Wikipedia:Requested moves

Sometimes you want to move a page, but cannot do so because a page of that name already exists. This page allows you to request action by a admin to perform such moves.

Please note that if article A redirects to article B, and article A has only one item in the edit history, you can usually move B to A without needing an admin to do anything. (Once you have edited A for any reason, you can no longer do this.) Also, if a renaming has a chance of being controversial, it's a good idea to suggest it on the article's talk page first.

Also, remember that to move a page, you must be logged in. Once you have logged in, if you try an illegal move, you will be given a message - and then you need to come here.

Requesting a page move

It is suggested that an attempt to gain consensus for a move first be attempted on the talk page of the article. If there is disagreement, or if the page move cannot be technically performed, then it is appropriate to list it here. The following instructions will describe that process.

In order to notify other editors of this request, add a note to the article's talk page (not the article itself), using Template:Move. 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.

After five days here, if there is a rough consensus to move the article, it is eligible to be moved. An archive of the discussion on this page should be copied to the Talk page of the article.

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.

Notices

Please add new notices to the top of this section.

December 26

City: Narowaal → Narowaal

Both were created by the same IP user. The latter is the correct name, but the former is the better (heh) article. -- BesigedB 17:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Japanese Cabinet → Cabinet of Japan

Better wikipediawide consistency both in terms of "Cabinet of xxx" name structure for all Westminster-model democracies (ie Cabinet of the United Kingdom, Cabinet of Australia, Cabinet of Canada) and "xxx of Japan" name structure for all articles about Japanese political institutions (ie Diet of Japan, Constitution of Japan, Prime Minister of Japan). Presently impeded by a double-edit. -- The Tom 00:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• For sake of aesthetics and consistency, Support. I do have my problems with United States Cabinet but I won't get into that issue. —ExplorerCDT 02:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Well, there's definitely a large can of worms at play here. Dare I point interested eyes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers)? -- The Tom 04:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Toronto, Ontario → Toronto

There are around 500 direct links here, but as many from Toronto and Toronto, Canada. Taking into account that most external links and find queries are likely to come in the form of the city name only, I think it should probably be moved to Toronto. Same reason as London contains the article on London, England and York contains the article on York, England. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 24

The Incredible Hulk (TV Series) → The Incredible Hulk

The main article about the comic book series was moved to Hulk (comics) from The Incredible Hulk, leaving a redirect. I'd like to see the article about the TV series moved there, rather than leave the non-disambiguated main title as a redirect. A line has been added to the top of the TV series article pointing to information on the comic book series. -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the main title be a summary of the subsidiary article (comics, movies, TV, etc) or (at the very least) a simple disambiguation page? Didn't the comic come first? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • All of the information about the comic character and series is at Hulk (comics) -- Netoholic @ 04:38, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Oppose. For nearly the entirity of the comic's run it has been titled The Incredible Hulk and that should be at that page. The TV series certainly shouldn't - would you want Superman to be about the movie? Timrollpickering 20:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no content at The Incredible Hulk right now, it is only a redirect. In the future, someone may come and write an article about that specific comic series, but right now the only info on it is in the character page at Hulk (comics). Until someone does, we only have one appropriate article to take the main (non-ambiguated) title, and that is the one about the TV series. This does not have to be a permanent change. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Oppose: People searching for "The Incredible Hulk" are most likely looking for either the comic or the character, not the TV series. DCEdwards1966 06:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Compromise Proposal: Perhaps The Incredible Hulk could be a disambiguation page listing articles on each of the hulk franchises (comics, tv. movies) and other auxilliary articles if any. —ExplorerCDT 21:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. All of that information is already in the article; it's pretty much what one would expect when typing "The Incredible Hulk" in the Go box, though perhaps a bit disorganized. --LostLeviathan 22:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Page should be overview of entire franchise + subsidiary/related articles. If some of this is in TV article, then copy it for future development. Rd232 23:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Update: Someone has moved The Incredible Hulk to Hulk (comics). I hope an admin will quickly undo this, as it's rather annoying;and no consensus on this move has been reached here. --LostLeviathan 23:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Video game → Console game

Console game should describe typical gameplay, history, what to expect from a console game. The current redirect is in error, as a console game is not at all the hardware that it is played on, the console. Video game currently contains an article primarily on console games, and it should be moved to console games. Talk:Computer_and_video_games outlines plans for clarification of the entire area. --Slike 11:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article on video games looks exactly like I'd expect such an article to be about. The article is consistent with the popular usage, at least here in the US, where "console game" is a much frequently less-used phrase, usually used to clarify that the game is played on a video game console (such as a Playstation) rather than on a personal computer. --LostLeviathan 18:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, seconding LostLeviathan's comments. Rd232 23:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chinese yo-yo → Diabolo

