Misplaced Pages

:Requested moves - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrewa (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 26 April 2008 (→26 April 2008: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:58, 26 April 2008 by Andrewa (talk | contribs) (→26 April 2008: typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

For proposed mergers, see WP:Proposed mergers.

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.

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

26 April 2008

  • Ohio State University → The Ohio State University —(Discuss)— In light of the recent move of AFC Wimbledon to its proper name, I think that this article should also be moved for the same reason. The Ohio State University is the proper, legal name used by the University in all of its officially released information. The fact that we have a common format for "XYZ State University" should not matter if it leads to the article being given an incorrect title. Whenever possible we should call things by their proper names, and this name is well known enough to not create problems. Also, we can link Ohio State University to The Ohio State University in the same way that we currently do the inverse. I see no reason why we shouldn't make this move. —-- Grant.Alpaugh 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • MTV ® → MTV R —(Discuss)— We shouldn't have the registered trademark symbol in any titles (well, except for ®), but especially not here, where it's being used a poor substitute for the network's logo. It's also confusing to people who might think it just means MTV, which is of course a registered trademark. ——Chowbok ☠ 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

25 April 2008

  • The Wicker Man → The Wicker Man (1973 film) —(Discuss)— Nobody has provided any proof on why this should be the primary topic. As the article notes, it largely slipped into obscurity but it has won a few awards. Article statistics from March show an average of about 1162 hits a day , minus an avg. of 205 hits because people check the dab page as they didn't find the right one. In contrast, the 2006 film remake got about 745 hits a day , which matches up very strongly against the 1973 film (about 957), indicating that the 1973 film does not significantly outrank other instances of TWM. I therefore suggest creating a primary disambiguation page without the (disambiguation) unless someone has a good reason for keeping the 1973 film as the primary title —hbdragon88 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

24 April 2008

  • Figurehead (metaphor) → Figurehead —(Discuss)— This is by far the most common use of the word 'figurehead' today. Additionally, the article about the metaphor could be expanded considerably. —16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

23 April 2008

  • Java (Sun) → Java Platform —(Discuss)— Move over redirect: the parenthetical (Sun) is awkward for several reasons, but especially because you have to already know the context to understand what it means (the name of the company who owns the Java Platform, as opposed to a celestial star). Since the scope of the article is an overview of the Java Platform, this seems to be the most obvious title for it. —Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

22 April 2008

  • Tricia Walsh-Smith → YouTube divorce video —(Discuss)— WP:BLP1E says "Cover the event, not the person." It seems clear that this person's notability pre-YouTube divorce video does not warrant a Misplaced Pages article, hence a single event like this does not make her notable, even if the event is. Looking at the sources, the only ones not relating to this event are her own home page, something about another law suit and an extremely thin IMDb page (apparently she played "Mother in Park" in an episode of "Grange Hill" back in 1987...) Basically this is all blatant self-promotion. I'm also open for other name suggestions. —Lampman 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Tricia Walsh is indeed a notable Broadway playwright. At the very least notable enough for an entry in the project. --Camptown (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Well then my question would have to be: if she's such a notable playwright, why is there hardly anything about that in the article, but endless info on the divorce? Lampman 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

21 April 2008

  • Alan Γoa → Alan Goa —(Discuss)— My assumption is that the naming conventions mandate latin characters for page titles. From the possible transcriptions available, Alan Goa is the most popular in Google scholar and Google books (with Alan Qoa as distant second), so that's seems the best candidate. Both latin and greek gamma give no results. --Latebird (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Latebird (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (January 9 or older).

  • National Socialist German Workers Party → Nazi Party —(Discuss)— A long-standing previous consensus was overturned without adequate discussion or a poll by moving the Nazi Party article to National Socialist German Workers Party. I believe the user was acting in good faith, but his unilateral move should still be overturned pending discussion. This proposal will no doubt be controversial, but I do not believe those supporting the recent move should be able to use the fait accompli to argue that the article should remain at its new location unless otherwise decided by a new consensus. The burden should not be on those supporting the previously established state of affairs, which had been in place for some two years, to make their case again. But if it comes to that, the case is as follows: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions states that "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The majority of English speakers overwhelmingly use the term "Nazi Party". Google registers 847,000 hits for "Nazi Party" and only 65,400 hits for "National Socialist German Workers Party" . That's a ratio of over 13:1 in favour of "Nazi Party." In other articles, we have already established the fact that political parties and entities do not need to be listed using their full official names, especially when those names are very long. For example, we have a main article called Nazi Germany rather than Great German Reich; we have Soviet Union rather than Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; we have North Korea instead of Democratic People's Republic of Korea; we have Conservative Party (UK) rather than Conservative and Unionist Party (UK); and so on. The sheer length of the name "National Socialist German Workers Party" is probably the reason why most English speakers prefer to use a shorthand. It also means that linking to this article is certainly not second nature right now. —Nikodemos (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories: