Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Son of Man (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 10 September 2008 (→Other proposals: Requested move: Stay (2005 film) to Stay (film)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Administrator instructions

For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

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 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.

Korean names

Others

The article Naïve covers more than just the word "naïve". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

10 September 2008

9 September 2008

8 September 2008

  • Siamese fighting fish → Betta splendens —(Discuss)— The far more common name for these fish is simply "Betta". There are no foods marketed towards "fighting fish" or "rumble fish", or even "betta fish". Betta is already taken, so this article should be located at Betta splendens, not at a next-runner-up common name. I had possibly encountered the name "Siamese fighting fish" when I was a child, but not since, until I came across this article. It's just silly. A Google search for Siamese fighting fish yields 184,000, but Betta splendens yields 341,000, implying that even the scientific name is more common than this "common name". --~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 September 2008

  • Free Area of the Republic of China → Taiwan Area —(Discuss)— The current article name is a politically POV term used by independence groups of Taiwan. The article interwikis to 타이완 지구, 台灣地區, and 臺灣地區, which mean "Taiwan region" in Korean, Cantonese, and Chinese respectively. The article is linked-in by number of articles as if it is an article about Taiwan (for example Ministry of Education (Republic of China), Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau). The current name is POV because one can easily find a term describing the opposing points of view (i.e. liberate Taiwan, unliberated province of China). The proposed name "Taiwan Area" comes from the article itself, which states 'In ordinary legislation, the term "Taiwan Area" is usually used'. "Taiwan Area" is a politically neutral term because it only mentions geography and it agrees with the current interwikis. --Voidvector (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 September 2008

5 September 2008

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (December 14 or older).

  • The split being discussed is into "reaction to" and "recognition of". I don't see consensus for such a split on the talk page - and I don't think it's a good idea. The two concepts seem completely intertwined to me. If there were a clear consensus, I'd say 'try it', we can always merge later if it doesn't work. But lacking consensus, I don't think it's a good idea. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diocletianic Persecution → Great Persecution —(Discuss)— Nowhere (outside Wikipedia) is the term "Diocletianic Persecution" in wide use. Most reliable sources use the term "Great Persecution" to define the matter for study. Not all of Diocletian's persecutions are covered by the subject matter of the "Great Persecution" as traditionally defined. Not all persecutions covered by the subject matter of the "Great Persecution" as traditionally defined are strictly 'Diocletianic'. --Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fictional film → Fiction film —(Discuss)—As seen at the archive, a long and rancorous debate closed with no consensus. The main objection IMHO was that the literature uses the term "fictional film" to mean "a film that is a work of fiction" and that the OED apparently doesn't list "fiction" as having use as an adjective. However, as the main objector himself acknowledged, both the terms "fiction film" and "fictional film" are used in the literature, including my the co-author of the book to which he pointed as definitive. That the OED does or doesn't note contemporary usage of the word "fiction" is not relevant, as common sense tells us that the word is used as an adjective in ordinary English usage. "Fictional" used to mean "contained within a work of fiction" is in widespread if not overwhelming usage across Wikipedia, with no fewer than 5,526 resultsin category names alone. Of particular note is Category:Fictional films, which collects articles on films that exist only within other works of fiction. By contrast, the Category:Fiction structure (including Category:Fiction books, a usage of which the objector claimed never to have heard before) deals with works of fiction. Clearly, maintaining this article at its current title is in conflict with a number of usage conventions within Wikipedia. Moving it resolves the ambiguity, allows for the creation of an article about fictional films should someone care to write one and brings the article in line with how things are done throughout the project. --Otto4711 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=237479191"