Entry for Diabolo was removed and the topic nowadays just redirects to Chinese yo-yo. Chinese yo-yo is not the correct name for the item depicted in the entry. The juggling prop is called Diabolo universally in juggling circles. The original move was probably initiated by an ill-informed newbie to the art. The content of the page has deteroriated as people have been removing stuff which does not relate to Chinese yo-yo (which also looks different). Also the external links and the picture are irrelevant to 'Chinese yo-yo' as they clearly refer to Diabolo. Diabolo and Chinese yo-yo are quite two different things. I propose leaving a new empty entry for Chinese yo-yo which could be used to tell about the particular item. Addition: To see what I mean. Here's a Chinese Yo-Yo and here's a Diabolo. I ask for this change now because I thought someone more proficient with Wikipedia would come to resque and correct the error. -- Fizzl 10:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Initiated by me. I wrote much of the original Diabolo entry. Fizzl 10:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I've never heard the item depicted and described in that article refered to as anything but diabolo. —Rory ☺ 11:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I used to juggle diabolos, and I never called it a Chinese yo-yo. Dbenbenn 22:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 23

Wikipedia:How to edit a page → Wikipedia:Wiki markup

Since there is an excess of tutorial pages with similar names, and this one does not explain how to edit a page but rather the usage and syntax of the wiki markup, I propose it be moved to the more intuitive name. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 19:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It largely duplicates Help:Editing. I recommend merging and redirecting, but don't move to another new name. -- Netoholic @ 19:39, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

==== Developing nation → Developing country==== and equivalently Developed nation → Developed country The latter term is much more common (outweighs the former 10:1 in Google). Also "nation" potentially raises more political development issues than is usually intended; the term is economic. Rd232 15:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I would assume the article was probably written by an American, since in general we Americans have little understanding of the conceptual division between a nation and state (and even less an understanding of a nation-state I might add) and have confused the terms to the point of making them synonymous when they aren't. —ExplorerCDT 15:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Country gives a more precise meaning. Icundell 19:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 22

Old Ruthenian language → Old Russian language

The article was opriginally called "Old Russian", but with the invasion of Ukraininan nationalists, which renamed Kiev into Kyiv whenever possible, the article was renamed into "Old Ruth". 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica speaks about "Old Russian", which say in favor that "Old Ruthenian" is a modern invention of modern russophobes. It is suggested to restore the name. Mikkalai 01:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) P.S. I ain't no bloody Russian.

• Oppose. The language of Kievan Rus is the ancestor of Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian. It has been called "Old Russian", "Old Ruthenian", and "Old East Slavic". "Old Russian" is perceived as making the other two languages seem insignificant or inferior to modern Russian. Old Ruthenian is a more neutral reference to historic Kievan Rus. —Michael Z. 03:54, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC) P.S. is all the name-calling and non sequitur really necessary?
  • I found the 1911 Britannica, Mikkalai's authority for linguistic nomenclature. It doesn't say anything about "Old Russian" language or russophobes, nor does it acknowledge independent Belarusian and Ukrainian languages. Everything written there has a very narrow viewpoint, precisely equating Eastern Slavs with "Russians". Here's an excerpt from Russian Language. —Michael Z. 23:12, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Dialects.Russian dialects fall into two main divisions Great (Velikorusskij), including White (Blorusskij) Russian, and Little Russian (Malorusskij). The latter is spoken in a belt reaching from Galicia and the Northern Carpathians (see RUTHENIANS) through Podolia and Volhyni~ and the governments of Kiev, Chernigov, Poltva, Kh~rkov and the southern part of Vornezh to the Don and the Kubfln upon which the Dnpr Cossacks were settled.

