Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bigdaddy718 (talk | contribs) at 03:17, 20 March 2008 (→‎20 March 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

For proposed mergers, see WP:Proposed mergers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Uncontroversial 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 re-list 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. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Comment Let's not forget that this isn't the American Wikipedia; there are quite a few English speaking countries that might have different meanings for 9/11. Let's also not avoid the fact that having forward slashes in the article name messes with the talk page location. In this case, the talk page would be subordinated to 9. Parsecboy (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you It breaks a convention, it doesn't follow the naming of the main article; let's move it. If someone has a better name, feel free to chime in anytime. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

20 March 2008

Contested move There are a few other schools with the a similiar name in NY including Saint John Fisher College. St. John's University has a location in Rome Italy, and one being produced in Paris. The primary campus is in Jamaica, NY with 95% of the student population. As such the name should reflect that. Bigdaddy718 (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19 March 2008

18 March 2008

17 March 2008

16 March 2008

15 March 2008

  • Georgia (country) → Georgia — (Discuss)— A new discussion has being ongoing on this issue since July 2007. A poll was created with five seperate options; currently votes for these options are at 23(24, -2 sockpuppeteers, +1 oppose for option four)-11-0-2-0(last two options can be disregarded as redirecting "Subject name" to "Subject name (disambiguation term)" is against WP:NC). Thus we have 23 votes for option one compared to 11 votes for option two, meaning that the proposal to move Georgia (country) to Georgia has more than two-thirds majority, and has undoubtedly reached consensus. --Schcambo (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this should be restarted with a clear section, as the current RM is mixed with an open poll soliciting move options, and therefore not limited to the discussion of this move request, and as noted, has been running for 3/4 of a year... which is more than the 5 days for WP:RM. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you click discuss above, you'll see that the move request is specifically based on the consensus that has been gained through the past year on the open poll, not the new poll you added on the page. --Schcambo (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to you, move requests shouldn't be based on unlisted straw polls containing old opinions. Regardless, this straw poll has not resulted in consensus (which isn't gauged simply by counting votes). —David Levy 21:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bubonic plague → Plague or the less controversial, Plague (disease)—(Discuss)— Bubonic plague ought to be a sub-section or sub-page of plague, along with pneumonic and septicaemic which currently redirect to bubonic. Plague is the official and most correct name for the disease, if bubonic plague has its own article it should not include more general information and the other two forms. I also plan to work on the article (and the sub articles if they are broken up) and it will make it very difficult without a primary article. —05:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)cyclosarin (talk)
New proposal is to split the article. cyclosarin (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Market economy → Free-market economy —(Discuss)— According to Google, the term free-market economy is used six times more on the World Wide Web than market economy [1] [2]. The term market contains many ambiguities.[3] The term market economy is just a shorthand for free-market economy. The former term does not imply that it is "less free" than the latter term. According to Dictionary.com, the definition for a market economy it is "An economy that operates by voluntary exchange in a free market and is not planned or controlled by a central authority; a capitalistic economy." Free market and Free-market anarchism has their own name, why shouldn't this be?71.175.31.106 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —71.175.31.106 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (July 27 or older).

  • Afzul Khan → Afzal Khan —(Discuss)— This is the more commonly used and accepted name. Although we could remain where we are (with Afzul Khan as the article name and Afzal Khan as a diambig page), I think the move would help keep things nice and logical around here. There are histories on both pages, nothing critical, but it'd be nice if the Afzul Khan history could be preserved. — Gaurav (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one that is not a stub. The longest one, Battery (crime) is only 5kb. Battery cage is only 8 kb, barely above stub size. 199.125.109.76 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're a bit misguided as to what constitutes a stub. Generally, articles that have only a few paragraphs are considered stubs. Much more than that, and articles are then rated as "Start class". Both of the examples you give are definitely Start class, as are several of the geographic locations mentioned on the disambig page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example Artillery battery is not a stub. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shadow (fictional character) → Shadow (fictional character) —(Discuss)— Despite the article having been titled "Shadow (fictional character)" in accordance with WP:NCD, some fans of the character changed it to the non-policy form "The Shadow (fictional character)" — offering no justification for why The Shadow deserves special treatment as opposed to The Joker, The Hulk, The Spirit, The Flash, The Phantom, The Phantom Lady, The Heap, The Black Widow, The Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger, etc., etc., (other than one fan's solipsistic "Because I said so". There had been no RfC or other formal procedure to justify this — basically just some talk-page discussion with a handful of fans for the change and a handful of editors against, and this non-policy change made without clear consensus. —Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request for further assistance. Whatever the outcome of the move proposal, it needs to be combined with a resolution of the fork problem: an article List of books featuring pedophilia is a fork from the article here under discussion.
As defined in the Wikipedia article Pedophilia, "pedophilia" does not uncontroversially apply to many works currently on these and related lists. Discussion of this mismatch between title and contents has been extensive for several years, and continues on the article's Talk page. The principal editor of this and related pages concedes that what he has meant all along by "pedophilia" is "sexual attraction to children", a plain English description of the topic of the lists that comes much closer than "pedophilia" to describing what is actually to be found on them. He has also agreed that "child sexual abuse" is unneeded in the title (many of the works do not focus on abuse). SocJan (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sailor Moon SuperS → Sailor Moon Supers —(Discuss)— Since this title obviously violates WP:MOS-TM and WP:MOSCAPS, I originally listed it in the uncontroversial moves section of WP:RM where it was moved to the non-emphatic title; but, soon was moved back. The article, and the section immediately above this notice on the talk page, both state that the capital S is only for emphasis, and is not pronounced separately. The Manual of Style trumps common usage, per many examples cited in those manuals, as well as overwhelming prior consensus. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is a formality, and a waste of time; but, the article title will probably get changed back and forth again without the discussion. Neier (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Neier (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=199512058"