|
Wikipedia:Requested moves
|
Administrator instructions
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.Requested moves is a place for requesting the retitling of an article, a template, or a page in the Wikipedia namespace. Any logged-in user who has been registered for more than four days and made at least ten edits can use the [move] tab located at the top of each page to perform simple moves (see Help:Moving a page). However, administrator help may be required if the desired title is already occupied (usually in the form of a redirect with a page history of more than one edit) or matches the title blacklist.
In some situations, the value of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. This page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input, or for users to request assistance from administrators in moving pages.
Most move requests are processed by a handful of RM regulars who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures (see also Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators). Requests are generally processed after five days, although backlogs of a few days develop occasionally. If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus".
What can be moved?
Separate processes exist for moving pages other than articles, and for changes other than page moves:
Images: To rename an image, upload the image again, but with the name you want. Then change the relevant links to reflect the new name and list the old image at images and media for deletion.
Categories: To rename a category, propose it at categories for discussion.
Stub templates: To rename a stub template, propose it at stub types for deletion.
Mergers: To merge two articles, make a request at proposed mergers or be bold and do it yourself.
Cut and paste move fixes: To request page histories to be merged, list them at cut and paste move repairs.
Requesting uncontroversial moves
If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial—for example, a correction to spelling or capitalization—then update the article's text to reflect its new title. For example, change the incorrect lead sentence "A Suprise Speach is a..." to "A surprise speech is a..." If the move is uncontroversial and the move is technically possible, then please feel free to move the article yourself. Remember that page moves are possible, for anyone with an account at least four days old, in cases where the target name doesn't already exist, or in cases where the target is a simple redirect—a redirect to the source page, with no prior versions in its edit history.
If there has been any debate about the best title, or if the article has recently been moved in good faith, or if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. Otherwise, post your request in the Uncontroversial proposals section of this page.
If the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is not an article (e.g. a redirect or a disambiguation page with a single target article), the template {{db-move}} can be used instead to have that page deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G6.
Requesting potentially controversial moves
Please follow all three steps listed below when requesting a move.
- Step 1 — Add move template to talk page
- Enter {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article, or add {{moveoptions}} if you are unsure of the best title for the article.
- Step 2 — Create a place for discussion
- If the discussion does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved. This can take any form that is reasonable for administrators to follow, although it is convenient to use the heading
==Requested move==, because this is assumed by the template in step 3. The template {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} can be used to create a framework for a poll, but be aware that polling can be divisive.
- Once the requested move process is at an end, the only record of the requested move is kept on the talk page of the article. The current page name and the suggested new name must be placed at the top of the section where the move is discussed so that editors who read the talk page in the future can see clearly what the proposed move was.
- Step 3 — Add the request to the "Other proposals" list on this page
- Add {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} at the top of the section under the date line, replacing PageName, NewName and reason for move with the existing title, the new name for the article and the reason for moving it. The template will include all the necessary formatting, including your signature.
- Alternatively, if the new name for the article is unclear, add {{subst:RMlink?|PageName|reason for move}} at the top of the section under the date line, replacing PageName with the existing title and reason for move with the reason for moving it. The template will include all the necessary formatting, including your signature.
Moving several pages at once
An example of how to request to move a block of pages:
*([[Talk:Page A|Discuss]]) -- Rationale goes here. --~~~~
**[[Page A]] → [[Page D]]
**[[Page B]] → [[Page E]]
**[[Page C]] → [[Page F]]
On Talk:Page A, follow steps 1 and 2 above (add {{move|Page D}} to the top and create a section for discussion).
On Talk:Page B, add {{multimove|Page E|Talk:Page A}} to the top.
On Talk:Page C, add {{multimove|Page F|Talk:Page A}} to the top.
Uncontroversial proposals
Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any possibility that it could be opposed by anyone. Please list new requests at the bottom of the list in this section and use {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} rather than copying previous entries. The template will automatically include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required.
If you object to a proposal listed here, please re-list it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.
Incomplete and contested proposals
With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move request, please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move request, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.
- Best, Best → Best Best per the song's cover. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Google search for "best best" "Missy Elliott" showed some uses with the comma and some without. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cover for song shows no comma. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The writing on the song cover is in such a fancy ornamental style that the absence of the comma on it means little. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Rider pt. 2 → Rider Pt. 2 — "Pt." is neither a conjunction, preposition, nor an article, and therefore there is no reason why it shouldn't be capitalized in a song title. — Xnux the Echidna 03:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- This may depend on how much this title means "the second part of Rider". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, "Pt. 2" is a part of the song name, not a description of the song. It should be capitalized. 19:45, 22 July 2008 User:Xnux
- I made this move, but User:XxJoshuaxX moved it back, with comment "'Pt. is not a proper noun.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Other proposals
 |
Please use the correct template: see the instructions above.