• Support. The Old Germanic language was the ancestor of English, Dutch, Swedish, but it doesn't make sense to rename Old Germanic into Old Teutonic or something like that. Also, Old Russian has 200000+ hits in the Google Search, the Old Ruthenian has less than 1000. The latter term is rarely used outside Wiki. Perhaps "Old East Slavic" would sound neuter. Xenia 08:45 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • And shame on you for posting these misleading figures after you saw my note at Talk:Old_Ruthenian_language. "Old Russian language" gives 970 results and "Old Ruthenian language" 425. Counting Google search results doesn't prove anything, anyway. —Michael Z. 19:06, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
• Support. Old Russian is the historically evolved term used to refer to the language that was ancestral to Great Russian, Little Russian, and White Russian medieval dialects from which modern Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian languages developed. The ancestral language is called "drevnerusskiy" (Anciet Russian) in modern Russian, and "davnoruski" (Old Russian) in modern Ukrainian. Ruthenian is a late Latin term of Polish origin: it seems to make Russian and Belarusian insignificant or inferior to modern Ruthenian (the westernmost dialects of Ukrainian). It is a shame to assign Latin names to a Greek Orthodox literature and culture.Ghirlandajo 06:59 23 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • You apparently forgot to mention that the Polish term is Ruś (pronounced in almost the same way as in modern Russian), so the latin term can hardly be traced from Polish - rather from... Ruthenian itself. Halibutt 13:47, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with what Michael said above. In addition, I strongly oppose introduction of 19th century Imperial Russian bias by downgrading the history of Ukraine and Belarus to merely "White Russia" and "Little Russia". Finally, as to Xenia's argument - I don't really get it. Germanic languages are Germanic languages, not Old German. Also, nobody proposes to move it to Old Dutch, Old German, Old English, Old Norse or Old Icelandic... these are simply different terms. Also, the matter is still unsolved at the talk page, I don't see a reason to duplicate the discussion here. [[User:Halibutt|User:Halibutt/sig]] 08:03, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. "Old Russian" is a well established term, "Old Ruthenian" is not. — Monedula 12:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support for precisely the same reason as Monedula. "Old Ruthenian" and language doesn't get that many hits, really, and even quite a few of those seem to be due to forks and mirrors of Wikipedia.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• If Old Russian language is POV, as is Old Ruthenian language, why not Old East Slavic language? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Old East Slavic seems fine with me, but I guess it would be opposed by many of our Russian friends. Also, Old Russian is fine with me as long as we split the article onto Old Belarussian language, Old Ukrainian language, Old Ruthenian language, Old Russian language, Old Hutsul language, Old Lemko language and perhaps some more. All these were the very same language (simply different dialects), but if we promote Russian language, we should promote all the other modern languages as well. Halibutt 13:53, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing "russophobic" in the name Old Ruthenian. In fact, it follows the Russian name for it, древнерусский язык. The confusion may come from the fact, that while the Russian language distincts between Русь (Ruthenia or Rus', interchangeably) and Россия (Russia), it uses the same adjective, русский for both Ruthenian and Russian. In Ukrainian, each meaning has its own adjective - there is руський and російський. So, both Russian древнерусский язык and Ukrainian давньоруська мова have the same meaning and there isn't any conflict between these two. -- Naive cynic 14:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Care to point silly me to an English dictionary that translates or interprets "Русь" (Rus) as Ruthenia or vice versa? Mikkalai 16:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. In this case the Google test overwhelms any opposition. - UtherSRG 15:46, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Old Russian is too well-established; and see also Old German. If there's something to be said about Old Ruthenian possibly being more appropriate, it should still be (said) on the Old Russian page. Rd232 15:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, if we can't have agreement on Old Russian, then Old East Slavic (or Late Old East Slavic) should be preferred to Old Ruthenian. Rd232 16:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Old East Slavic"

