Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kenkam (talk | contribs) at 04:14, 8 January 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

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.


January 8

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake → 2004 Asian Tsunami

2004 Asian Tsunami is a better known term (see Search Results) & easier to use & remember term than 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Kenkam 8:33am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)

  • Support - This proposed change will help many others who are searching through the internet for more information regarding the Asian Tsunami Disaster. Kenkam 8:35am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)
  • Oppose - 1. Disaster did not solely affect Asian countries, although it primarily affected them. 2. Tsunami was the effect, not the cause, which was the earthquake. Note that such a move would directly affect a large number of pages, since all subpages and related articles (at last count, some 15; and a category) would also have to be renamed. See also Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#Article name and Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 2#Name?, general suggestion has been to create redirects from other descriptions of the disaster to avoid such problems. -- Michael Warren | Talk 01:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Reply to Michael Warren) Thanks for your comments Michael, 'cause and effect' is the reason why I suggested the change in the first place. Let's say a 'Mr Drunk' throws a 'cigar' and starts a fire at 'ABC Stadium'. Do we call it the 'Mr Drunk Fire', 'ABC Stadium Fire' or the 'Cigar Fire' ? I would bet most will call it the 'ABC Stadium Fire' and the stadium was not the cause of the fire ... in this case, the earthquake was the cause and the tsunami was the effect and it happened in Asia affecting majority Asians that's why ALL search engine hits supports this term "Asian Tsunami" ... ;-)Kenkam 9:44am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)

  • Support - I do not know why people call it indian ocean when it happened off-indonesia. Asian tsunami seems to be a better word becuase i see it in the news everyday. SteveAxe No prior contributions to Wikipedia before voting here. Prove you are not a sock puppet. -- Curps 02:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The effects extended beyond Asia. From the article: "Somalia was hit harder than Bangladesh despite being much farther away." Jonathunder 01:41, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

(Reply to Jonathunder) Thanks for your sggestion. We can't call it the "Somalia Tsunami" (joking) ... more Asians are affected than any other place, people etc. I would't call it the "Indonesia Tsunami" because the earthquake happened in Asia and affected 95% Asians ... Kenkam 9:56am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)

  • Oppose

Using his previous anonymous IP User:203.120.68.68 (contributions), User:Kenkam spammed every article in Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with links to the site http://www.asiantsunami.org/ , which is presumably his site. He thus has a vested interest (financial?) in promoting any such name change.

At the time the article was created (by me, actually), the known death toll was only in the hundreds and the earthquake was the biggest in the world in 40 years, so the earthquake was the main story. Now of course, it is very much overshadowed by the tsunami. I would support splitting into two articles: the bulk of the article would move to Indian Ocean tsunami disaster (a redirect already exists with this name), while the "quake characteristics" section would remain in a smaller article that would retain the name 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. We should prefer "Indian Ocean" to "Asian" to avoid excluding non-Asian victims in Somalia and elsewhere, who though much fewer in number are no less important.

There is still ongoing discussion in Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and the consensus so far is that a name change is premature. So it is not even really appropriate to move the discussion here yet.

PS, User:SteveAxe appears to be a sock puppet... no contributions prior to voting here.

-- Curps 01:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Reply to Curps) Thank you for your contributions here. I fully understand your emotional attachment to changing to the proposed name because you had originated it but I think everyone here should also know that you had DELETED my friendly comments to the suggested name see talk page of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake ... this action is absolute vandalism and I am sure everyone will agree. That is why I have no choice but to refer this matter to the administrator's intervention and place a vote to the matter. While I am not suggesting the banning of Curps (we value your contributions), I really like to see some courtesy to others and a true respect to their opinions. Your other allegations of financial gain is absurd. Can I ever gain anything if I come clean and post my proposals according to accepted Wikipedia rules ? My suggestions to the change in article title is purely administrative because I see so many references to the "Asian Tsunami" term and had feedback from others that they really don't know why somebody would like to call it "Indian Ocean earthquake" at all.Kenkam 10:25am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)

Ken, the only truncation I made was here: [1] because it simply duplicated what you wrote earlier on that same page (quoting Google statistics, etc). Since you feel this was unfair I have now restored it. However, you are filling up that talk page with multiple sections that all say the same thing -- don't you agree they should consolidated into one?
You cannot denying your spamming of the http://www.asiantsunami.org/ link. Do you deny that User:SteveAxe is your sock puppet? -- Curps 02:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - First off, if the article were to move anywhere, it would be 2004 Asian tsunami (notice the lack of capitalisation on that last word). While much of the media has been using the phrase "Asian tsunami" to refer to the disaster, many others have been calling it the "Indian Ocean tsunami".

"I would't call it the "Indonesia Tsunami" because the earthquake happened in Asia and affected 95% Asians" - Kenkam, the earthquake happened closer to Indonesia than any other country, and the tsunami hit there harder than anywhere else, with the death toll in Indonesia making up more than half the total death toll. Are you saying that Indonesia is not a part of Southeast Asia? Because Asia says otherwise. Or are you saying that Indonesia is not a part of the Indian Ocean? Because the earthquake happened in the Indian Ocean and really only majorly affected countries on their Indian Ocean coastlines. So I really have no idea what your argument for change here is. - Mark 02:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Reply to Mark) Mark, thanks for your question. I simply want the title of the Wikipedia article to be considered to be changed to "2004 Asian Tsunami" because there is a vast majority in support of it. There are after all 3.5 million Googles sites that reflect "Asian Tsunami" as oppose to the 900,000 + for the current name. If I am wrong, then a lot of others who call it Asian Tsunami would be too ... ;-) kenkam 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- a) the incident which started the whole tragedy was the earthquake which occurred in the east of the Indian Ocean; b) renaming the article "Asian tsunami" is exclusive of the people affected all down the coast of east Africa, while "Indian Ocean" is inclusive; c) I cannot believe that anyone can have any difficulty finding the article under the current name -- it has been prominently linked from the main page for nearly two weeks now, and has plenty of links from external sites; d) Wikipedia naming conventions would in any case preclude capitalisation of "tsunami" in the article name. -- Arwel 03:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Reply to Arwell) Thanks for the comments. While I disagree with you, I fully respect your thinking. The major difficulty here is that a whole lot of website refer to the event as Asian Tsunami although the article began in Wikipedia as something else. I for example was confused at first when I search the Wiki to post the event but I guess because of the real-time crises, everyone just contributed to the current site because if links to it. Outside Wikipedia is a totally different story. I hope members in Wiki can see my concern and agree with my logic ... which is majority win (even if means majority outside Wiki) ...;) kenkam 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: Leave as is for now and redirect to it, while discussion is underway at Talk: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake about possible solutions. Asia-something leaves out the African countries involved, and something-tsunami ignores the cause of the tsunami. To be precise the title should be something along the lines of 2004 Sunda Trench earthquake and resulting Indian Ocean tsunami, but I'm not suggesting such a move.  ;) BanyanTree 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Reply to BanyanTree) Dear BanyanTree, your name sounds so familiar, are you from Asia ... Singapore ? While I understand the complication to rename an article, I am sure that being in the epi-center of the event has lead you to realise that everyone in Asia calls it Asian Tsunami ... as in Asian Tsunami Disaster, Asian Tsunami Donations, Asian Tsunami Death Toll, Asian Tsunami Search & Rescue etc. I am in Singapore and that is why I advocate the change.
I'm sure we're all grateful for your benevolence in granting Curps continued leave to edit; we value your contributions (all 35 of them, including edits to this page) as well. Since you're so big on "accepted Wikipedia rules," allow me to quote from the guidelines posted on this very page:

