Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

Contents
Shortcut:
WP:RM

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 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).

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".

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

  • LA Fitness → L A Fitness —(Discuss)— Current name is incorrect; Hoovers and other company database sites show the company name with a space between the 'L' and the 'A'. fintler (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Google turns up a lot more for "Maurice Vincent Wilkes". Can you prove that it his most common name? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pseudocyesis → false pregnancy —(Discuss)— False pregnancy is the common term for both pseudocyesis, which is the medical term commonly used in humans, and pseudopregnancy, which is the medical term commonly used in animals. Since pseudocyesis is uncommon, and pseudopregnancy is common in research and veterinary medicine, the title of the page should at least encompass pseudopregnancy. --Laplacian54 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Laplacian54
    • Incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that the most common use? A quick comparison of Google searches suggests that cohort (statistics) is the most common use (by a narrow margin). Perhaps cohort should be a dab page. Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that it should be a dab page at Cohort. 70.55.89.216 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Dork (EP) → Dork — Dork is currently a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Articles are preferred to soft redirects, and the EP is the only article on Wikipedia that is called "Dork". Someone looking for the EP should be able to type "Dork" into the search bar and find the EP. Neelix (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A run-of-the-mill ephemeral popular music record is NOT a dominant meaning of the word "dork". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Object it should be a dab page. There are several articles that could easily be desired if the search term is "dork". The Australian "dork fish", bassist Bill Normal (sometimes credited as "Dork", the various collections of the "Dork Tower" comic, Advanced Dork:, Dwyer and Michaels, a character on the Ferris Bueller tv show, Australian record label Dork Records, other things similar to the meaning of the word dork (nerd, geek, etc). 70.51.9.251 (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I have made page Dork into a disambig page. I welcome any comments. (What are any other names of the dork fish, e.g. its biological name?) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Australasian snapper = dork fish . 70.55.89.216 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Object - I support Anthony Appleyard's approach. Smile a While (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Day the Music Died → anything else! — (Discuss) — This article is about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, etc, but the title is taken from the song American Pie. I don't find that title suitable; it's meaningful for the song but not for an encyclopedia article. Tamajared (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other proposals

Notice 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

[edit] 10 June 2008

  • Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia → Heroes of Might and Magic III —(Discuss)— This is a long-standing issue and I don't believe that suitable attention was brought to it when polls were conducted in the past. I would like to see some real discussion and consensus reached. In short, my own reason for requesting this move is that I have not seen convincing evidence that the use of a subtitle is either canonical or common, and in addition doing so artificially limits the scope of the article. --Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 9 June 2008

  • FASA Interactive → FASA Studio —(Discuss)— Per common name. This was the name that the company used for nearly all its works; only one game to my knowledge was produced under the original and now archaic name of FASA Interactive. --Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • KMEZ → KKND — (Discuss) —- This station flipped callsign from KMEZ to KKND by it's owner. KKND became KXOS with callsign change as of May 29,2008. Cut and paste was made on KKND page as article existed and now reflects current location Mjr346 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8 June 2008

  • Psycho-biddy → Grande Dame Guignol —(Discuss)— Current term doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia --VinnieRattolle
  • Didier Ilunga Mbenga → D.J. Mbenga —(Discuss)— In English, he is more commonly referred to as D.J. Mbenga (this is how they say his name almost always on television) as opposed to his full name in French: Didier Ilunga Mbenga. Google corresponds to this: 95,500 vs. 23,100. Bash Kash (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Chişinău → Chisinau —(Discuss)— The capital of Moldova is Chisinau in English according to the Government of the Republic of Moldova [5] --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 7 June 2008