• Oppose. I have always heard it referred to as Old Ruthenian. -- JamesTeterenko 17:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Rd232. There's even no word in Russian that could mean "Ruthenian" (Рутенский, Рутенийский, Руссийский? Sounds like gibberish). There are words, however, like древнерусский (Ancient Russian), старорусский (Old Russian). I could probably give it another thought if someone tells me the exact translation of the word "Ruthenian" from Ukrainian and Belorussian languages. KNewman 19:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Russian doesn't have two different adjectives meaning "of Russia" and "of Rus’". English does. —Michael Z. 19:12, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
    • If someone is thinking that "Ruthenian" is an English adjective from Rus', I suggest them to look up a dictionary. The word "Ruthenia" acquired a new meaning in English, languages tend to change in time. Mikkalai 19:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Mr.Michael Z., I've always thought (being a Russian myself :)) that the word Россия (Russia) has its own adjective российский (which is not exactly русский). Русский has much more to do with Русь (Rus). So believe me, there are different adjectives in Russian for Russia and Rus. It's just that in English they never call Russia Rossiya. KNewman 21:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • And that's exactly it: most languages I know have the distinction between something related to "Russia" and something related to "Rus'". If the language was spoken in whole (well, most of) "Rus'", not only "Russia", then...? Halibutt
        • The word in Belarusian (not belorussian by the way) is "ruski" for something that relates to Rus (Ruthenia) and "rasiejski" for something that relates to modern-day Russia (which has very little to do with old Ruthenia). --rydel 01:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I note that Rydel is keen to rename his country in theDutch Wikipedia, too. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I strongly oppose the move. There is a need for distinction. We shouldn't follow the "traditions" of 19th century Russian imperialists. I talked about this topic hundred times, and I know what I'm talking about. Old Ruthenian is fine. It's better than Old Russian, which is somewhat misleading and NPOV. --rydel 01:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose--Emax 02:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I always thought Ruthenia was a small part of Ukraine, that formerly controlled by Czechoslovakia from 1919-1939, and that Ruthenian referred to a dialect of Ukrainian. Am I wrong? I've only heard of Old Russian, and Old Slavic...never heard of "Old Ruthenian." So far, I tenatively support the move. —ExplorerCDT 03:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You are right. Russia has never been known as Ruthenia, never. Ruthenia is the name for the Trans-Carpathian Latin Catholic part of Ukraine. -- Ghirlandajo 11:59 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • But we're not speaking about Russia and Russian language here, Ghirlandajo. There indeed was a Trans-Carpathian Ruthenia that once was a part of the greater Ruthenia, just like plenty of others: Red Ruthenia (Sanok, Przemyśl, Lwów, Halicz), Black Ruthenia (Navahrudak), White Ruthenia (central Belarus), Halich Ruthenia (Halicz, Volhynia), Kievan Ruthenia (Kiev)... Read the article on Ruthenia, it gives a pretty well definition. Halibutt 15:02, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Black Ruthenia and the rest were renamed by the same ukrainian anti-Russian nationalist drive which moved the language article. Mikkalai 16:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Mikkalai, please cut out the labelling, name-calling, and other abusive bullshit already? It doesn't belong here and I'm tired of tolerating it. Your request for a move starts with an insult aimed at people you disagree with, and you attribute any opinions you don't like to 19th century Ukrainians and Poles, as if that were some sort of slur. Between you and Xenia's racist remark on the talk page, this discussion is sickening. If you have to call people names, at least get it right. I'm not a Ukrainian nationalist, I'm a Canadian social democrat of Ukrainian ancestry. Or why don't you just go for the full effect and tell me I'm a dumb maloruskiy khokhol who's opinion doesn't count? —Michael Z.
    • I'd hate to say it for fear you'd call me a racist too (and it's so easy to do so with the veil of anonymity brought on by not signing your comments) but Nineteenth Century nationalism and the descendants of that tradition (more russophobic Ukrainians) seem to be at the heart of the debate. The emotive nature of nationalism (which explains your quick dash to call Mikkalai a racist and say his opinion is "bullshit") should not poison this debate, the facts themselves should determine it, without name calling. The fact, by the google test, is that Old Russian is the more prevalent (by a landslide) usage. Unfortunately, I think your backlash against Old Russian and the idea that someone would call the nationalistic attachment to "Ruthenian" is a result of the emotional connection you have to what the French would call your patrie, hence you succumbing to the appeal of nationalist fervour and rising such a defense.—ExplorerCDT 22:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't call Mikkalai's opinion bullshit, I called his disparaging labelling and sly ad hominem attacks against other Wikipedians bullshit. His habitual abusive tone causes hurt feelings in these discussions and encourages others, like Xenia, to chime in with overt racism. You speak up for "the facts" by analyzing my ethno-political background, and you think this belongs in a Wikipedia discussion? I'm not motivated by nationalism, but by disgust with a display of utter disrespect for people's points of view, unselfconsciously justified by stereotyping. —Michael Z. 16:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
      • ExplorerCDT, the reason "Old Russian" has such high "google count" is because it was mentioned in 1911 Britannica edition (and later too). That version of Britannica has a totally wrong, not to say misleading, harmful and offending, information about East Slavic languages. So if you do this renaming of Old Ruthenian to Old Russian, then you logically must rename Belarusan to White Russian, Ukrainian to Little Russian. That's what 1911 Britannica says. Should I start the renaming process already, add these two wonderful candidates? I already can see some Russians here happily jumping around and adding their "support" votes for these "wonderful" and "scientific" renamings. --rydel 13:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Referring to Google results for "Old Russian" without context is useless. The term can refer to "Old Russian vodka", "Old Russian motorcycles", and a thousand other things that have nothing to do with naming a 10th century language. —Michael Z. 16:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Support, because Old Russian is shorter and more established than Old Ruthenian. --Pierre Aronax 06:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose --Steschke 13:29, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC) Old Ruthenian language is definitely not Old Russian language. Ruthenian is a branch of the estslavian languages. It's more an ukrainian dialect (or independent language), but no Old Russian.
  • Steschke, if that's your reasoning, that Ruthenian is a dialect, and not Old Russian (as I read your comment), you should be Supporting the move. Are you confused? Or am I just reading you wrong? —ExplorerCDT 16:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS. For all those people above who voted to support the move, I'd like to ask you just one small favor, one small question. Have you ever seen a document written in Old Ruthenian? Have you read it? Have you understood it? Can you tell us which document(s) you read? Thank you. --rydel 15:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite silly request. Only professional linguists can deal with old documents professionally. For a lay person, any old Slavic document written in Cyrillic will be "looking somewhat like Russian" (if the person is Russian), or "looking somewhat like Belarusian (if the person is Belarusian), or "looking somewhat like Ukrainian" (if the person is Ukrainian), or "looking somewhat like Bulgarian" (if the person is Bulgarian). So what do you want? — Monedula 18:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So why do those "lay persons" have the right to vote on the name of the article if they no clue what they are talking about? --rydel 13:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, everybody has right to vote on anything. Btw, have you got your clue? What is your great reason for changing a well-established name? — Monedula 22:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that in your school days you passed The Lay of Igor's Campaign without paying any attention to it. As may be seen from the Middle Belarusian stuff you posted in the Talk page, you still confuse the Old Russian with Middle Belarusian. It's helpful to move the existing page to Old Russian (or Old East Slavic), and then you will write a new page about Middle Belarusian (and will call it Old Ruthenian if you like). :) --- Xenia 11:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose for following reasons:
  • Definitely, there's a need for distinction between Kyiv Rus and modern imperial Russia. Such distinction should not necessarily be in favor of Ukraino-centric vision of Rus history, but it SHOULD EXIST. This distinction need is in fact caused by Russian propagandists persistently claiming the direct continuity between Kyiv Rus, Muscovia and Peter's Russia.
  • The whole text looks doubtful for me. After reading the article, it's subject (i.e. language situation in Rus lands in given period) becomes clear. But the conclusions of the authors, as well as BOTH suggested names, seem too simplified and biased. I'm afraid it's more complicated. So I'd like to consult with professional historians and linguists before making a precedent with renaming.
  • Since renaming idea is actively supported by some known Russian propagandists, it automatically becomes suspicious for me.AlexPU 13:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support: the language is called Old Russian. Old East Slavic might be more correct, but is not widely used. Old Ruthenian is just a Ukranian nationalist invention, trying to relabel the language "Old Ukranian" (which is what Old Ruthenian means) by using a term unfamiliar to most outside nonspecialists. (OED def. 1 for Ruthene: "A former name for a member of the Ukrainian people".) Aggrieved minority POV is not the same as NPOV. Oh, and Ruthene would not exist in Russian (unless as Rufskij or something; θ -> φ in modern Russian); it's just a Latin deformation of Rus and was used to refer specifically to the Little Russians or, more specifically, those of Galicia or Transcarpathian Ruthenia. —Tkinias 19:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Little Russians/Little Russia (Ukraine)" is just a Russian nationalist invention :) However, Old East Slavic is a good compromise.--Emax 20:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No-one is suggesting renaming the Ukraine or Ukrainian language articles. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed. MaloRus and BelaRus are the Greek names adopted by intellectual elite of these lands in Late Middle Ages, just like Great Poland, Little Poland, etc. It's not the "Russian imperialists" (if such a thing existed) who "invented" these names for the countries. "Ukraine" is hardly better than "Malorus", as it is a Russian word meaning "a land near the border". Also, I don't see why Ukrainians are offended by Malorus, but Belarusians consider the name Belarus perfecly normal. Malorus, Belarus - historic names evolved under the same circumstances, what makes the difference? --- Xenia 11:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • MaloRus (Little Ruthenia) - not Russia. Its like to call the Netherlands "Little Germany", only because "Dutch" sounds similar to "Deutsch" ;)--Emax 14:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, for the same reasons as ExplorerCDT. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as the "Old Ruthenian" epithet leaves out the largest portion of Kievan Rus, the modern-day Russia, which has never been known as Ruthenia, and attaches too much weight to the westernmost lands historically known as Ruthenia. Meanwhile, the old tradition of architecture, icon-painting continued in the present-day Russia, not in Ruthenia. All the monuments of the Old Russian literature - byliny, The Lay of Igor's Campaign - have been preserved in northern lands and not in Ukraine. "Old Ruthenian" is a partisan and pro-western-Ukrainian name. P.S. I decided to vote twice, following the example of Emax --- Ghirlandajo 11:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This needs to be discussed more on the article talk page, where perhaps a compromise can be reached. Jonathunder 15:40, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Oppose We need to go beyond advocating one side, and clearly consider the reasons for either side. The sides are "Old Russian" vs. "Old Ruthenian."