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.

Consider mine a vote in opposition. ADH (t&m) 03:43, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
(Reply to Austin Hair) Thanks and you are abolutely correct ! Consensus has already been there when 3.5 million sites refer to the event as Asian Tsunami ... need I say more ? kenkam 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 7

Lima, Peru → Lima

Lima is a city of eight million, and every major city deserves to have an article that doesn't need further explanation of its name, even if there are other places that share the same name. Examples of this are: Saint Petersburg, London and York. The significance of the other places listed in the disambiguation page is much smaller than that of Lima, Peru. -- Tuomas 22:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I'm suprised that it isn't at Lima already. Jooler
  • Support, naturally. ADH (t&m) 00:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle → Charles De Gaulle

The name is not French nobility (like "Armand-Jean du Plessis de Richelieu" for instance), but a germanic name. The "De" is not the French preposition "of", but a for of Germaic "der" which is part of the name (actually "De Gaulle" means "der Wahl", "the wall"). The capital "D" is in order -- that's also why one says "De Gaulle did that..." instead of just "Gaulle did that..." which would be in order in case of nobility ("Richelieu did that..." is the proper form for nobility). Rama 23:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The French page does mention that the correct spelling is "De Gaulle", though it might be often (mis)spelled with "de"; the book which is spoken about in the talk page is not cited (it might be De Gaulle, mon père, but I haven't found anything about this on the web), and everywhere I have checked nobility is infirmed. The autoritative site http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org make not mention of this. I wonder wether this mention on the talk page was not a hoax. In any case, if there was indeed a case for nobility, I'd find it very supsicious that no mention at all would be made on the Franch wikipedia -- the articl is quite complete. Rama 23:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose A quick google news search suggests that, with the exception of Middle East sources, English speaking news sources nearly universally spell the name with a lower case "d". Appeal to French orthography and etymology notwithstanding, his name is usually rendered in English as "Charles de Gaulle". A redirect already exists at Charles De Gaulle to catch the occasional person who knows and uses the French spelling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose In nearly 40 years of reading about the man, I have never seen it suggested the upper-case "D" is correct except at the beginning of a sentence when referring to him. Also note that the name of CDG airport on the Aeroports de Paris website (www.adp.fr) is "Charles de Gaulle". -- Arwel 03:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regional Television → Regional television

I did originally create the page through my User pages, so I could create a draft and add more info when needed. However, I had problems when I finished the article and moved it to the site proper, it was still linking to the User page. I then moved the page again, creating the two pages. Also, there was an television station with an company name "Regional Television" and this would imply that the article is about that station, instead of the entire industy. BigDan 04:48, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

January 6

Righteous gentiles → Righteous Among the Nations

The latter name is much more frequently used (compare [2] with [3]) and is much more specific. Theoretically the gentiles is a huge group of people since it lists all non-Jews in the world and I bet there are lots of righteous people among them. Finally, the latter name is used by the Yad Vashem itself. Halibutt 20:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. The Yad Vashem name is the one to use for the article at that location. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 5

Endpoint → Endpoint (band)

"Endpoint" much more frequently means the geometric or chemical endpoint and thus this page should probably be moved to a more specific name and this page house the common definition -- 68.39.174.205 09:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to post this here: if you create an account and log in, you can do this move yourself. Gdr 12:23, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Semi-support. On the other hand, if you don't want to create an account, this is quite a good place to mention it. It looks like the article is the the style of an in-place disambig, but it is confusing and not what I would expect to find at this page. It originally started out as just reference to the 90's bad. It is not really a move that is required, so much as a demerge, and turning the current page into a pure disambig, (at least until someone has more to say about the math/chemistry uses). - Solipsist 20:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems sensible. I moved the band page and put in a disambig. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Canada) → Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

The official website lists it as "Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada" -- Spinboy 02:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - The official website lists it as "Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada" Spinboy 02:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Legal name vs FIP name. The Federal Identity Program of the Treasury Board of Canada controls the non-legal names of federal departments and agencies - to quote from their website, "FIP policy requires institutions to adopt an approved title for use in their signature. Referred to as "applied titles", these names have a dual purpose: to express the function or nature of the institution to the public and to identify it as an institution of the Government of Canada. The requirement for applied titles stems from the development of FIP policy in the mid-seventies when existing legal titles were often long and sometimes convoluted. There was no intent, however, to perpetuate the need for both legal and applied titles when naming new federal institutions. This means that legislation establishing the institution should refer to a title that meets the criteria of FIP policy. Similarly, certain departments have made reference to their applied title while amending their Act, thus eliminating the need to distinguish between legal and applied titles." http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/man_1_0_e.asp This means that many government bodies have a legal name and the FIP name. The portfolio was created 12 Dec 2003. The House of Commons passed bill C-6 (53 Elizabeth II, 2004) An Act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Nov 17, 2004. It does not appear to have been passed by the Senate yet. Section two of this act uses the full legal name. So the other name is a Federal Identity Name. It is interesting that despite the Treasury Board explanation above, the government chose to give the department its full legal name, and not use an "applied title" in the bill creating the department.--BrentS 01:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Leave it where it is until and unless the Canadian legislature itself decides what it should be called. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Commando (military) → Commando

