Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Espoo (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 12 October 2006 (→‎Noncontroversial proposals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Noncontroversial proposals

Only list here proposals that are clearly noncontroversial 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 doubt as to whether a page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section. Please use {{subst:WP:RM2|Old Page Name|Requested name|Reason for move}} in this section only. No dated sections are necessary, and no templates on the article's talk page are necessary.

  • Since it's even geographically, culturally, and ethnically the "same thing" as modern Egypt (simply at a historically older stage), this is an especially clear case (e.g. no careful speller would consider writing "Modern Egypt"), but "ancient" is not usually capitalised by careful spellers or reference works even in connection with other countries that don't have modern equivalents. e.g. "ancient Rome" (and the equivalent to "ancient Egypt" of "ancient Greece") in Britannica 2000 and on these reputable US and UK pages (I honestly didn't find or leave out contradictions): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], Culture_of_ancient_Rome, Ancient_Rome (only one misspelling]], Roman_Empire, History_of_Rome (several misspellings), etc. --Espoo 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Make sure that all of the proposals listed below have a discussion set up on talk page of the article to be moved. Please use the template {{subst:Wikipedia:RM}} and, if necessary, create a new dated section.

11 October 2006

10 October 2006

9 October 2006

  • South Tyrol → Province of Bolzano - on the talk pages of the capital city of the province (Bolzano), a consensus was reached and the agreement was a name change from the older name (Bozen-Bolzano) to the correct name. The correct name of this province is not South Tyrol (which is an English form of Sudtirol), it is Bolzano. If anything, this province needs to be at least moved to a neutral name of Bolzano-South Tyrol or Bolzano (South Tyrol) if it is a need to have an English version instead of the correctly listed Italian version. To have this as just "South Tyrol" smacks discrimination against the Italians in their own country and language. Rarelibra 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 October 2006

  • WWE RAW → WWE Raw —(Discuss)— MOS policy in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). — Croctotheface 20:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That move would be not be correct at all. The name is RAW, not Raw. WWE doesn't use the name Raw, it always uses RAW. You're forgetting the part of the guideline that says "but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used." Raw is never used and RAW is always used. There is no discussion of the talk page of the article you are proposing to move, but yet you cite there is. All I see is a new straw poll that no one bothered to comment on yet. — Moe 23:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • MCI is not analagous because "MCI" is not an English word. That analogy would hold if I were proposing changing "WWE" to "Wwe", but I'm not: that would be ridiculous. Better analogies are Time magazine and Fox Broadcasting Company. Both Time and Fox use "TIME" and "FOX" when they write about themselves. However, Wikipedia follows English writing conventions. To be perfectly honest, I don't expect this change to take, but Wikipedia policy and precedent support making the change. An encyclopedia needs to be consistent: either change the policy and change "Time" to "TIME" and change "Fox" to "FOX" or change "RAW" to "Raw". Croctotheface 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think in this case it's more important to title the article with the title that is actually used. The actual president when using company names is to use the format they chose. (For example, there are a number of companies who chose to use Camel-Case for there name...) A redirect can be used from Raw to RAW. Actually, I'll correct myself... the MOST important thing here is for the person to be able to find the right article. That being covered either way... I'll stop wasting my keystrokes on it. :) ---J.S (t|c) 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishopric of Eichstädt → Diocese of Eichstätt —(Discuss)— Spelling — Chl 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 October 2006

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed.

6 October 2006

  • 11,300 hits for Lake Tianchi on Yahoo, 90 hits for Lake Chonji. [13] [14]
  • 11,000 hits for Lake Tianchi on Altavista, 85 hits for Lake Chonji [15] [16]
  • 4,347 hits for Lake Tianchi on MSN, 132 hits for Chonji [17] [18]
  • 14,400 hits for Changbai mountain on Altavista, 2,000 hits for Baekdu mountain [19] [20]
  • 14,200 hits for Changbai mountain on Yahoo, 2,010 for Baekdu mountain [21] [22]
  • 6,184 hits for Changbai mountain on MSN, 1,707 for Baekdu mountain [23] [24]
  • In addition, searches for the Lake Tianchi Monster alone (the monster (supposedly) living in this lake), [25] outnumber those for "Chonji". --Yuje 10:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 October 2006

Brad Green (politician) → Brad Green   (Discuss)
The politician is far more prominent than the footballer and there are only two current subjects with the name — Jord 23:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mnemonic goroawase system → Goroawase   (Discuss)
There is only one goroawase system, so the "mnemonic" qualifier is unnecessary. And mixing the Japanese word with the English word "system" in the title just seems messy. This is a reverse redirect.Kcumming 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ephialtes of Athens → something else, perhaps Ephialtes   (Discuss)
The subject of this article was not Ephialtes of Athens in Greek (he would have been called after his deme) or in English (no scholarly references at all.) I would prefer to move him to Ephialtes, most of the incoming links to which are for this man (and most of the rest to the giant), but would accept Ephialtes (statesman) or some such. Septentrionalis 04:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wei_Man → Wiman of Gojoseon   (Discuss)
Wiman or Wei Man was a king of Gojoseon at about 195 BCE, which is ancient Korean kingdom. Wiman is Korean pronunciation, and Wei Man is Chinese pronunciation. So, the pronunciation of the king must follow the pronunication of Korean. --Hairwizard91 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=80972773"