  • Ume → Prunus mume —(Discuss)— per WP:NC(flora): "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except... " for three situations that don't apply in this case. This is a textbook case of when the scientific name should be used: a single species with multiple English names. Despite a large consensus to move this article in April 2008, it was not moved. Just as an insane person repeats the same action expecting a different result, I am reviving the proposal. --— AjaxSmack 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Great Hunger → ? —(Discuss)— Consensus forming to change the current title, discussion and straw poll taking place on the Talk page as to what the title should be —Bardcom (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This discussion closed on a move request here on the 24 May. Since then there has been more requests request made, one in fact on the same day it was closed,here. It was later removed by one of the Article Mentor’s appointed after and ArbCom ruling. In addition we have had Straw Polls based on the opinion that the no consesus was in fact wrong. The same editor then started another Straw Poll, again suggesting that the consensus was to move the article. They have now placed another Move Request on the Article. Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? Editors are just adding there names to a list without forwarding any opinion or rational, hardly consesus. --Domer48 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? ?" Maybe. But it could be the case that admins keep ignoring "consensus" until those participating give up in frustration. The current WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE system of deciding the best title serves to wear down the stamina of participants so the status quo can reign. Most, if not all, of the participants you accuse of "adding there names to a list without forwarding any opinion or rational" have participated previously (copiously) and might be more succinct now due to the fatigue of having been ignored in the previous discussions. I too have added a support for an option with no opinion or rationale because I've already provided such before and if others are too lazy to scroll up and read the previous discussion, then so be it. — AjaxSmack 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? ?" Maybe? I have been involved in all of the discussions and ignoring "no consensus" indicates that the arguements, even of a majority were not good enough to change anything. Come up with a better rational and consensus may change. Now I'll ask the question again, "Is it the case that an editor can just keep adding requests until the get the result they want? ?" Now I would like an answer from someone who is not too worn down due to the fatigue of having been ignored because they were to lazy to come up with a better arguement. --Domer48 (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The admin comment on the previous proposed move was "no consensus on destination", not no consensus to move. The new proposal has fewer options for destination. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Same suggested move, still no consesus to move. Its not a vote. --Domer48 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Łukta (village) → Łukta —(Discuss)— relisting; was discussed before and agreement apparently reached, but not acted on because discussion was in wrong place --Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6 June 2008

  • United States Census, 2000 → ? —(Discuss)— I would like to move the US census articles related to a specific year (i.e., United States Census, 2000 or United States Census, 1790, but not United States Census) and have used a multimove template on all but the 2000 article's talk page. The reason stated for moving to the current name, "United States Census, 2000", is that it makes the names more like election articles. It is hard to see the virtue in that. The election articles developed the "election, [YEAR]" naming convention, but census articles have not. The US articles are the only ones that use this format for census articles. Other countries use various formats for census articles even though they all use the same election format as is used for the US election articles. The inclusion of the comma is not intuitive at all. The common way of referring to censuses in the US is as "the 1980 Census" or the "Census 2000". Options are presented at the talk page that reflect these uses. Also, the current form is unlikely to be searched, and why cut Wikipedia traffic by reducing the frequency of redirects. —Rrius (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mr. White (James Bond) → White (James Bond) —(Discuss)— this seems to be a rather contentious title, so I've decided to open a RM on this. The point seems to lie in WP:NCP, which states not to use qualifiers such as Dr., King, Saint. I interpret that as to also mean to not use "Mr" in titles too. However, it is true that this character is only referred to as "Mr. White" throughout the film. So should it remain as what is spoken in the film or do we rely on WP:NCP just list his surname instead? --hbdragon88 (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Bergesen Worldwide → BW —(Discuss)— The BW Group has rebranded since 2005 and all the companies within the group have also been rebranded with BW. It would be more accurate for the main article to be under BW, with a link to the former name of Bergesen Worldwide. --Immeraviya (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5 June 2008

And let's not forget all the other election articles: Macedonian parliamentary election, 1998, Macedonian parliamentary election, 2002, Macedonian parliamentary election, 2006, Macedonian presidential election, 2004 and Macedonian autonomy referendum, 2004, which already fall under the more appropriately-named Category:Elections in the Republic of Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure - seems to be a lot of politics in this one. This one should go to a wider discussion as there are two very polarised sides and both of them make fair points. Orderinchaos 11:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is victim of move warring. Well before 1308, the city with German merchants and German Lübeck law rights was known as Danzig (Danceke, Dantzike), thus the article had been created as Teutonic takeover of Danzig according to history and the vote policy. The current double name was recently selected by admin Gwen Gale. BTW, the Teutonic Knights were called in as allies of the Polish king, and opposed the local German merchants.-- Matthead  Discuß   10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fangoria (magazine) → Fangoria —(Discuss)— The article should be moved to simply Fangoria, as the word "Fangoria" was created for the magazine, and the only other articles on the Fangoria (disambiguation) page lead to a band (named after the magazine) and a film distributor (owned by the magazine) --User:LetsDoThisRight 12:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Phillipe Aumont → Phillippe Aumont —(Discuss)— He is listed as "Phillippe" (2 L's, 2 P's) under the list of 2007 Draft picks on the Mariners' official site, and a recent article regarding his progress in Class A minor league ball also has his name spelt as "Phillippe" --Pandacomics (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Links are here: [6][7]
  • Iraqna → Zain Iraq —(Discuss)— Iraqna has been merged into Zain Iraq and no longer exists. Requesting here because Zain Iraq is occupied by a copyvio from zain.com, the page history should be purged. --Jpatokal (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • First Transcontinental Railroad → First United States transcontinental railroad —(Discuss)— The present title is misleading and untrue. This is not the first transcontinental railroad. It is the first US or North American transcontinental railroad, and the title should reflect that. --fishhead64 (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (June 4 or older).

