Closing instructions
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 has 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). Unregistered users and users not yet confirmed may request moves here. Administrator help is required in some situations, such moves can also be listed here. In some situations the appropriateness 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 regular contributors who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures. Two pages often cited during move discussions, which you might want to familiarize yourself with before making your request, are our naming convention regarding primary topics and our guideline on using common English names. Requests are generally processed after seven 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 closer may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". The processes involved in closing requests, performing moves and necessary tidying tasks when a move is performed can be viewed at closing instructions. [edit] Processes beyond the scope of this page Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves: [edit] Requesting uncontroversial moves If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial and technically possible, please feel free to move the page yourself. If you cannot move the page yourself, then request it below. Moves are possible (for registered users with accounts over four days old and ten edits) when the desired name is a red link, or in cases where the target is a simple redirect—a redirect to the current title, with no prior versions in its edit history, and the page not move-protected. After moving a page, update its text to reflect the new title. If the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is a navigation aid (e.g., a redirect or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history), the template {{db-move}} can be used instead to have that page deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G6. Note that this template requires two parameters: {{db-move|page to be moved here|reason for move}}. If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. Otherwise, post your request in the uncontroversial requests section of this page. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) If this reversion requires administrator assistance, it is also eligible to be listed here. When listing this kind of request, please include a link showing that you have attempted to discuss the page move first. [edit] Requesting potentially controversial moves [edit] Requesting a single page move Create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved. It should be formatted like this: == Requested move == {{subst:move|NewName}} A short reason for page name change. --~~~~ The name of the section does not necessarily need to be "Requested move", though it is suggested. "NewName" is what you want the new name of the page to be. This can also be done by clicking the "new section" tab on the talk page and inserting {{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}} Note that the Subject/headline should be left blank, as the heading, Requested move, is created along with a location for survey and discussion by this template, and that the template must be substituted. The template will also automatically include your signature. [edit] Requesting multiple page moves On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, create a request and format it as below. The following is an example for three pages: == Requested move == {{movereq
| multiple = yes
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| new1 = New title for page 1
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = New title for page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
}} [[FirstPage]] → [[NewFirstPage]] — A short reason for page name changes. --~~~~ * [[SecondPage]] → [[NewSecondPage]] * [[ThirdPage]] → [[NewThirdPage]] [edit] Uncontroversial requests Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require assistance from an administrator or confirmed user (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any reasonable 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 insert a bullet and include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required. If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the Contested requests section below. [edit] Contested requests With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. If you support a contested move proposal, please consider following the instructions above to add the proposed page move to the "Other proposals" section below by substituting the {{move}} template on the article's talk page. Proposals that remain here after seven days will be removed. [edit] Current discussions  | There is no need to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically when the discussion is closed.
To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page. | This list is also available in a page-link-first format. [edit] November 27, 2009 - (Discuss) — Réunionnaise Creole People → Cafre — Uh yeah partly for that reason I think this should actually get moved to Cafre since that's what it's actually about; that's the word people use there for what's described in the article for the most part. Like it says on, A la Réunion, contrairement à d'autres pays ou régions du sud-ouest de l'océan Indien, le terme y est d'un emploi courant. Il désigne "tout individu dont le phénotype renvoie plus ou moins aux origines africaines ou/et malgaches", comme le décrit le sociologue Paul Mayoka dans son essai intitulé L'image du cafre.Moringue should maybe be moved to Culture of the Indian Ocean Islands- why that's a single article anyway rather than several separate ones I don't know - as well as some info on it being at Réunion. Munci (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] November 26, 2009 - (Discuss) — Pool (cue sports) → Pocket billiards — * This move, which has already been performed (with the support of a grand total of 4 editors, 3 with virtually no connection to the