The reason for "Old Russian" are as follows: the Rusian Empire most recently controlled MOST (not all) of the major part of Rus' (about 1700-1990). Secondly, the Russian nation, from about 1713 (for over 200 years), began to stop calling itself "Muscovia" and chose to name itself after Rus' (although, under a foreign Greek variant) "Rossiya!" On the "Old Ruthenian" side, the reasons are as follows: 1) The Rus' propria lands, or Rus' in the most proper sense (Kyiv, Pereyaslav and Chernihiv regions), were not in Russia, but in Ruthenia, and are today called "Great Ukraine." Secondly, the name "Ruthenian" was held by the population of Ukraine through the 19th century, perduring in the western part of Ukraine even until the 20th century, in the native form "Rus'ki" (Ruthenian), as opposed to "Russki" or "Rossiyski" (Muscovite or Russian). Thirdly, the difference between Rusian (Ruthenian) of the early Ukrainains and Ukraino-Belarusians) vs. the Finno-Ugkric tribes to the north, united by Moscow, later called, "Russians," was evident even in the period of Rus. The Tale of Ihor's Campaign, was from the Ruthenian areas and distinctly non-Russian, even though ancient manuscripts were preserved in Russia itself. I apologize for the fact that my entry understates the case! Genyo 23:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 21