  • Booker T. & the M.G.s → Booker T. & The M.G.'s —(Discuss)— I have attempted to determine whether or not there is a definitive way to spell and punctuate the band's name, and have concluded that there is no such thing. However, there is clearly a problem regarding the inconsistent ways in which the name is spelled on Wikipedia. I reproduce below a comparative table of the way the band's name was spelled on its studio albums and some related albums during its own lifetime:
Green Onions - Booker T. & The M.G.s
Soul Dressing - Booker T. & The MGs
Hip Hug-Her - Booker T. & The MG's
And Now! - BOOKER T. & THE MG'S
In The Christmas Spirit - Booker T. & The MG'S
Stax/Volt Revue Live in Norway - Booker T. & The M.G.'s
Back To Back - BOOKER T. AND THE MG'S
Doin' Our Thing - BOOKER T. & THE MG'S
Soul Limbo - Booker T. & The M.G.'s
The Booker T. Set - Booker T. & The M.G.'s
Up Tight_(Original Soundtrack) - BOOKER T. AND THE M.G.S
Melting Pot - Booker T. & The M.G.'s
That's the Way It Should Be - Booker T & the MG's

It is clear that the most-used spelling was Booker T. & The M.G.'s. I propose that this should become the standard way that Wikipedia spells the band's name, not because it is the "correct" way (there seems to be no such thing, and I do not want to violate WP: ORIGINAL RESEARCH by suggesting that I think this is it) but purely as a style guideline. --Lexo (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the confusion is created by the band themselves. http://www.bookert.com claims "Booker T. and the MGs", which is what appears on the "Up Tight" front cover, but looking on the album covers at Amazon, there's a real mix:
  • Hip Hug-Her, And Now, Soul Dressing and Doin' Our Thing have "Booker T. & The MG's"
  • Soul Limbo and Back To Back have "And The M.G.'s"
  • In The Christmas Spirit, Melting Pot, McLemore Avenue, The Booker T. Set have the "& The M.G.'s".
In the absence of any consistency amongst primary sources (I mean, why do they have four grammatical variations across their albums, not even consistent with periods of time?) I'd be happy to support any change which unites them under one - & The MG's and & The M.G.'s seem to be the safest bets. Orderinchaos 04:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that the reason why they had so many different variations was that they were created by whichever happy-go-lucky bunch of people were designing record labels for Stax back in the 1960s - I'm sure they weren't too uptight about how they spelled it, and I can't really imagine the band having an official meeting to decide whether it should be The MG's or The M.G.'s. I would be happy with either of those two, because the capital T and the apostrophe seem to be the most common features, but I would like us to choose just one of them. Lexo (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless it's already been controversial, I'd say pick the one you think is best and go with it - it's six of one and half a dozen of the other in my opinion, as long as all of them are the same. Orderinchaos 11:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Livonian Order → Teutonic Order in Livonia (Discuss). — The current name of this article is not clear. This military organization was not a separate Order. — Albert Krantz (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Taoism → Daoism —(Discuss)— I think it's time to propose a move to Daoism. While in the past, the Wade-Giles spelling of 'Taoism' had undoubtedly been more popular, the pinyin spelling 'Daoism' has recently begun to be more widely used than in the past. Wikipedia has conflicting policies on the use the spelling 'Taoism'. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) convention is to "use pinyin not Wade-Giles" However, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." The first guideline is clear on the preference for pinyin, but the second is up to interpretation. I am strongly in favour of changing the article name, mostly because it better reflects the correct pronunciation of 道 (dao). Pinyin is already used for almost every other loan word for Chinese, why not for Daoism? --Zeus1234 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Diacritics in tennis player names
    • For multiple proposal and very long discussion, see this subpage.
This proposal is contested. (See Talk:Point Reyes Lighthouse.) The name change is contrary to both Wikipedia:Naming conventions and WP:NRHP. It would also get in the way of moving The Point Reyes Light to Point Reyes Light, where it belongs to comply with the Naming conventions.--Hjal (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Further note that User:Hjal is in essence calling for the renaming of virtually all US lighthouse articles. Mangoe (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
...are about church bodies (national churches or denominations).--Carlaude (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Technological escalation during World War II → Military research and development during World War II —(Discuss)— There is no usage of "Technological escalation" in available sources. The article can be used as the main article for the (to be created) category:Military research and development during World War II with some editing, expansion and sources added --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Quiz channel → Participation television —(Discuss)— The quiz channel genre, for years incorporated into the title of participation television by the UK communications regulator Ofcom[8]. At the moment, although quiz shows still run, channels and shows are moving towards casino and bingo programming. I feel that to cover these changes and as per Ofcom, it would be better to incorporate everything into an article named participation television with quiz channel as a redirect. ----tgheretford (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)