topic nor experience editing articles on the topic), should be reversed (i.e. the article should be at Pocket billiards), unless the seekers of the move and/or the moving admin perform the massive cleanup necessary to undo the resulting mess created by this move. "Hit and run" moves like this are not very appropriate, and other editors should not be burdened with changing hundreds and hundreds of links to sweep up after someone's pet-peeve RM. See Talk:Pool (cue sports)#Cleanup after the move, or undo it for discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Sphereing → Globe riding — A person saying they represent Spheremania has stated on the talk page of the article that Sphereing is their registered trademark. It seems more appropriate to use a generic name for the subject than a brand name, I have suggested this term as it is already suggested as an alternative name in the article. --Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Mount Huang → Huangshan — per WP:COMMONNAME. Huangshan is a much more common name for this rather well-known mountain range: google books yields 347 hits for "huangshan" + "yellow mountain", vs. 40 for "mount huang" + "yellow". All the other entries at the current disambiguation page are named after the mountains, so the mountain range should be the primary topic. --Yaan (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] November 25, 2009 - (Discuss) — Scootering → Freestyle Scooters — Scootering (scooting, scooterers, scooterists) has been made to sound childish. Using the word freestyle is an accepted term in action sports. Freestyle Scooters is also a highly accepted term with in the community and is used to describe most companies. Having a standard of what the name is will help to achieve legitimacy. Also Scootering refers to all forms of scooters such as moderized and others and is not specific enough. --Memulligann (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Carlo Ponti, Jr. → Carlo Ponti — Mr. Ponti has himself requested that his page no longer include the "jr" moniker. But this conflicts with that of his father, the film director. Perhaps this can be disambiguated by also adding (film director) to his father's page. I see there is also a photographer of the same name... --Russianlife (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Martin Anderson death controversy → Martin Lee Anderson — This page is written about the person. The title is about the person. The categories are about the person. The "death controversy" titles should redirect to the biography. Alternatively, the article should be rewritten to be about the controvery and the categories removed, etc. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — David Grisman Quintet (band) → David Grisman Quintet — I propose renaming this article, from "David Grisman Quintet (band)" to "David Grisman Quintet". The article about the album would still be called "The David Grisman Quintet". In this case there's no need to disambiguate the article name with "(band)". I would just move the article myself, but "David Grisman Quintet" is currently a redirect to "David Grisman". — Mudwater (Talk) 13:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Template:City-state → Template:City, region — This template is truly badly named. There is a Wikipedia article at the mainspace name this template uses, city-state, which has nothing to do with what this template does. As this template is concerned with linking cities and the regions in which they are situated (whether the region is a district, county, department, state, province or country), it should be named {{city, region}} 76.66.197.2 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] November 24, 2009 - (Discuss) — Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 — Currently, our elections are on Thursdays. The clock has run out on an election on 17 December. The following Thursday is Christmas Eve, so no election then. The presence of Christmas also effectively bars an election on New Year's Eve. This means that by the time this move request closes, the election cannot happen in 2009. The possibility of the election being postponed is speculation, and there would be nothing preventing us from moving it back should that happen. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Amazon.com → Amazon (website) — ".com" should not be included in a title, unless it is explicitly included with .com in the title. Amazon.com is frequently referred to as simply Amazon, thus, the tag (website) should replace .com --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 other crap 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Navy of the Republic of Algeria → Algerian National Navy — A user boldly moved this article from "Algerian National Navy" using the reasoning that "Navy of the Republic of Algeria" is more close to the navy's official French-language name of Marine de la Republique Algerienne. A quick Google search revealed that "Algerian National Navy" would appear to be the more common name, having about 74,000 hits vs. the current name's 7 (although, undoubtedly, the results for the former included Wikipedia and mirrors). Rather than just move it back, I thought it might be best to broaden the discussion, hence this requested move. (My personal interest in the name is that the categories for the navy and its ships use the "Algerian National Navy" name; changing them through CFD to reflect a new, consensus name is a relatively minor matter.