Do not attempt to copy and paste formatting from another listing. |
Purge the cache to refresh this page
- Tupac Shakur → 2Pac —(Discuss)— Move to 2Pac per WP:NCP, which states the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". 2Pac is clearly Shakur's most common name and it doesn't conflict with any other page since it already redirects there. Two years ago there was a move discussion that had some ridiculous arguments against the move ("real name") that I hope are not repeated in this discussion. --Do U(knome)? yes...|or no 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Clan Stuart → Clan Stewart —(Discuss)— See talkpage. This is the way the clan name is spelt on the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs website. It would appear this is the 'official' spelling of the name, or atleast the spelling recognised by the body that represents the clan chiefs of Scotland. There are several Clan Stewart societies, none that i have come across on google searches use the spelling Stuart though. --Celtus (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is not uncontroversial. Google gives 9150 hits for ""clan stewart" -wikipedia", but 9630 hits for ""clan stuart" -wikipedia". I think this should go through the "potentially controversial" process. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Right, well i entered the request in Other proposals section here. Should i move your comments down there too, and delete this entry?--Celtus (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Rütli Meadow → Rütli —(Discuss)— Certainly, it is a meadow, but it's simply called Rütli. All other language versions of WP which have an article use Rütli (resp. Grütli in some languages), including the German one (not the German equivalent of "Rütli Meadow", which would be "Rütliwiese", although this is sometimes used): de:Rütli. --Gestumblindi (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Discuss)— The term seems to apply pretty much equally to the horticultural sense and the equestrian sense, and as a word is used even more commonly in the context of more notable "bolt" words such as Bolted joint. --BigBlueFish (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Discuss)— The term refers to too many things, including other species of fish. --Jwinius (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel → Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel - (Discuss) upon review the intial discussions for or against the switch from Kassel to Cassel, there was little consensus (also little interest) and one user switch only a few articles titles while leaving Again, not much interest in this topic. According the Wikipedia guidelines regarding geographic name disputes, they are rarely, if ever, end up with a universal solution and even just a simple reason (i.e. the vast majority of Wikipedia articles use Hesse-Kassel or Cassel links to a city in France while Kassel is the city in Hesse) is good enough. So consistency's sake, either change these few article article back to Kassel and the alternative, which is rather unresonable, making thousands of minor edits to all entries from Hesse-Kassel to Hesse-Cassel. Same rational goes for the following 5 articles. Although no consensus was reached on previous discussion, a consensus is not required for a move. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) → Teutonic takeover of Danzig —(Discuss)— A common name should be settled on and the double-naming eliminated. This article has been the victim of move warring and the current double-name is the result of compromise. Since the recent request to move to Teutonic takeover of Gdansk was strongly opposed, there may be a consensus settling around Teutonic takeover of Danzig. This name is also supported by the Danzig/Gdansk Vote, which indicates the use of Danzig in naming articles concerning the period 1308-1945, and the common name of the city before 1308 has been heavily disputed, with several different versions of the name (Danceke, Dantzig, etc.) appearing in historical sources. Therefore, this article should be restored to its original title of Teutonic takeover of Danzig. --Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, reverse this move, Since the article ONLY discusses Pederastic couples, why remove the word couples from the title? It merely sows confusion. I note, too, that no mention of the move was made on the talk page before Guy unilaterally took this action. Jeffpw (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Backlog
Move dated sections here after five days have passed (July 20 or older).
- Klöße → Knödel —(Discuss)— As this is a southern German dish, seems like the Bavarian and Austrian name is better. --70.51.8.59 (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Chinilpa → Pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea —(Discuss)— In line with the Wikipedia policy relating to the use of common English language terminology, this obscure title should be moved to the widely used and commonly understood term. Discussion started in 2007. I moved it. It was immediate reverted by another editor who quite correctly stated it was a term commonly used in Korea. The pages appear to duplicate now and need tidying up. I would argue that a redirect from the Korean term is sufficient for the English language Wikipedia. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Earful Tower → Earffel Tower —(Discuss)— It is spelled Earffel in the US and in Paris, not just in Paris. I back it up with a link to a Disney official webpage referring to it as Earffel Tower. --TIB (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mujahideen → Mujahid —(Discuss)— currently at plural form, should be singular ("A Mujahid is, bla bla, per MOS. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Requested removed before adjudication by admin. — AjaxSmack 13:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions → ? —(Discuss)— Before Wikipedia:Naming conventions became policy, the page used to say "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages." so the current name was appropriate, but once it became policy, the name is not as clear as it could be. In line with the hierarchy that other policies and guidelines have, I suggest that this page becomes the unambiguous policy page and that the guidelines remain clearly guidelines. Currently it is difficult for a new editor to see clearly that the naming convention is policy with detailed guidelines to explain the policy page rather than a sometimes conflicting amorphous mass. —Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tentacle rape → Tentacle eroticism —(Discuss)— article discusses a genre of art, some of which is pornography and some of which depicts rape. However much of the work described in the article does not concern rape, and not all of it is unambiguously pornography as opposed to erotica. For example the main example work in the article is a woodcut by Hokusai from 1820 which is generally recognised as fine art, and which depicts a traditional Japanese story involving consensual human/octopus sex. The article about the Hokusai woodcut itself links to "tentacle eroticism", which is then redirected to "tentacle rape"; the former name more correctly describes the article, and is a more commonly used term. This has been discussed on the talk page since December 2005, with all commenters in favour of the move. --Viveka (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Apple iPod range —(Discuss)
- iPod touch → iPod Touch
- iPod nano → iPod Nano
- iPod mini → iPod Mini
- iPod photo → iPod Photo
- In each case, the second word is a part of the name, (i.e. it is not "a touch", but a product called "Touch"), and according to WP:MOSCL proper nouns are generally capitalized, with no legitimate reason to make an exception here (WP:MOSTM makes it clear that Apple's styling does not entirely apply to us). To make it clear from the outset, the styling of "iPod" has no bearing on subsequent words, and does not exclude the entire title of an article from the usual rules of English, and WP:MOSCL and WP:MOSTM should be read in their spirit, rather than arguing over the literal meaning of individual words. Reserving judgment on "iPod classic", since it's not entirely clear from the article whether or not it is the actual name of the product or a popular tag. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- "iPod classic" is indeed the name of the device, starting with the sixth generation. I'll add it below. ~ PaulT+/C 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- iPod classic → iPod Classic
|