And by extension, Commando → Commando (disambiguation)

Are we really unable to discern a primary meaning, here? ADH (t&m) 20:40, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Death to imbecilic disambiguations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. —Michael Z. 07:29, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Support. The three other uses are minor, and derivative of the first. Easy. — Ford 20:16, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

January 4

Freedom of Information Act (disambiguation) → Freedom of Information Act

And therefore Freedom of Information Act → Freedom of Information Act 1966

The UK version of the act is very much in the news at the moment and the disambig is almost a summary. Not too sure of the naming yet though, using just the year seems a bit wrong when they are from different countries. -- violet/riga (t) 21:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. It's tempting to put the country name in there somewhere; but disambiguation by year is probably enough, as long as an appropriate reference to other countries is included at the top of the article. And the main Freedom of Information Act page should be a disambig. Rd232 23:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. The ostensible disambiguation page is a full article in itself, and I see no reason the American version should trump all. Freedom of Information Act 1966 is an awful title, however, missing preposition notwithstanding; the primary distinction is the country in which it's law, not the year it was enacted. United States Freedom of Information Act was the first alternative to come to mind, although it might imply to some that "United States" is part of the proper name of the act; perhaps Freedom of Information Act (United States) is a better option (despite the parentheses). ADH (t&m) 00:09, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt Crypto 00:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ‘Freedom of Information Act’ is a proper noun. The US FOIA preceded the other Freedom of Information Acts listed on the page by at least thirty-two years. If there is a class of objects known as ‘freedom of information acts’, and the present disambiguation page describes them, then: (a) the entire class is named in reference to the US Freedom of Information Act, and (b) the page should be in lowercase. But the present arrangement is acceptable; it was not determined by pro-US bias but by precedence. — Ford 03:03, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    • Precedence is only one thing to take into consideration. Gdr 10:50, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Could the disambiguation page not be an article entitled Freedom of Information which is a topic of political science? Why a need to append Act? In Sweden's case it seems to be part of the constitution rather than a specific "act". Then there could be detailed articles on individual country's freedom of information legislation.--BrentS 05:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The current article at Freedom of Information Act (disambiguation) is quite detailed and we shouldn't assert one country's Act as primary. Timrollpickering 10:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The (US) name for the US Act is clearer than the (1966) name. Gdr 10:50, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't appear that all such information acts are actually named "Freedom of Information Act". I prefer the proposal mentioned by User:BrentS. Moves:
—Mike 03:58, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


Duplicate request moved from Jan 3
Freedom of Information Act (disambiguation) → Freedom of Information Act .. and move Freedom of Information Act to Freedom of Information Act (US) or whatever. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the UK legislation) just came into force on 1 January 2005 and is consequently the subject of much media interest. Jooler 10:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly the name of acts in several countries, and in my opinion there should be a disambig at the name. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We have a Freedom of Information Act (or did, it's perhaps now "of sorts") in Ireland. zoney ♣ talk 22:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Asynchronous Full Transfer Zone → DNS zone transfer

The article title is utter gibberish. The actual term, as per RFC 1034 § 4.3.5, is and always has been "zone transfer". I propose DNS zone transfer for parity with the other DNS articles that have "DNS" in the title. zone transfer would be fine, too, however; although you'll have some links to clean up. — 81.138.100.115 18:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved. I will submit Asynchronous Full Transfer Zone to WP:RFD. Uncle G 20:27, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

January 3

7-Up → 7 Up

7 Up's corporate site [4] spells the drink 7 UP; 7 Up seems a reasonable compromise. —tregoweth 07:01, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Compromise with what? -- Naive cynic 19:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not much point in this move. Leave it where it is with all the redirects in place. Add Seven Up and Seven up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I always thought it had a dash anyway, and even if it doesnt, the move is pointless.
  • Support - it's a proper name of a brand, there's no need to argue with the producer. Halibutt 20:27, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - there are 60 ways to spell this. I prefer 7 Up. -- Netoholic @ 23:44, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Support. Just as we have 7[-]Up's sister-brand, Dr Pepper. Peter O. (Talk) 00:29, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act (disambiguation) → Freedom of Information Act

This request has been moved to the duplicate request that was posted for 4 Jan by violetriga

.. and move Freedom of Information Act to Freedom of Information Act (US) or whatever. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the UK legislation) just came into force on 1 January 2005 and is consequently the subject of much media interest. Jooler 10:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support This is clearly the name of acts in several countries, and in my opinion there should be a disambig at the name. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We have a Freedom of Information Act (or did, it's perhaps now "of sorts") in Ireland. zoney ♣ talk 22:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Condominium (housing) → Condominium

If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Condominium you'll see that all the linking pages want Condominium (housing) and none want Condominium (international law), and as the latter article points out, "few [international condominiums] have existed in practice". So it makes sense for the housing law article to be at Condominium with a note at the top pointing to Condominium (international law). Gdr 23:22, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

  • support Good example of a justifiable move, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not appropriate for primary topic disambiguation. -- Naive cynic 19:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear case for PTD. ADH (t&m) 19:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes sense. —Mike 04:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Solipsist 10:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Candle in the Wind → Candle In The Wind

The Official UK Charts Company and Elton's single cover both use capitalised I and T. Bush Me Up 17:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose I can find at least as many images and text showing the opposite. Preserver proper title case. -- Netoholic @ 08:26, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Pointless move, leave it where it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Concur with Tony Sidaway. Peter O. (Talk) 00:41, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It Is Silly To Upper Case Every Word, Even If An Album Cover Does It. Jonathunder 00:48, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Lillington → Lillington, Dorset

This page has only one editor, Steinsky, who reverts attempts to list any other Lillingtons here, even though the links to them from other articles point here. Given that Steinsky comes from Dorset himself, were we not assuming good faith we might conclude that this page is a mere vanity page for his home village, population: 82 people. Assuming good faith, however, I suggest that this (one sentence) page be renamed to follow the example of Cambridge, Gloucestershire.

