosaic in a beit knesset there) - the city only had it's name changed to acre after the muslim invasion (post-7th century AD) and the current international name is Akko - therefore i believe the correct name for the article is by the international Israeli name. —Jaakobou 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Has since been moved after an official typeset (XXXHolic) was brought up which suits policy as well. - Cyrus XIII 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisted to allow more time for consensus to form. --Stemonitis 14:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted after creation of discussion space. --Stemonitis 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O-Parts_Hunter → 666 Satan (manga) —(Discuss)— 666 satan is the actual translation of the name, instead of the some what censored american name 'O-Part Hunter'...Ancientanubis 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC) —Ancientanubis 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

—(Discuss)—Can be confused with metal as element. Visor 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Szechuan cuisineSichuan Cuisine —(Discuss)— This article's title does not match its counterparts under the heading "Eight Great Traditions" (of Chinese cuisine). The wiki entry for the province of the same name is "Sichuan", not "Szechuan". Yes, the spelling Szechuan is sometimes used, however in 2007 it is not preferred or correct (just as it's the Beijing Olympic Games, not Peking Olympic Games) Moreover, it does not conform with the rest of the wiki references to Sichuan (and the correct pinyin spelling of other Chinese cuisines and provinces) The alternative spelling "Szechuan" can be clearly referenced in the article instead. An outdated discussion exists on the current talk page, however it is now time to unify the spelling of Sichuan in wikipedia. —Djwatson 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]