Misplaced Pages

:Requested moves: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:08, 10 August 2008 view sourceJPG-GR (talk | contribs)Administrators55,121 edits →Backlog: two completed← Previous edit Revision as of 23:15, 10 August 2008 view source JPG-GR (talk | contribs)Administrators55,121 edits moving one to dated section; rm discussion present on talkpageNext edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
* '''] → {{noredirect|Quake}}''' — The current dab pg is more important than the computer game. — -- ] (]) - 09:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC) * '''] → {{noredirect|Quake}}''' — The current dab pg is more important than the computer game. — -- ] (]) - 09:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:This proposal is controversial and should be discussed first. The current setup seems appropriate to me. ] (]) 12:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC) :This proposal is controversial and should be discussed first. The current setup seems appropriate to me. ] (]) 12:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

⚫ *'''] → ]''' —('']'')—A ended with a move to ], but that consensus was , whose rationale was "Fuck the MOS." I propose we put the page where the first move would've had us put it. "ABN Amro" is common in sources. It's the style used by , , , , , , and , among many others. The main argument against the move is that because the company uses all caps when formatting its name, "ABN AMRO" is the "official name" or "legal name," but our guidelines, particularly ], hold that when such styles are in dispute, we should use "the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." It is clear that "ABN Amro" is standard English, since it is used among a broad range of sources, including major financial trade publications, and since the word "Amro" is pronounced as a single word, not letter-by-letter. Furthermore, even if you believe that capitalization is part of the name and not just a style issue, ] holds that we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or thing." It is clear that .--] (]) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:'''Oppose move.'''--The move was quickly made before other editors could participate in the discussion which led a key administrator with ABN ARMO as a client, who did know about the move request until it was too late, overruled it. ABN AMRO is the legal name of the corporation and is identified as ABN AMRO in all legal documents and business directories. We are NOT talking about ABN AMRO as a trademark, we are talking about ABN AMRO as the legal name of a corporation. As for the use of "ABN Amro" by journalistic sources, those sources are split. The New York Times and BBC News, to give two examples, used both "ABN AMRO" and "ABN Amro" in news stories. It is not the job of Misplaced Pages to tell a company what to call itself. ABN AMRO is a set of abbreviations standing for the Dutch financial institution Algemene Bank Nederland/Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank. So it's obvious that AMRO or (to be more proper) AmRo stands for Amsterdam-Rotterdam. But "AmRo" would make the article look silly. So the acronym AMRO is used and acronyms are always spelled out in all-capital letters. ] (]) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:'''Oppose move''' for the reasons Steelbeard1 states, and the un-moving admin's point (which I also keep making) that it is not wikipedia's place to tell this company how they should style their name. Many respected sources spell it all caps, so it's clear there is no public consensus on the matter, and thus the company's own styling of the name trumps the issue. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
::'''Also note''' that the original move to ABN Amro was ''by no means'' a clear consensus, as the same issues opposing it were brought up then. Amro or AMRO is no more of a standard English word than ABN is. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


==Other proposals== ==Other proposals==
Line 57: Line 52:


*'''] → ]''' —('']'')— In more detail at ], but basically it is ridiculous to ascribe a sexual preference or psychological profile (a "foo-sexuality") to animals. Right now the suggested page is protected from creation. − ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) --− ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) *'''] → ]''' —('']'')— In more detail at ], but basically it is ridiculous to ascribe a sexual preference or psychological profile (a "foo-sexuality") to animals. Right now the suggested page is protected from creation. − ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) --− ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 06:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

⚫ *'''] → ]''' —('']'')—A ended with a move to ], but that consensus was , whose rationale was "Fuck the MOS." I propose we put the page where the first move would've had us put it. "ABN Amro" is common in sources. It's the style used by , , , , , , and , among many others. The main argument against the move is that because the company uses all caps when formatting its name, "ABN AMRO" is the "official name" or "legal name," but our guidelines, particularly ], hold that when such styles are in dispute, we should use "the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." It is clear that "ABN Amro" is standard English, since it is used among a broad range of sources, including major financial trade publications, and since the word "Amro" is pronounced as a single word, not letter-by-letter. Furthermore, even if you believe that capitalization is part of the name and not just a style issue, ] holds that we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or thing." It is clear that .--] (]) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


