Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zimbabweed (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 28 February 2007 (→[[28 February]] [[2007]]). 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 information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. 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. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. 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, or 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 here proposals that are clearly uncontroversial 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 possibility that the proposed page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section. If the move location appears as a red link you should be able to move the article using the move button of the top of the article's page (unless your account is less than 4 days old) and don't need to use this page.

Please list new requests at the bottom and use {{subst:WP:RM2|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}}; do not copy, paste, and edit previous entries. No dated sections are necessary, and no templates on the article's talk page are necessary. Do not sign yourself, the template already does it for you.

If your request was not fulfilled, and was removed from this section, please relist it in the #Other proposals section below.

  • Grandy Nanny → Nanny of the Maroons — Someone who doesn't have a clue who Nanny is, redirected the original and correct, Granny Nanny, to the current and incorrect or misspelt - Grandy Nanny. However, even though Granny Nanny is one of her titles, Nanny of the Maroons is the title officially bestowed upon her by her Jamaican people as a national hero; it is her foremost title. If a new Nanny of the Maroons page cannot be created while preserving the edit history, then the 2nd best thing is to have Grandy Nanny renamed to Granny Nanny. "Grandy" doesn't exist. I just can't revert to the old page without losing the edit history and I am blocked from creating a new page when I try to use the move function.


  • Expos (Lost) → Exposé (Lost) — Page originally created with the wrong name, can't be moved without admin because a duplicate page was created at the target (editor tried to move by copy/pasting and making the original article a redirect, which broke page history —Milo H Minderbinder 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn as there doesn't seem to be agreement yet on spelling of article name. If an admin could watch both to make sure User:SilvaStorm doesn't continue to try page "moves" by changing the article into a redirect and copying article content into the redirect, that would be helpful - I have requested protection on the redirect to hopefully put a stop to this. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete and contested proposals

If a requested move is incomplete (not all steps of the procedure are followed), or if anyone objects to an "uncontroversial" proposal, it should be listed here until the proposer or anyone else completes it. After the completion, plese move the entry to the top of "other proposals" section. Please place newly moved requests to the top of this list, and either sign (~~~~) or just put the timestamp (~~~~~) at the end. Proposals that remain here longer than 5 days are subject to removal.

  • I don't know what you mean by "possible" here, but there are many factors that need to be looked into, such as what is the most common name and if the English language title is official or an original research translation. For example, Parti rouge article states that "the Parti rouge (alternatively known as the parti democratique) was...", with no mention of an English title. I don't think these six are uncontroversial. Prolog 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a different Stephen Wade already there. This move needs more thought. -- Beardo 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from "uncontroversial". -GTBacchus(talk) 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited evidence for the uncontroversial nature of the moves shows that the moves are still controversial. Comments made by proponents for use of "common name" versus "proper name" continue up until yesterday and none of which show a consensus for move. --Bobblehead 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited evidence for the uncontroversial nature of the moves shows that the moves are still controversial. Comments made by proponents for use of "common name" versus "proper name" continue up until yesterday and none of which show a consensus for move. --Bobblehead 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

All of the proposals listed below need to have a discussion set up on talk page of the article to be moved. Please use the template {{subst:WP:RM|Old Page Name|Requested name|Reason for move}} and, if necessary, create a new dated section.

28 February 2007

  • Hoax letter writers → List of spoof letter writers —(Discuss)— "List" should be added as this is primarily a list of names, rather than an article about the writers. Secondly, "spoof" is a more accurate and more frequently used term to describe this topic. "Hoax letter writers" implies malicious intent. "Spoof" is less ambiguous as it's clearly humourous. Googling "Hoax letter" confirms this: virtually all the results refer to criminal or terrorist hoax letters. —Saikokira 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collective hysteria → Mass hysteria —(Discuss)— Mass hysteria is by far the the most common and widely used term. Psychologists might use "collective hysteria" but most people would search for "mass hysteria". Googling both terms shows that "mass hysteria" gives more than 97% of the total hits. ( 851,000 for Mass hysteria / 21,900 for Collective hysteria) —Saikokira 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


27 February 2007

Amended, please see the talk page for reason. Awyong J. M. Salleh 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2007

  • Dove → Doves and pigeons —(Discuss)— The proposed new name would provide improved clarity and would reduce confusion. This article is about the entire bird family Columbidae, which is popularly called "doves and pigeons" or "pigeons and doves." The name "Dove" appears to have been a source of confusion for several years, since it implies that the article is about a single kind of bird (or perhaps only part of the family). Users and contributors both seem to be confused that "Pigeon" redirects to "Dove." —orlady 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion section created. I would suggest Columbidae as an equally good alternative. WP:TOL advocates using scientific names where no common name is "reasonably unique". --Stemonitis 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First item on article discussion page is "Scope and name of article," dating back to 2003; I figured that item could be reused for the present purpose. (I proposed this particular rename there about 2 weeks ago, but there was no response.) I also think Columbidae would be an acceptable name, but my impression is that "Doves and pigeons" is "reasonably unique."--orlady 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25 February 2007

24 February 2007

23 February 2007

  • On Interpretation → De Interpretatione —(Discuss)— The article for every other work by Aristotle (as listed at Aristotle and Bekker numbers) bears the name that is used in the Revised Oxford Translation (ed. Jonathan Barnes, Princeton University Press, 1984). This is as close to a standard for referring to Aristotle's works in English as I believe one could find. I myself would prefer different names in several cases, but at Wikipedia I think using this reference is better because it gives us a neutral standard. In the Revised Oxford Translation, all the titles are in English except for De Interpretatione and Magna Moralia. In other words, the ROT shows a strong tendency to English not Latin, even for treatises like De motu animalium (Movement of Animals) that (in my experience) a great many English-speakers refer to in Latin. Indeed, an awful lot of English-speaking scholars do refer to the "De Interpretatione," and the Wikipedia naming conventions do envision a case like this, where a "form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." (By the way, this article originally was at De Interpretatione; there's no clear reason why it was ever moved here.) —Wareh 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed.

22 February 2007

21 February 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=111686942"