Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.125.109.29 (talk) at 04:15, 22 January 2008 (→‎January 22, 2008). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Uncontroversial proposals

Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any possibility that it could be opposed by anyone. Please list new requests at the bottom of the list in this section and use {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} rather than copying previous entries. The template will automatically include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required. If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.

Incomplete and contested proposals

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move request, please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move request, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below.

  • Viceroys of Nova Scotia → List of Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia - Article was improperly moved by cut and paste in April 2007, with loss of edit history. A move back to former title has been under discussion here since July 2007. Three editors support the move back to the original title, one is opposed (the editor who undertook the cut and paste move) and one editor supports replacing the article with a succession box (which is a different issue). Posting an WP:RM tag on the article talk page has not generated additional discussion. I would suggest there is consensus to move the article, but at a minimum the edit history should be fixed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved due to lack of clearly illustrated consensus at [Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?]--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, 4 independent editors vs. 1 (I know it's not a vote) indicated consensus to me. Ditto to the similar items below...Oli Filth(talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Combined into a multi-page move request. Oli Filth(talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object in particular to Pounds per square inch which should be moved back to its earlier Pound-force per square inch version to distinguish these lbf/in² from the lb/in², also pounds per square inch but a different unit entirely, used in other contexts such as in ballistic coefficient with the normal pounds as units of mass. Gene Nygaard (talk)
  • MVK ZRt. → MVK Zrt. —(Discuss)— When I created the page, the company was officially called MVK ZRt. which was grammatically incorrect but since it was registered by this name, I couldn't change it. Now it was changed to the grammatically correct version and it would be good to rename the article. (I couldn't do it because there is a redirect.) —– Alensha talk 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

January 22, 2008

January 21, 2008

  • Viktor Hambardzumyan → Viktor Amazaspovich Ambartsumian —(Discuss)— This is the most commonly used form in English. Examples: V. A. Ambartsumian, Theoretical Astrophysics. Translated from the Russian ("Teoreticheskaya astrofizika", Moscow, 1952) by J.B. Sykes, New York: Pergamon Press, 1958 V. A. Ambartsumian, A Life in Astrophysics : Selected Papers of Viktor Ambartsumian, edited by Rouben V. Ambartsumian, New York: Allerton Press, 1998, ISBN 0-89864-082-2 Kshahb (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 20, 2008

January 19, 2008

  • Early Modern Irish → Classical Gaelic —(Discuss)— Both names seem to be frequently used in literature and by major relevant institutions. However only one of them is appropriate for the subject matter and is not crippled by an inappropriate nationalistic/ethnic association. Early Modern Irish is not an appropriate name for a form of language which was used extensively by non-Irish Gaels. Gaelic is the correct English rendering of the native name used by both Scots(Gàidhlig) and Irish(Gaeilge) to refer to their languages and is the correct English rendering of "Gaoidhealg" the contemporary, native, term used within Classical Gaelic/Early Modern Irish to refer to itself. Classical Gaelic is, unlike Early Modern Irish, unambiguous and ethnically, geographically and politically neutral and covers both Scottish and Irish languages. ——Angr If you've written a quality article... 13:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Actually requested by —siarach (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 18, 2008

January 17, 2008

  • ?uestlove → Questlove —(Discuss)— This person's name is not prounced as "Question mark estlove", it's prounced as "Questlove". The current name violates WP:MOS, which says not to do odd spellings just because that is what the subject prefers (henc why we have Pink (singer)), not "P!nk", or Korn instead of "KoЯn". "Questlove" is both how his stagename is pronounced anyways and complies with our naming policies. —TJ Spyke 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (September 6 or older).

—Dj tricky (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pasqualina Lehnert → Pascalina Lehnert- The alleged name of the Lady: "Pasqualina" is wrong, which may confuse future Wikipedia searches. In English, German and Italian her name is: Pascalina not Pasqualina. Three sources:
    1. Her own authobiography reads: Pascalina Lehnert, Ich durfte Ihm Dienen, Naumann, Würzburg, Germany, 1982;
    2. The source in the material itself has the name misspelled. It should read: Murphy, Paul I. and Arlington, R. Rene Arlington (1983) La Popessa: The Controversial Biography of Sister Pascalina, the Most Powerful Woman in Vatican History. New York: Warner Books Inc. ISBN 0-446-51258-3.
    3. Maria Schad: Gottes Mächtige Dienerin, Schwester Pascalina und Papst Pius XII. Herbig, München, 2007; Thanks--Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pasqualina_Lehnert"
Is this now sorted out? If not, please comment on my talk page. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They match the proper pages now. Requested move discussion came after user already moved the pages on his own, should have be requested prior to moving the pages in the first place. -Djsasso (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Steve Smith (ice hockey)#Confusion over talk pages. Discussion here is pointless, as it will be discarded when the request is closed. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voluntary caregiver → carer —(Discuss)— Carer is the term used and chosen by carers themselves and is used in national and international carers organisations e.g. 'Carers UK' 'Eurocarers'. Carers have a right to call themselves the name they prefer. Voluntary caregiver is a serious misnomer, as many unpaid carers became so on an involuntary basis due to the illness or disability of a close relative, not by choice. Voluntary caregiver is a clumsy modern coinage. Carer has the benefit of being simple clear english. The word 'carer' is used in legislation. The word carer goes back to at least the sixteenth century. It is accepted by US dictionaries such as Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition]. Its' use reduces confusion as in the US a number of terms are in regular use including caregiver, caretaker, carer etc. —Excalibur (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=186043260"