Smoot-Hawley Tariff → Smoot-Hawley tariff

We need this move to conform to our naming policy, and to be consistent with other <name> tariff pages. Smoot-Hawley tariff currently redirects to Smoot-Hawley Tariff -Rholton 22:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Screw the naming policy. Screw consistency. It's arbitrarily applied (see below discussion of Main Page instead of the policy-conforming Main page, or Latin instead of the consistent Latin language), not to mention that it lacks aesthetics and balance. That lower-case t in tariff looks silly. Bad Feng Shui. —ExplorerCDT 22:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So in this minor case, you say screw the naming policy and leave it under an arbitrary title, but in the case of a large, major page (the main page) you say we should go with the naming policy? Look at the comment you put up for moving the main page. You appear to be just speaking your opinions on a whim, rather than thinking about them. SECProto 02:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I said clearly I didn't like the naming conventions policy. Main Page became further proof of how arbitrary it would be applied. I think it should be abolished. —ExplorerCDT 03:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • You also said clearly that you supported the movement of the main page to agree with the naming policy. If that isn't so, go change your addition to "Main Page". And thanks for listening to what I said and reading what you first said down there.... SECProto 13:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm using Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Forgive me for donning the role of advocatus diaboli as I know that's against policy, but sometimes civil disobedience is useful in that regard. I think the policy is wrong, and this is just one way to force a debate.—ExplorerCDT 16:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. (Main Page is unique; Latin is an agreed exception. Generally, convention is convention.) Rd232 00:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Latin isn't that "agreed" an exception. 10-4 by my count, which may be a majority, but not an "agreed exception" as I connote the phrase. —ExplorerCDT 16:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's an exception. It's agreed by (currently) a two-thirds majority. How is it not an "agreed exception"? Rd232 18:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Because not everyone agrees. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Perhaps the best way to avoid controversy would be to name the article "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act". In this case 'Tariff' would obviously be part of a proper name and should be capitalized. —Mike 01:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm neutral between the suggested move and the above alternative. Either will do. Rd232 14:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. - UtherSRG 12:38, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that tariff is part of the name of this specific tariff, and therefore should be considered a proper noun. SECProto 21:09, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support with some hesitancy. While I intuitively feel opposed, the name of the tariff is not Smoot-Hawley Tariff; rather, the act that created it is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The State Department site actually refers to it both ways. [1] For the sake of consistency, it would be be best to rename it. --LostLeviathan 08:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support for consistancy; if and when we have an article on the specifc Act that created it, rather than the tariff in general, we should call that article "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act" - the general discussion of the tariff should be lower-case, as it speaks of a tariff, as a member of a class. JesseW 19:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd agree to that compromise. Interesting end-run around that cursed Naming Conventions rule. —ExplorerCDT 17:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC).

December 20

Main Page → Main page

Consistency with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy regarding the non-capitalization of second and subsequent title words that are not proper nouns. I assume the reason for it to be titled Main Page is for aesthetics, that the lowercase p does not look balanced. I admit wholeheartedly, I do not care for this naming convention policy, and I cite aesthetics and balance as my reasons. But even Caesar's wife must be above reproach, and thus Wikipedia itself must stand tall before the wagon of her conventions. —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object - So what if it breaks the naming convention. It's the first page that many new folks will see, and aesthetics matter more there than elsewhere. Ozzyslovechild 14:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Tentative support - While I recognize that it like is nothing more then a main page, I wouldn't mind some confirmation that Main Page isn't more of a title that we've given to it. Oberiko 21:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - I can think of a dozen alternate names that would probably do better than "Main P/page", if this is something we are going to open up discussion about a change. -- Netoholic @ 01:19, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
• Object. Main Page is not an article about main pages, so "Main Page" is no better or worse than "Main page" as far as the convention is concerned. Logically speaking, the main page ought to be in the Wikipedia: namespace rather than the article namespace. But it's probably best to leave it alone. Gdr 13:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
• Object. Leave it where it is. I just don't see the point of putting a redirect between the Main Page and every page that points to it for the sake of satisfying our naming conventions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is a unique page that is not an article, nor a 'workspace' page; it is a bridge to both. It is now entrenched under its current capitalization; I see no reason for change. Radagast 13:30, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's a unique page; there needs to be a fairly persuasive reason to change it. Rd232 15:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, though I certainly won't complain if it doesn't happen. I also agree with Gdr that it would make some sense to have it in the Wikipedia: namespace, but that would add redundancy to the URL. Fredrik | talk 15:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it were an article about main pages in general, then "Main page" would be an appropriate title, but that's not the case. "Wikipedia:Main page" (or someting else in the Wikipedia namespace) would probably be best if we were starting from scratch, but we are not. Changing it from "Main Page" to anything else would be a disruptive step that would need a very good reason to outweigh the disruption, and no sufficiently good reason is apparent. —AlanBarrett 16:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. In addition, would the sidebar be changed if it were moved? - UtherSRG 17:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. (And don't get me started on the silliness of title non-capitalization. It's just wrong.) Nelson Ricardo 18:34, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, the title non-capitalization policy is plain silly. But if they're going to enforce it articles we write, then Wikipedia's basic pages should be subject to the rule. No exceptions. If this fails, the policy should be abandoned. —ExplorerCDT 18:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Gdr, "Main Page is not an article about main pages". dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Neither is it an article about something called "Main Page". Fredrik | talk 22:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • indeed. I also agree with the part that it should properly be in the WP: namespace. dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There may be a better name for the page (as Netaholic suggested above. But the argument seems to be that we need to change it to be consistent with policy (or, that the policy should be eliminated). This is plain folly. There's nothing wrong with having specific exceptions. If people absolutely insist, then change the policy to make a specific exception for the Main Page.
• Object. This is the page which makes a first impression, as in the title page of a book, which uses different capitalization than the body of text in a book. Ancheta Wis 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Further proof that the Naming Conventions policy is arbitrary and wrong. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment: this proposal only exists to illustrate ExplorerCDT's dislike of the title case naming convention. Rd232 18:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for stating the obvious. It's not like I haven't made my intentions clear from the get-go. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Fredrik | talk 19:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• See Civil disobedience. Sometimes you just have to force a discussion over arbitrary rule. It's not disruptive, it's constructive. Further, read the top of the page you recommended to me...it says: This is a proposed policy. While it is not an official guideline of Wikipedia and carries neither official weight nor provisions for enforcement... Wikipedia can only benefit from this discussion. —ExplorerCDT 19:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• There is no supreme authority to be disobedient against on Wikipedia, only the community of Wikipedians. Disrespect for the community won't get you its support. To quote the page, "In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are hardly ever effective tools of persuasion. Rather, they simply come off as spiteful or vengeful.". Yes, Wikipedia benefits from discussion, but you should have brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or the village pump instead. Fredrik | talk 19:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Receive it as you may. I prefer to compel discussion through demonstration. —ExplorerCDT 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your opinion of the naming convention is not very well illustrated by objecting to a special case. You would rather have to show that it is bad for titling regular articles (which I think is not the case). dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Violently oppose. Horrible idea. Numerous things depend on the main page being fixed to its current location (screen scrapers in particular). →Raul654 20:05, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Radagast. - Vague | Rant 03:40, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)~ 03:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for all the reasons given above. A. D. Hair (t&m) 14:14, dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Makes more sense to have it at Main Page, at least in my eyes. The reasons above also justify keeping it well Kiand 15:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly, as someone could conceivably write an article about main pages in general. "Main Page" is the name of the page itself, and that's quite acceptable. --LostLeviathan 02:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. There are too many external links to this to move it and have so many people experience a redirect. Angela. 07:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