Although, given the lack of primacy of any of them (in contrast to the cases for Ipswich and Cambridge) and given the lack of notability too (The Warwickshire Lillington is much larger than the Dorset Lillington, is a village and not a hamlet, and probably has a little more to be said about it than just its population and proximity to other places; but even so it barely warrants more than a paragraph.), my first preference is actually for all "Lillington"s (the UK places, the London gardens by that name, and the various persons) to be sections on a single Lillington page, just as all of the various "vanity"s can be found at Vanity. But Steinsky has actively resisted taking any steps along that route. Letting him retain his "own" Lillington page, discussing the hamlet in Dorset and nothing else, as he clearly wants, is an alternative. -- 62.255.32.10 17:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • First off, I suggest you either log in or create an account. Logged in users can move pages to a new article name if there isn't yet an article with that name. Second, I agree that Lillington should be a comglomerate article on all things named "Lillington", unless one such thing rises to such a prominence that it deserves the article name. (Although before such a rise happens, it would probably have grown to be Lillington, XXXX and so be more complicated.) I find the move (at least a move requiring admin intervention) to be not needed, so I object. Further, I'm editting the article back to a disambiguation page. - UtherSRG 17:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, the old create an account canned response! Please take note that requesting the move here has actually achieved more than simply doing it would have. In particular, it caused someone else to add Lillington, North Carolina to the mix, which was overlooked above. -- 14:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sluzhba Bezpeky Ukrayiny → Security Service of Ukraine

Current article is a transliteration of the Ukrainian. These often change when new systems for interpretation arise. Also, if someone wanted information on this organization, is it likely they'd think to "Go" to the pronounciation of the name? As to the accuracy of the translation, it comes from the English version of their site.

Oppose. Transliteration schemes are pretty stable; the commonly-used BGN transliteration used for this name dates from 1965 (see Romanization of Ukrainian). Jumping to the article isn't a problem, thanks to redirects. —Michael Z. 19:32, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Searching for "Sluzhba Bezpeky Ukrayiny" returns, amongst other things, an offered correction of "Sluzhba Bezpeka Ukrayiny, so it seems that transliterations, or at least this one, are shaky even when "pretty stable".

Support. A Google search for Sluzhba Bezpeky Ukrayiny returns a Wikipedia redirect as its first result, and also asks “Did you mean?” I can see no reason not to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. There's no English convention for naming of this agency since it is heavily untransparent and relatively new. We're making a convention now and here, boys and girls. In this case, WP is not a kind of "mirror" for SBU-related WEb info, but a very important source of it (since there's no much other sources). So why don't we follow the most spread Ukrainian/Russian abbreviation SBU and original full name? E.g., nobody is translating Mossad or Abver. AlexPU 10:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Universal Music → Universal Music Group

The correct name for the company is Universal Music Group, but this redirects to the name of the current article, Universal Music. The article should be located at Universal Music Group, to comply with naming conventions, and Universal Music should redirect to the article. -- Guybrush 04:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To clarify further, while Universal Music is perhaps more common usage, no record label of this name now exists. In the US, a more specific Universal label would be used; in other countries, the local equivalent (e.g. Universal Australia). While I'm proposing a redirect for Universal Music, there may be scope for a future historical article about the previous record label of that name (just as there are still articles for other labels which are now defunct, noting that they have been bought by Universal Music Group). -- Guybrush 05:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stick with the popular name, it's what people will use to find the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ANFAL → Al-Anfal Campaign

Since both articles refer to the same thing, the two articles should be merged. I think that Al-Anfal Campaign should be the main article and ANFAL as a redirect, since the campaign was actually called the Al-Anfal campaign.Lokifer 23:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thunderbolt (New South Wales) → Captain Thunderbolt

Captain Thunderbolt is the nomme de guerre of the bushranger Fred Ward. Not Thunderbolt This rename would be much clearer.-- Peacenik 22:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 2

South Mountain (disambiguation) → South Mountain

(merge histories, delete redirect after move)

User:Mid created a separate dsambig instead of just modifying the redirect itself. -- Netoholic @ 08:42, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)


Flag of the Republic of Vietnam → Flag of South Vietnam

I've raised this move (back to the article's original location) on the talk page, and got no objections. The basic rationale is the "most common name rule" and conformity (South Vietnam is called such, not Republic of Vietnam, a redirect - surely, therefore, "X of ..." articles should reflect this? -- Vardion 03:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Makes perfect sense to match the main article name. -- Netoholic @ 08:42, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Neutral. For consistency, it makes sense. But it points IMO to the absurdity of preferring colloquial names for countries. There's a sense in which there hasn't been a "Flag of South Vietnam", because there hasn't been such a country - and the article name implies that "Flag of South Vietnam" was the official term. Rd232 09:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The flag was of the political entity known as the Republic of Vietnam, not the region more or less controlled by the RVN at various times in its 20-year history. ADH (t&m) 13:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

January 1

KTMA → KMWB

The KMWB page was just a temporary redirect to Sinclair Broadcast Group until another article could be created. The article KTMA (an old name of the same station, a few owners earlier) had started to be edited instead of KMWB. —User:Mulad (talk) 08:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Scorpions → Scorpions (band)

To comply with Naming conventions, name of bands. Band simply uses "Scorpions" on cd covers and official site as per the external links in that article. -- Aqua 07:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd rather see the band article moved to Scorpions--all other uses seem to default to the singular, which the band article already disambs at the top. Niteowlneils 18:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's most common that plural forms redirect to singular, even if there is something like this that could hold that title. Disambigs, like Scorpion (disambiguation), address singular, plural, and other forms. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
I certainly won't lose any sleep if it ends up at (band), but there seems to be precedent for Scorpions instead--see Cardiac vs. Cardiacs. Granted, that's an unlikely pluralization, but there may be more that aren't listed at list of bands. Niteowlneils 15:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  • Support. Rd232 16:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Their official website it the-scorpions.com, and everybody I know, every DJ I ever heard for the past thirty years that I have known them, has always referred to this band as The Scorpions, so it's the common name of the band. It also happens to be a handy and unambiguous name. People searching for this band using google would use "the scorpions" for the same reason--a search on scorpions alone would get lots of hits to arachnids. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah, I'll bet its the-scorpions.com only because a porn site registered scorpions DOT com. If I was searching and wanted to avoid the arachnids, I'd type in "Scorpions band". We'll still have the redirect from The Scorpions. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
    • That doesn't explain the following:
    • Interview transcript, March 2000 "Since the Scorpions are based in Hanover, Germany, the Expo means, for us emotionally, much more than to probably a lot of other bands or artists" -Klause Meine, vocals
    • Interview, undated "We want to show the people that the Scorpions are still rocking." -Rudolph Schenke, guitars
    • Interview, undated " in fact I met the Scorpions in 1977 when they played the Marquee Club in London." -Herman Rarebell, former drummer
    • It appears to me that "The Scorpions" is more than just a pragmatic fix for cybersquatting. It's the name by which band members refer to the band. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - in all those quotes, The is lowercase. Just as if talking about a group of animals known as scorpions (as opposed to all scorpions), you don't leave out the 'the' in sentences like that. --SPUI 23:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Could you take a look at those sources again? It seems to me that the evidence you cite is simply the article "the" being used as part of the grammer in those sentences. Those same sites(not the last one, couldn't access it), especially the about.com one, provide many examples to support the no "the".
      • "What does it mean to be a Scorpion?"-1st site
        • This supports my point completely. "Scorpions" is just one way of referrin g to the band and the way that is used in some literature. The Scorpions habitually refer to the band as the Scorpions (as do most people I know). There is no need to move this article, it's where most people would expect to find it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • "Scorpions Official Site" -2nd
      • "Scorpions/Deep Purple On Tour"-2nd site
      • "Scorpions' Rudolph Schenker"- title of article on 2nd site
      • "for two new songs on Bad For Good: The Very Best Of Scorpions is a sign"-2nd
      • From the naming convention page- "A simple rule of thumb is, would you capitalize the definite article in running text?" Those "the"s you quote aren't capitalized. I think the examples you cite are more like when people refer to "the United States" but that isn't the actual name. --Aqua 00:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a subtle point, but it's a good one. I accept it. I still think "The Scorpions" is a perfectly appropriate location for this article, however, and I tend to oppose moves unless I believe them to be strongly justified. No change in vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Amazon seems to think they are called "Scorpions" without the "The". Noisy | Talk 12:10, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

December 31

Yes → Yes (band)

This move has already taken place by doing a copy/paste. Someone needs to delete the Yes (band), which was a redirect to Yes, and then move the Yes to [[Yes (band). The reason for this request is that the vast majority of edits to Yes were related to the band and not the word. -- DCEdwards1966 01:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes is currently a simple dictdef. Yes (band) should be at Yes with a link to Wiktionary for the word. violet/riga (t) 01:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that. I didn't move the article, I just wanted to get the page history straightened out. DCEdwards1966 01:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've reverted it, and left a note on the Talk page to bring the argument here, and to use the Move tab if it should be moved. IMHO, someone looking for the word will go to Wiktionary, while someone looking for Yes at Wikipedia is more likely looking for the band, so I think it should stay that way. (i.e. 'what violet/riga said') Niteowlneils 03:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move to Yes (band). Yes should be a disambig. See Yes (disambiguation) for some ideas. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  • Unless someone presents some other well-known things known only by the name Yes, then the band should be at Yes. I see nothing at Special:Allpages/Yes that would be referred to primarily (or even occasionally) by only the word Yes. older≠wiser 17:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was the original editor, and I'm willing to admit that I may have goofed. I saw some similarity between Yes and Rush, both of which are common words with other uses, but I admit that the band may be the commonest use of Yes. A quick search at IMDB, for instance, showed one art-house film, some foreign films, and a couple of shorts. And I probably didn't wait long enough for a consensus, didn't use "Move", etc. I haven't been around here long enough to know which way the precedents point. Alfvaen 06:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Support the move. Jonathunder 06:42, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Starship Voyager → USS Voyager

USS Voyager is a redirect to Starship Voyager, but since it was modified once to remove a superfluous space, I cannot move over it. This would be consistent with "official" Star Trek usage as well as other Star Trek ship names (for example, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), USS Defiant, USS Galaxy, and so on). -- — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) Update: I regret that there are many articles linking to the original page. I check Wikipedia at least once a day; I will be happy to take care of fixing the links should this change be approved. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support for now. Should a real warship of that name ever be catalogued, the present article could be moved to a version with its NCC suffix. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I definitely agree. An alternate solution could be to add "(Star Trek)" or some similar text. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 11:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The US Navy had USS Voyager (SP-361), so Star Trek's Voyager should be listed with the NCC suffix.--Gunter 12:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Even though it's a pop culture subject, it's far more well known than the US Navy craft, and there's no current conflict. And what Tony Sidaway said. —Michael Z. 23:03, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • I was going to support, but the real vessel article has just been written, and USS Voyager has become a disamb page, so the starship should probably go to USS Voyager (NCC-74656) or USS Voyager (Star Trek) (either being better than "Starship Voyager"). Niteowlneils 03:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Help! As Niteowlneils noted, someone has just written a page on the real USS Voyager, so I decided to move this article to USS Voyager (Star Trek) (which was a redirect to Starship Voyager). I double-checked the directions at meta:Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page#Moving_over_a_redirect, and then moved it—but the edit history on the new page just shows the creation of the redirect. I thought the edit history would have been transferred! I don't want to change anything else until I figure out what went wrong—if anyone can help, I'd greatly appreciate it. And sorry for the trouble. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It sometimes takes a bit for things to catch up--looks like the whole history is there to me--if you don't see it yet, click on one of the links to change the number of edits to display EG ((20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).) and that should update the list. Niteowlneils 17:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I support (Star Trek) over NCC--from what I can make out, NCC is usually used when more than one ship in the Star Trek universe shares the name. And less than 60 linked articles to change--I've taken on more, and am more than willing to help with these. Niteowlneils 18:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Niteowlneils—the edit history does show up for me now. I agree—use the "(Star Trek)" suffix to restrict to the Star Trek universe; use the registry number to disambiguate within there if necessary. I have now moved the article to to USS Voyager (Star Trek), so I withdraw my request, and I have begun to update the links. Niteowlneils, you are certainly welcome to help. Otherwise, there are no double redirects, and I'll get through them in a day or two. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 03:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fang → Fang (people)

The Fang page currently links to information about an African Tribe! Surely the majority of people would thing of teeth. Fang should be a disambiguity page.--Gunter 01:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. A fang is not just a tooth, it's a venom-holding weapon. Ask anyone in the street what a fang is they won't say an african tribe. Nicholas 15:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. English-speakers interested in teeth would enter tooth or teeth. The African tribe is a reasonable guess at what someone entering "fang" would want to know about, and there is a link to Fang (disambiguation) at the top. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Fang should be a disambig. violet/riga (t) 01:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose concur with Tony Sidaway Kappa 03:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. see what Nicholas said. SECProto 03:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Tooth is more general than "fang" (fang is animal's tooth). Most people won't expect Fang people at Fang article. Rd232 12:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 14:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no other Fang article; other meanings are mere subtopics of articles on broader concepts. Primary topic disambiguation seems called for here. ADH (t&m) 15:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The tribe is not the primary meaning. -- Naive cynic 21:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fang should be a disambiguation; readers and editors alike would more likely assume that tooth is the primary meaning. The Chinese surname surely ranks even with the African people, if not well ahead. — Ford 03:16, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    • Fang isn't a very common word for tooth. We don't do genealogy so until a pop star calls himself Fang it doesn't matter how many people are called Fang, the name doesn't get an entry on that account. Disambiguations should be the last resort. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--BrentS 00:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zaire → Zaire

Simple misspelling. Zaire is incorrect. Nicholas 15:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oh no it isn't. Google about 32,500 English pages for Zaire, 2,350,000 English pages for Zaire Philip Baird Shearer 15:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose Most people wouldn't use the diaeresis. jguk 16:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Use most common name in the English language. older≠wiser 16:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Zaire is the English name, and that's all there is to it. ADH (t&m) 16:54, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Google results are irrelevant, and just show many people are unsure how to get the i character on their keyboard. The diacritic issue is also irrelevant, as the article on Cote d'Ivoire shows. Zaire should redirerct to Zaire, not the other way around.- XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 17:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support for Xed's reasons. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Oppose. →Raul654 19:11, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Niteowlneils 03:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would never think of spelling Zaire with an umlaut, but that's not the issue. If the article was already at Zaire I would oppose a move to Zaire; on the other hand there is no reason to move it the other way. Leave it be. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • err, yup. Oppose. SECProto 19:02, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Most people don't know or care how to type the diaeresis, but Wikipedia should use the correct orthography. "Zaire" is not spelled differently, it's just more precisely entered. And not that Google searches prove anything, but how did you get those results? Google treats i and i as the same letter (which it is). Searching English-language pages, I getabout 2,180,000 results for Zaire and2,170,000 for Zaire. —Michael Z. 10:01, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
You are not using Google with the defaults used in a counry where the primary language is English:
  • about 32,600 English pages for Zaire.
  • about 2,070,000 English pages for Zaire
Google uses different defaults in diffrent countries for example in Germany searches wrap "u" "ue" and "ue" into one, but not in English speaking countries where they are by default 3 diffrent things --Philip Baird Shearer 10:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't sound right. I'm in Canada, and get the same results whether searching with Google.com or Google.ca (English version). —Michael Z. 22:31, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
The diaeresis is properly used for Zaire in French (remember it used to be the Belgian Congo). My guess is that as you're searching from a country that has French as an official language, you're inadvertently skewing the results, jguk 22:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
http://www.google.com.au http://www.google.co.nz http://www.google.co.uk http://www.google.co.za all work the same way. http://www.google.ie http://www.google.ca seem to be set up as bylingual (one of which uses diaeresis) Germany http://www.google.de returns similar results to ca and ie. Philip Baird Shearer 23:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Google.com functions identically to Google.ca for connections originating in Canada; the same goes for other localized versions. You can verify this by viewing your search preferences. ADH (t&m) 19:38, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if Zaire can be shown to be more correct (which I'm not convinced about), Wikipedia convention (usually) ignores this in favour of common usage. (Which I'm not convinced about either, for proper names, but anyway, that's the apparently-now-set-in-stone convention.) Rd232 10:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would, obviously, support the move if Zaire was the English name, but it doesn't seem to be the case - both UN and ISO know it under the name of Zaire. Their list has AAland Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, and Reunion, so it isn't just the fault of stripping diacritics. -- Naive cynic 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most English dictionaries e.g. Oxford spell the name Zaire without the accent or diaeresis. It is rare in English to have any accents on common place names. Perhaps others could check other dictionaries in the UK and USA. Zaire with the diaeresis is correct in French.--BrentS 00:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

