Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.55.86.167 (talk) at 05:28, 20 June 2008 (→‎Incomplete and contested proposals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

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.

Contested per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name of this, according even to the company's website, is "TransCanada". This is the only article that could be called "TransCanada". Following WP:DAB it is sensible to move TransCanada to TransCanada (disambiguation) and TransCanada Corp. to TransCanada. The other articles linked from TransCanada are all "Trans-canada something". 128.232.1.193 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

19 June 2008

18 June 2008

17 June 2008

This article about a street in Berlin causes constant headaches over its spelling, and it apparently even had been created (as Voss-strasse) to make a point about English spelling. As German Wikipedia does not bother to cover this street with a separate article (which would be at de:Voßstraße), even though it is mentioned in several articles [1], we simply should merge, redirect, and bury this hatchet for good. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P•U•L•S•E → Pulse (album) —(Discuss)— For one, nobody is ever going to type in P•U•L•S•E to search for this album, and rightly so. The spelling "P•U•L•S•E" is practically never used in the media, instead it is spelled as "Pulse". This spelled also breaks the WP:MOSTM rule of all caps (the letters in P•U•L•S•E aren't pronounced separately, it's just "pulse".) --Xnux the Echidna 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2008

oppose I disagree with the claim that the linguistic usage is more common or more important than the mathematical usage. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence to refute the claim as evidenced on the talk page? 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree I agree that the article's title should reflect the current branding regardless if the format remains. 71.97.108.197 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15 June 2008

14 June 2008

  • Moldavia → Principality of Moldavia —(Discuss)— The article should be renamed to Principality of Moldavia, as that's what first of all all the sources presented in the articles and the article itself are speaking of, secondly it's all logical as the article is namely about the precise historical political statal formation of Moldavia - Principality of Moldavia. --Moldopodotalk 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moldovan-Ukrainian relations → ? —(Discuss)— Moldavian-Ukrainian relations- Disagree with this unilateral move made by administrator User:Gutza, who has violated Divurgen arbitration enforcement - general restriction on numerous occasions on different talk pages related to Eastern Europe (the user himself is from Romania) and followed the path of the banned user for socket puppetry. But I'll come to this later. Fully agree with the statement of User:AjaxSmack "...name your articles precisely. If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase." and precisely for this reason disagree with the following of your statement, approving the controverisal unilateral move operated by the aforementioned user violating basic rules of civility and pushing through that what a banned user could not do. Moreover, the persoal interpretation added by the same user to the clear definitions and sources (in order to give them the "right" (in his view) reading) reminds me of trolling. Moldavia, since the Principality of Moldavia has always kept the form Moldavia. Even after the Prinicpality was split in two halfs, the half that was continued to be called Moldavia, was the only one that kept a statal form of organisation and always enjoyed autonomy, be it Russian Empire or Soviet Union, and had therefore the right to conduct international relations, which was the case, namely during Soviet times, Moldavia being a subject of a larger union. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the term Moldovan is sometimes used as alaso related to the Republic of Moldova, but there is nothing that makes it to prevail over Moldavian. When an article is written on bilateral relations, this encompasses a large part of history, including all statal forms Moldavia had, and therefore the term Moldavian is not only the most logical, but also the most widely used.—Moldopodotalk 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the rationale for the move is explained on the respective talk page, and particularly here. Reading through the entire talk page would help understand the arguments and positions involved, as well as the merits of the accusations brought above. --Gutza T T+ 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of bus routes in London → List of London Buses routes —(Discuss)— Not all London bus routes covered. --Simply south (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
relist. Simply south (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (July 26 or older).

Of course I'm in favor of moving the page (since I requested this move), however I have a remark: It seems there is already a page Henry Gordon, it's only for redirecting to the page Henry C. Gordon. Henry Charles Gordon was a USA astronaut. Only the page Debunker links to the page Henry Gordon. Therefore I want to suggest to remove this link (and change it to Henry C. Gordon) and to use the page 'Henry Gordon' entirely for describing the "Reverend Henry Gordon" instead. Demophon (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bust for not checking that. I still think that, with hatnotes, it's not controversial but, since there is C. Henry Gordon as well, let's move it back here to see. — AjaxSmack 15:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this page: Henry Gordon (disambiguation). Still, it's not a problem, because technically only one has the name 'Henry Gordon', the others have an extra given name. Demophon (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait! Consensus has gone against us, please don't close the discussion. But we filed a request move, and yes I know this is the fifth in as many weeks but hey, lets keep going. --Domer48 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would take this to mean that the MR was closed by JPG-GR on 24 May 2008. Why is it here under backlog? Scolaire (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Domer48, please observe WP:AGF - there is a genuine attempt by many editors to agree on a destination name. Your behaviour is disruptive, and it is clear that you are alone in trying to keep the article with its current name, and trying to monopolise the conversations. @Scolaire, please read the latest discussion to get up to speed on this different and new request, and the current poll. Finally, please continue these discussions on the Talk page linked above - this is not the place. --Bardcom (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not forget all the other election articles: Macedonian parliamentary election, 1998, Macedonian parliamentary election, 2002, Macedonian parliamentary election, 2006, Macedonian presidential election, 2004 and Macedonian autonomy referendum, 2004, which already fall under the more appropriately-named Category:Elections in the Republic of Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - seems to be a lot of politics in this one. This one should go to a wider discussion as there are two very polarised sides and both of them make fair points. Orderinchaos 11:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is victim of move warring. Well before 1308, the city with German merchants and German Lübeck law rights was known as Danzig (Danceke, Dantzike), thus the article had been created as Teutonic takeover of Danzig according to history and the vote policy. The current double name was recently selected by admin Gwen Gale. BTW, the Teutonic Knights were called in as allies of the Polish king, and opposed the local German merchants.-- Matthead  Discuß   10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taoism → Daoism —(Discuss)— I think it's time to propose a move to Daoism. While in the past, the Wade-Giles spelling of 'Taoism' had undoubtedly been more popular, the pinyin spelling 'Daoism' has recently begun to be more widely used than in the past. Wikipedia has conflicting policies on the use the spelling 'Taoism'. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) convention is to "use pinyin not Wade-Giles" However, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." The first guideline is clear on the preference for pinyin, but the second is up to interpretation. I am strongly in favour of changing the article name, mostly because it better reflects the correct pronunciation of 道 (dao). Pinyin is already used for almost every other loan word for Chinese, why not for Daoism? --Zeus1234 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diacritics in tennis player names
    • For multiple proposal and very long discussion, see this subpage.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=220508598"