December 19

Pet skunk → Domestic skunk

"Domestic skunk" is the more formal name. -- Nathanlarson32767 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support Nathanlarson32767 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the term "domestic skunk" is factually inaccurate, since these have not been "domesticated" in any way (as far as I can tell from the article) - they are merely tame. Domestication is not synonymous with "taming" - Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behavior, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions being under human control for multiple generations. Unless these skunks have been altered much more than I can tell, they would not qualify as domestic, and thus, the new title, while a useful re-direct, is not a suitable page title. There may be something better than Pet skunk - that doesn't really have the ring of a formal encyclopedia entry to me - but the name of an article should at least be factually accurate. Guettarda 20:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guettarda said it well. "Skunks as pets" may be a better article title. - UtherSRG 20:50, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Possibly. The literature refers to both "Skunks as pets"[2] and "Domestic skunks"[3]. I wonder, though, how many years of captive breeding it takes for an animal to be considered domestic? It took many generations to obtain the brown, tan, and white skunks we have today[4]. As the article notes, they were raised for fur for several hundred years. By comparison, ferrets have been raised in captivity for about 2,500 years, and they are definitely considered domestic by now. Ferrets and skunks have many of the same care issues, in reference to housebreaking, etc. Nathanlarson32767 21:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Most animal articles, such as cat, dog, ferret, horse, etc. combine the feral/domesticated animal information into one article. Skunk and spotted skunk used to be that way, but I broke off the pet skunk content into its own article. Should it be integrated back into skunk? Nathanlarson32767 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Per an email from Jane Bone, of Skunks as Pets[5]: "Well, they are domestic skunks that are in fact pets. Pet skunks could refer to the ones from the wild. Where as Domestic Skunks mean not from the wild" In other words, a domestic skunk is one that was bred in captivity, as opposed to being caught in the woods and turned into a pet. Nathanlarson32767 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merging back in would probably make sense, although it is quite long now for that. Note that there is a difference between a "domestic" animal (one kept as a pet) and a "domesticated" animal (one which has been bred through many generations so as to be adapted to living with humans). While cats, dogs, horses, ferrets etc. are all domesticated (although they can all go feral) and the behavioral difference is enough for biologists to label them as subspecies of their wild cousins, pet skunks are simply "tamed" wild animals and are more akin to pet rats, ferrets, rabbits, reptiles, or even cuttlefish; their behaviors are very similar to those of their wild kin. So while it is wholely appropriate to have a distinct article for the domesticated subspecies, it is more appropriate to note on the species page some information about their being kept as pets. Remember also that Wikipedia is not a pet owner's manual.
  • - UtherSRG 22:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Here is what Lynnda Butler of Skunks as Pets said in an email: "They are all referred to as domestic pen-raised skunks...and by the way, they get wonderful care!!!! I should be so lucky. This way they have been kept far from any disease and rabies contact. We try to correct vets who refer to them as "exotic"....they are not....that seems to give them a license to charge more!!!!! Lynnda" Not to digress, but there is nothing listed on the "Wikipedia is not" page about pet owners' instructions. Wikipedia also has numerous How-to guides with procedural instructions. Nathanlarson32767 23:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Captive breeding, care, all these things to not make animals domesticated. Lab rats are not domesticated, ferrets are borderline. Colour patterns are easy to change - it often takes just a few genes. Even so - almost all the animals in the pictures have 'wild-type' patterns. I understand that they are loving, hand-raised pets. But most domestics (all that I can think of) are classified as separate species (or at least sub-species) from their wild relatives. In addition, I would hazard a guess that at least a certain proportion of pet skunks are actually wild-caught, or within a few generations from the wild. Or is there a distinction between "domestic" skunks (which have seen maybe a hundred generations of captive breeding) and simply "tame" skunks? If there is, I am willing to revise my position, but then the article should only apply to those skunks, and not simply any old skunk kept as a pet. Guettarda 01:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If the criteria for calling them domesticated is that there has to be an official sub-species of domesticated skunks, then they are not domesticated. Skunk taxonomy (and skunk research in general) is in an early stage of development; it was only recently that DNA work led to them being transferred out of the weasel family[6]. I don't have enough information to know how big a difference there is between the wild skunk lines and the captive-bred skunk lines, which make up the vast majority of legally-owned pet skunks. Anyway, if they're not going to be called "domesticated," what do you think would be a good article name? (For reference, here is the article Domestic vs. Domesticated by Pamela Troutman of Shelters that Adopt and Rescue Ferrets.) Nathanlarson32767 04:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Usage of "domestic skunk" in skunk literature: Bow to Me for I am the Domestic Skunk by Diana Geiger, People for Domestic Skunks, American Domestic Skunk Association, Pets People Places article mentions "a domestic skunk, bred in captivity." "Domestic skunk" turns up 2,340 Google hits, compared to 31 for "domestic raccoon," although both have been raised as pets. Nathanlarson32767 11:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While "domestic skunk" may get 2,340 Google hits, "pet skunk" gets about five times that many. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Domestic and pet are not synomyms. Icundell 12:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's cool where it is. I like the idea of a pet skunk. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• However, note language used in House Bill 91, An Act Concerning Disease Prevention - Rabies - Domestic Skunks, Maryland House of Delegates, 2001. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 07:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Domestic skunk" is less common and less accurate. →Raul654 07:55, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Having been born in captivity does not domestication make, as common sense or a visit to the local zoo will tell you. Do not confuse "fluffy" with "formal." (As an aside, should we really be looking to someone who uses "...." as a punctuation mark as an authority in a semantics debate?) A. D. Hair (t&m) 13:11, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There would be little benefit from moving the page, other than making it harder to find.