December 30

Shard of Glass → London Bridge Tower

London Bridge Tower is the correct name, but redirects to Shard of Glass, a press nickname. Move in line with 1 Canada Square(Canary Wharf Tower) and 30 St Mary Axe (Erotic Gherkin) -- Icundell 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - obviously Icundell 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Duh. ADH (t&m) 00:04, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: DCEdwards1966 04:57, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: You can also cite Tower 42 rather than NatWest Tower and several other examples. -- Solipsist 09:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Keep the article where most people will search for it. jguk 10:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should we use Shard of glass or Shard of Glass :-) ? Icundell 11:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. That's what redirects are for. Rd232 11:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a Londoner who has the other two buildings in his sight nearly every day. The popular name should be the main entry, and you cite some bad precedents. The Erotic Gherkin is a name by which the building in question is known to millions. A few thousand may know the building as 30 St Mary Axe. The same goes for Canary Wharf Tower, same goes for Tower 42. If anything, these articles should be moved, not Shard of Glass. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You appear to be arguing that popular usage should be used as a substitute for accuracy. London Bridge Tower is the name given by its owners, the local authority and will probably be its postal name. Nicknames should be the re-directs, proper names the main article. Icundell 12:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That kind of formal accuracy is a weak argument for the name of an article. We're not going to move Bill Gates to William Henry Gates III for instance, because while the latter is more formally accurate it is not the name by which Bill Gates is known to the public. The question I ask is: what words would the user be most likely to type into the find box or into Google (which gives precedence to HTML titles of web pages) when searching for information about this building? If this is a reasonably unique phrase (that is, typing it in shows mostly articles about the subject I'm interested in), I consider it to be a good candidate for the name of an article.
Strongly disagree - formal accuracy is a strong argument. Given the ability to redirect, there is little reason for an encylopedia to prefer the informal name to the formal one. (However, precisely this argument was defeated re East Germany.) Also, "shard of glass" has a generic meaning which will be more familiar to most people. Rd232 13:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Stand on any London street and ask passersby to point to "Tower 42", "30 St Mary Axe" and "1 Canada Square". You'll get lots of blanks looks, although the three buildings are seldom out of their sight. Now ask them to point out the Natwest Tower, the Erotic Gherkin and the Canary Wharf Tower and you'll get smiles and directions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of slang. If the "Shard of Glass" page has a redirect people will have no problem finding London Bridge Tower. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we couldn't have redirects, that would be a very strong argument. But we can. And encyclopedias are supposed to tell people things they don't know. Rd232 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we were being consistent with "30 St Mary Axe" and "1 Canada Square" the article would need to be moved to "32 London Bridge Street". jguk 12:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Partly an ontological question. Are we describing entities, which have correct formal names (which should be preferred); or terms (where common usage is much more important)? If we start distinguishing these consistently, it would be logical to describe both "name X" (informal name for Y) and describe other things about Y on page "Y". That, it seems to me, would be logical, consistent and encyclopedic. Rd232 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's a building. No need to get philosophical; just called it what it is properly called. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think there is a need to get philosophical. This question comes up so often precisely because there is no agreed ontological basis for resolving conflicts between different Wikipedia conventions. Rd232 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support We can't have Wikipedia littered with slang names for articles. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It will be littered with "slang" terms whether you welcome that or not. Wikipedia naming conventions favor the use of such common names for people and things: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • And the next policy along calls for precision and warns against ambiguity. Erotic Gherkin is a stupid nickname applied to the wrong building - it was coined by the Guardian for the old Trafalgar House 1,200 ft design - the Lloyd's Building (1 Lime Street, if your're interested) is an official name, as is the Oxo Tower). Shard of Glass (or is that Shard of glass?) is also a nickname applied to an older design than that to be built. Oh, and an encyclopedia isn't just for Londoners, but for anyone who may need to find information so it should put the most accurate information most prominently. Icundell 01:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support London Bridge Tower is the proper name, and so should be the primary title for the article. This is exactly why we have redirects. TACD 15:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support The policy is self-identification. I'm pretty certain Bill Gates calls himself that, ditto 1 Canada Square, Tower 42, etc. Press/slang nicknames should never be used unless the entity itself starts using them. Dtcdthingy 20:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "Self-identification" is not a Wikipedia policy. Proteus (Talk) 11:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We use 30 St Mary Axe, 1 Canada Square, so there is clearly a de facto policy of using real names instead of popular nicknames. See also Tall buildings in London and similar articles. Gdr 21:19, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Why the "official" name when the naming conventions clearly recommend the popular name? The Shard of Glass is what Londoners call it, same with Canary Wharf Tower, the Natwest Building, the Erotic Gherkin, the Oxo Tower and the Lloyd's building (which all presumably also have obscure names that nobody actually uses in real life). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because an encylopaedia doesn't put things under nicknames; it either puts "See under" (the equivalent of a redirect), and/or has a separate entry on the nickname itself (eg who coined it) if warranted. Rd232 10:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You've already been shown that the naming convention does recommend the popular usage, not the "official" one, for people and objects. the conventions could not be more plain. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The convention is fairly plain, but appears to have been developed originally more with subject topics in mind than proper names. Proper names now follow the same format for consistency. Using common terms rather than technical ones for subject topics makes sense, because subjects should be described in laymen's terms first, and technical terms second, and this approach encourages that. This logic does not apply to proper names, especially given the existence of redirects. Which may be why the move is (currently) supported about 9:1 (maybe 9:2 counting Proteus against). Also, a convention is merely what everybody agrees to do. If everytime a convention is challenged, such challenges are shouted down on a "look at the convention" basis (instead of saying "well, conventions are subject to potential revision, which is under semi-permanent discussion [[here]], but in the mean time stick to the current convention"), it isn't a convention any more, it's a rule. Rd232 18:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What you say above simply is not true. The part of the naming convention I cite is specifically developed with proper names in mind. Certainly feel free to challenge the convention, but you have to recognise that the convention has advantages that are difficult to gainsay. Place the main article and all internal links at the popular name of the object or person, and Google's crawlers and the like will see that popular name in the title of many pages that are linked to--Google grants ranking points to such articles. Place the article in something obscure and people will be less likely to find it. An example is if you search on canary-wharf-tower in Google. The first occurrence of this Wikipedia article in the list returned by that query is on page 63 of the results. In German! A search on 1-canada-square puts the exact same article on page 2. The redirects don't help, you have to put the article at the most likely name to get a good Google ranking. This is why it's a good idea to choose sensible names, and not obscure ones that few people will ever know, let alone use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I take your general point about Google rankings, but (a) how important should that be (especially as we seem to be struggling to keep up with traffic anyway); and (b) your particular example isn't entirely persuasive, because the "1-canada-square" Wikiref on page 2 is also to the German one; I haven't the patience to see how far down the list the English one ranks, but it's beyond page 11. The point is that if the German one is that much higher than the English, other considerations beside the article name must be important for the rankings. In any case, I would have thought that one of the advantages of being a non-commercial project is that we don't have to prostitute ourselves on an hourly basis to get the highest Google rankings. Their methodology changes all the time, so I would just focus on creating good content (which is the most important thing in the long run, for search engines and for users) and let them worry about their search engine. Rd232 11:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
BTW, everyone I know refers to it simply as "the Gherkin", not the "Erotic Gherkin". Popular usage is a fickle mistress. Rd232 10:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Its an article about a (proposed) building and so should follow the rules for naming buildings. It looks like Wikipedia hasn't really gotten around to formulating the guidelines yet, but they already exist in the world of architecture. To put it simply a building is usually refered to by 'the name of the building'. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how these names are determined, but most often they are the name given by the owner's of the building - for older buildings its the name which has become the norm. It is not the address of the building, although many property companies are unimaginative enough to name their buildings after the address, or possibly it is the default if a building isn't given its own name. The name can also change as the building changes ownership, as is the case with the NatWest Tower becoming Tower 42 and the Post Office Tower becoming the BT Tower. I can also think of a couple of cases where houses are known by the name of the person they were built for (for example the Farnsworth House).
During planning and construction, a building might be known by a working title which is changed when the owner's take possession. This can be confusing, as frequently, editorial coverage of a building is highest whilst a building is nearing completion. So a significant number of column inches may not use the final name of the building.
30 St Mary Axe has never been named the Erotic Gherkin, that's just a tabloid nickname when they wanted to knock the plans - now the building is popular they mostly use the Glass Gherkin or simply the Gherkin. The building was originally to be called the Swiss Re Tower, but as I understand it, before completion Swiss Re ran into mild financial difficulties. Although they are still the owner and principle occupant, they decided to let out many of the floors, so in order not to discourage other tenants too much, the name was changed to be more neutral. These alternative names are discussed in the article.
Some more useful sources to help determine a building's name are http://www.emporis.com/ (for example their list of skyscrapers in London, and http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings.html . Other good sources are the web sites of the architects involved.
Emporis' rules for naming buildings can be found here. -- Solipsist 10:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current Wikipedia convention is essentially that names are irrelevant - what matters is common usage, correct or otherwise, as long as it is unambiguous. So if this time next week Bill Gates becomes universally known as "The Man Who Gets Four Million Spam A Day", presumably his article will be moved there. Rd232 11:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ipswich, Suffolk → Ipswich