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — DMX512-A → DMX512 — The current title/pagename refers only to the newer revisions of the standard while the article covers all revisions, therefor the generic DMX512 is the correct title. Keeper of the Keys (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] November 23, 2009 - (Discuss) — An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything → E8 theory — This article covers the theory presented in the paper, and not the paper itself. The paper's history is glossed over, and the article covers papers that are NOT the paper of the title, that are used to support the theory presented in the paper. Therefore, this is not an article on the paper, it is an article on the theory.76.66.197.2 (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Selenge River → Selenga — I think the Russian name is much more common, see for example this vs. this. Page was originally created under the title Selenga, and in 2007 without prior discussion moved to the present title by an apparently Mongolian user. --Yaan (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Eg River → Egiin gol — per WP:COMMONNAME. google book yields 61 hits for "Egiin gol" + "Mongolia", vs. 19 for "Eg River" + Mongolia. Yaan (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] November 22, 2009 - (Discuss) — Portal:Aboriginal Canadians → Portal:Aboriginal Canadian — was a typo when portal made. I forgot the word portal appears to...So I would move this my self..BUT i dont know how to get the sub-portal page to come along for the ride.... Would like Aboriginal Canadian. We would then see Aboriginal Canadian portal I think "Aboriginal" should be the first word as they were here long before the area got the name Canada...yet we need Canada because it is the country they live in!! ...But lets see what others say!!!!:Dont forget we need the sub pages changed to!!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Cousin couple → Cousin marriage — – Cousin marriage is the correct term for this subject: either it or the longer "consanguineous marriage" is used in practically all scientific papers. "Cousin couple" is more colloquial and may be used in the press for effect. (It also comes from the Cousin Couples organization.) You can also see the lack of popular sources using "cousin couple" by just doing a Google search and comparing with "cousin marriage." Wikipedia comes to the top of the list for the former because it's the odd man out, except for the Cousin Couples organization. Khin2718 (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] November 21, 2009 - (Discuss) — Awakening movements → Sons of Iraq — Sons of Iraq is the much more commonly used name in news media, as even a cursory glance through Google or, even better, Google News reveals. Awakening movement is just awkward and not used as often as any of the many other names; at the very least it should be Sunni Awakening. Basically, per WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using the most common English-name. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Pomerania-Stolp → Duchy of Słupsk — Duchy of Słupsk, a term commonly used in Polish historiography (and [5] on occasion in English one) is much more informative than the current name, based on German historiography, Pomerania-Stolp (which translates as Pomernaia-Słupsk). PS. I have no prejudice against the alt name of Duchy of Stolp if sufficient argument can be made for its usage (used in one publication [6]). PPS. See also the discussion at the top which discusses if the term duchy is appropriate. I acknowledge that there may be a German term that is more specific (Teilherzogtum?), as well as Polish (pl:księstwo dzielnicowe), but the best English translation is Duchy. My final argument: WP:NC - be as simple and preceise as possible. A reader looking at Pomerania-Stolp is likely to go "eh? what?", a reader looking at "Duchy of Słupsk (Stolp)" at least gets the idea of what kind of an entity we are talking about. PS. Nominator support, obviously :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — Poznań-Wilda → Wilda, Poznań — The most generally acceptable solution of those discussed at WT:WPPL#Another naming question. The names in the form [City] [District] are neither the official names, nor the most common names, nor in accordance with the way city districts are normally named in English. The districts should be named with their real names, with a normal disambiguating tag if necessary (not needed in the case of Morasko).--Kotniski (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Discuss) — VIA Rail → Via Rail — Per WP:MOSTM, trademarks that are rendered in uppercase as a matter of corporate policy rather than because of an underlying linguistic reason are to be converted to the same regular sentence case that any other proper noun would appear in. As such, we have articles at Telus, not TELUS; Kiss (band), not KISS; Time (magazine), not TIME, and so on.I believe the repeated use of "VIA Rail" across Wikipedia rather than "Via Rail" is a straightforward contravention of this MoS convention. Via is not an acronym, nor is the uppercasing rooted in bilingualism policy, as "Via" is a cognate and homophone in both English and French. The decision to self-style in uppercase is a matter of marketing, likely undertaken to correspond with the company's logo.Per their internal style guides, the Canadian media universally recognizes this and downcases "Via". I rounded up these examples from several different major news outlets: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]If this move is undertaken, there will be numerous follow-up revisions to body text and pagemoves for other articles and templates that include "VIA" in their title that I feel comfortable pursuing on my own as uncontroversial. In light of the subject's notability, however, I figured it would be best to establish a consensus first on the primary article. The Tom (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] November 20, 2009 - (Discuss) — Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism) — It's doubtful that the original meaning of "Avatar" is still the main use of the word "Avatar" in English. Neal Stephenson co-opt of it, Avatar (computing) is probably already the most prevalent form. And mistaken hits to the original definition will only get worse with the new big budget Hollywood "Avatar (2009 film)" movie coming out in a few weeks. So I propose that generic links of Avatar go to the disambiguation page. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
|