*'''] → ]''' —('']'')— This article is really about both of them. Their notability in[REDACTED] is directly and solely tied to their being a married couple in a significant and historic US Supreme Court ruling reguarding marriage rights. ] There is no significant chance of either Mildred or Richard ever having their own articles separate from their joint article. As near as I can tell, no editing (or very minor copy editing) of the actual article would be required for the title change, as the article in reality is already about both of them. --] (]) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC) *'''] → ]''' —('']'')— This article is really about both of them. Their notability in[REDACTED] is directly and solely tied to their being a married couple in a significant and historic US Supreme Court ruling reguarding marriage rights. ] There is no significant chance of either Mildred or Richard ever having their own articles separate from their joint article. As near as I can tell, no editing (or very minor copy editing) of the actual article would be required for the title change, as the article in reality is already about both of them. --] (]) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:15, 10 August 2008

Administrator instructions

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
For requested mergers, see Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion.

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Misplaced Pages: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.

This proposal is controversial and should be discussed first. The current setup seems appropriate to me. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 12:09, 7 August 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

10 August 2008

  • Rania, Queen of Jordan → Queen Rania of Jordan —(Discuss)— This page was moved to a form that does not conform to the existing convention on the naming of queen consorts, and with no clear consensus for the move. It sets a precedent (as the original proposer correctly pointed out) which in my opinion will result in the creation of several unhelpful article names in place of the sensible ones that are currently in use. --Deb (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • IAA (disambiguation) → IAA —(Discuss)— This article, which has been at the title IAA for 5 years, was recently moved with no discussion to its current title, and IAA was redirected to a motor show (OK, apparently the largest motor show in the world). I believe that there is no primary usage for "IAA" and have redirected "IAA" to this dab page, but I request that this dab page be moved back to its original and correct title of "IAA". --PamD (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Adel (disambiguation) → Adel —(Discuss)— This page was recently moved from Adel to Adel (disambiguation) and Adel was made into a redirect to German nobility. I do not agree that German nobility is the primary usage of the word "Adel", which has many uses as placename and personal name, so I request that this disambiguation page be moved back to the title "Adel". --PamD (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose How many would know it was the Indian Territory back in the day? Oklahoma has been a term used for most of the time after 1865, and makes the information easier to find. It also keeps a consistent pattern of "STATE in the American Civil War".--King Bedford I 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Mildred Loving → Mildred and Richard Loving —(Discuss)— This article is really about both of them. Their notability in[REDACTED] is directly and solely tied to their being a married couple in a significant and historic US Supreme Court ruling reguarding marriage rights. Loving v. Virginia There is no significant chance of either Mildred or Richard ever having their own articles separate from their joint article. As near as I can tell, no editing (or very minor copy editing) of the actual article would be required for the title change, as the article in reality is already about both of them. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

9 August 2008

  • Canute the Great → Cnut —(Discuss)— Essentially, "Canute" is a character of legend, who tried to stop the incoming tide; "Knud den Store" is how the historical figure is known in Danish - i.e., he's not generally known as "Canute/Cnut the Great" in English; "Cnut" was a king of England. Though there is already a page "Cnut", it is only a re-direct. --Nortonius (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

8 August 2008

7 August 2008

6 August 2008

5 August 2008

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (January 17 or older).

  • Sedan (car) → Sedan —(Discuss)— Procedural move request. This was boldly moved in April, boldly undone, and then it was boldly moved again in July. Today a bot started fixing dab page redirects, which is when I (and most likely others) noticed the move. As a result here's been considerable discussion on the talk page today on the merits of the move -- basically a battle between whether "sedan" is the primary usage or American-centricity. I think the best thing would be to have a full and formal discussion. There's a limit to boldness when tempers are rising. --DeLarge (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Chinese wén → Chinese cash (currency unit) or something else —(Discuss)— Per WP:UE (use English for article titles), WP:UCN (use the most common name for article titles), WP:OR (no original research), and Numismatics Style guidelines (use the term for the currency that is most commonly used by standard English language sources.). The use of the romanization of the Chinese in this case appears to be largely a creation of Misplaced Pages. The title should reflect the common English name for the currency unit but the English name, "cash", has other uses in this context (see Chinese cash). A similar previous request was closed due to admin confusion over terminology but underlying multiple guidelines violations were not addressed. Relisting with wider notice to try and get more input. — AjaxSmack 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Requested moves: Difference between revisions Add topic