  • Ipswich, Suffolk is almost always the Ipswich people refer to. See also [6]. We disambiguate in the same way for other places - see, for example: London. jguk 20:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are numerous other Ipswich around the world, people searching would want to be able to choose which, not be railroaded. Disabmiguity page should be kept.--Gunter 21:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's also the name of a fairly well-known software company. Jonathunder 21:56, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • Support. Any other usage exists because of this one. Icundell 22:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support +Ipswich (disambiguation) --Dtcdthingy 23:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Ipswich could be any number of towns, outside of the U.K. ADH (t&m) 23:53, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: However, the move has already taken place without waiting for consensus. DCEdwards1966 04:55, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I expected to support, but Ipswich, Queensland has a slightly larger population than Ipswich, Suffolk - the ones in the US look much less significant. On the other hand Ipswich, Suffolk is of course the original and has 180 internal links, compared to 25 for the Ipswich, Queensland. -- Solipsist 09:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The internal link count shows that this is by a substantial margin the most likely Ipswich to be sought. A disambiguation page should not, in general, be the first thing a user sees in such cases. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: When a user searches for "Ipswich" the page they expect to see is probably dependent on where they are in the world. I have no doubt that someone in the UK would expect to see Ipswich, Suffolk. But, someone from the US, Canada or Australia would probably expect something different. DCEdwards1966 23:16, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Most common and well known use of "Ipswich"; others should be on a disambig. violet/riga (t) 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - all other uses are derived from this one, pretty much all of the links for Ipswich mean Ipswich in England. The precedent has already been set for places like Cambridge, Oxford, Exeter and Durham and many other towns in Britain. Jooler 11:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Ipswitch software company is spelt differently too. adamsan 14:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - the Ipswich in Suffolk is "clearly predominant" (WP:D). Proteus (Talk) 11:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - For the reasons given above. G-Man 19:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Ditto. Timrollpickering 23:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above, as long as disambig page is linked at top of article. -- Guybrush 04:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Semyon Lavochkin → Lavochkin

  • The Lavochkin disambiguity page has two links, both pointing to the same Semyon Lavochkin page. All info on the disambiguity page is duplicated on the Semyon Lavochkin page.

--Gunter 19:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sony Corporation → Sony

  • This will move the page back to where it was for at least 3+ years until yesterday, which I think counts as consensus. It was moved by one user wanting to reflect an obscure quirk of Japanese corporate law in a completely not-useful way. The two pages listed on the new Sony page are subsidiaries of Sony Corp, so could equally well still be linked after the move. -- Dtcdthingy 11:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Rd232 14:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am the user in question. Sony is a brand, a marque, trademark even. The name of the corporation is "Sony Corporation". You don't call the "Disney" company "Disney" because everybody calls it that. You call it The Walt Disney Company because that's its name. Christopher Mahan 18:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC).
    • Which would make sense if the page was only about the Corp, but it's not, it's equally about the brand and the product and the subsidiaries and lots of things in between. Move it to a general Sony page, branch off sub-pages if necessary -- Dtcdthingy 20:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sony should be a redirect to Sony Corporation. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Sony's subsidaries and other external links can be referenced at the bottom of the Sony page, there is nothing ambiguous, it's all one big family. --Gunter 20:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An utterly unnecessary disambiguation. The Walt Disney Company should also be moved to Disney. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article's scope is not limited to the corporation. ADH (t&m) 17:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. and move that other article to Disney while you're at it, like Tony Sidaway suggested. SECProto 03:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

December 29

December 28

Miyazaki Telecasting Corporetion, Miyazaki Telecasting, and Miyazaki Telecasting Corporation → Miyazaki Telecasting Co., Ltd.

  • The histories should be united. -- 211.124.255.135 13:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, they should be merged. --Peacenik 21:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Rd232 14:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


December 27

Bill Richardson (politician) → Bill Richardson

There is consensus that Bill Richardson (politician) is a far better known personality than Bill Richardson (radio). I have moved the disambig at "Bill Richardson" to "Bill Richardson (disambiguation)" -- Jord 17:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Unless you were to move his page back to Bill Richardson, there's not much point in that. A bigger issue is probably that there have been a number of politicians named Bill (or William) Richardson, including a few other Congressmen and a longtime California state Senator (H.L. "Bill" Richardson) who ran for U.S. Senate. Outside of politics, there are probably any number of others. I'd recommend leaving the Bill Richardson page as a disambig, but moving the N.M. governor's page to Bill Richardson (governor) or Bill Richardson (New Mexico). MisfitToys 21:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are too many famed individuals named Bill Richardson to justify the move...and more than just the two listed on the disambiguation page.—ExplorerCDT 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons MisfitToys stated above. I hope someone will add a few more Bill Richardsons to the list, even if they don't currently have articles. --LostLeviathan 21:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I just wonder whether the three authors named Bill Richardson (that I know of) will require a disambiguation page at Bill Richardson (author) and what their individual articles should be named. —ExplorerCDT 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No, Bill Richardson (author) should in that case be a redirect to the main disambiguation page for the name. No point in having a twisty maze of little disambiguation pages. Gdr 21:23, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Oppose can't really see any evidence of consensus (or discord for that matter) and who's to say there aren't others? Icundell 22:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm canadian, and have heard of the radio guy, and never the politician. here's my biased vote. SECProto 03:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=9194302"