Misplaced Pages

:Requested moves: Difference between revisions - 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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:26, 3 October 2007 view sourceThe way, the truth, and the light (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,549 editsm October 02, 2007: not properly requested← Previous edit Revision as of 04:11, 3 October 2007 view source Ev (talk | contribs)13,000 editsm Uncontroversial proposals: minor fixNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:


<!--Please place new requests at the BOTTOM of the list --> <!--Please place new requests at the BOTTOM of the list -->

* ''']''' → ''']''' — To fix this article's duplication and allow for a proper naming discussion to take place. (I can't move it myself because the redirect has now an edit history.</br>Short history:
:#: the article is created as ].
:#: the article is moved to ].
:#: the article is moved to ] by ], without any discussion and creating ].
:#: the article is moved to ] by ], without any discussion. — This is the article's current place.
:#: ...but now the duplication is created:
:#: the article is copy & pasted at ] (which had been a redirect for 9 minutes) by ], without any discussion.
:#: the duplication is moved to ] by ], without any discussion. — This is the duplication's current place (although its talk page continues to be a redirect to ]).

:I'm requesting to turn the clock back to September 25, moving the article ] back to ], and merging the edit history of the ] duplication - or just deleting it as an almost exact deplication, since I believe that there's nothing worth preserving at the current ].

:I would prefer for a proper naming discussion to take place at ] instead of at the article's current location (]) for three reasons:
:# Due process: the moves were done without any discussion whatsoever.
:# It's the simplest way of fixing all the double redirects (compare ] with ]).
:# It's the name that I found when doing internet searches:
::*Google Books: , , & .
::*Google Scholar: , , & .
::*Amazon.com: , , & .

:I'm sorry for the length of this post. Thanks already, ] 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


=Incomplete and contested proposals= =Incomplete and contested proposals=

Revision as of 04:11, 3 October 2007

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.

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 here proposals that are needed to be 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 and use {{subst:WP:RM2|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 relist it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.


  • Sharr Mountain DogŠarplaninac — To fix this article's duplication and allow for a proper naming discussion to take place. (I can't move it myself because the redirect has now an edit history.
    Short history:
  1. 23 July 2003: the article is created as Sarplaninac.
  2. 16 January 2006: the article is moved to Šarplaninac.
  3. 09:32, 26 September 2007: the article is moved to Sarplaninac(Ilyrian Shepherd) by User:Dobermannp, without any discussion and creating double redirects.
  4. 09:37, 26 September 2007: the article is moved to Sharr Mountain Dog by User:Dobermannp, without any discussion. — This is the article's current place.
    ...but now the duplication is created:
  5. 09:46, 26 September 2007: the article is copy & pasted at Sarplaninac(Ilyrian Shepherd) (which had been a redirect for 9 minutes) by User:Meelosh NS, without any discussion.
  6. 14:03, 27 September 2007: the duplication is moved to Sharplaninac by User:Dobermannp, without any discussion. — This is the duplication's current place (although its talk page continues to be a redirect to Talk:Sharr Mountain Dog).
I'm requesting to turn the clock back to September 25, moving the article Sharr Mountain Dog back to Šarplaninac, and merging the edit history of the Sharplaninac duplication - or just deleting it as an almost exact deplication, since I believe that there's nothing worth preserving at the current Sharplaninac.
I would prefer for a proper naming discussion to take place at Šarplaninac instead of at the article's current location (Sharr Mountain Dog) for three reasons:
  1. Due process: the moves were done without any discussion whatsoever.
  2. It's the simplest way of fixing all the double redirects (compare Whatlinkshere/Sharplaninac with Whatlinkshere/Sharr Mountain Dog).
  3. It's the name that I found when doing internet searches:
I'm sorry for the length of this post. Thanks already, Ev 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete and contested proposals

Other proposals

Please use the correct template: see the instructions above.
Do not attempt to copy and paste formatting from another listing.

October 02, 2007

This move would also require moving AzureAzure (tincture) (or a similar modified name). The proposed structure would reflect the most logical progression of concept, with information on the color (generally) found at azure, and the article on the heraldic tincture available as more specific information. Currently, azure directs to the article on the tincture, even though such information is clearly a subset of information on the color generally. (Note: there has been debate on whether the tincture article should be separate from the article on the color generally, and this move can be implemented independently of that decision). ENeville 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Though this game is fairly obscure, the third title in the series was released on the Xbox 360 as Earth Defense Force 2017, which has lead to interest in this particular title, especially as it has since been given a European release as 'Global Defence Force'. However, it's still widely known as EDF2 or Chi.. the Japanese name. It seems more appropriate to have the available English name (which fits into a series). Some fans would doubtless disagree so I'm leaving it here for discussion. Thanks. 86.138.198.93 10:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • AutoCAD DWGDWG —(Discuss)— DWG is the name for an important CAD data file format. The format is used by several hundred different applications (from Visio to Corel), and many of the largest software developers (including Microsoft, Oracle, and Adobe), and is not exclusive to AutoCAD by any means. Common practice is to list important file formats by their file format name. In this case, the filename extension and file format name are one in the same: DWG. The article was originally named DWG, but was changed to AutoCAD DWG earlier this year, for rather weak reasons. It should be changed back. —EvanYares 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • LiveDistroLive CD —(Discuss)— Google test - "livedistro" gets 57,700 hits on Google, "linux live cd" gets 495,000. Live CD is the most popular name, used by books such as "Live Linux CDs: Building and Customizing Bootables" by Christopher Negus and published by Prentice Hall. ZDNet, CNet and O'Reilly amongst others all use the name. LiveDistro is clearly the less popular of the two names. —Halo 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wigwag (railroad)Magnetic Flagman —(Discuss)— The article as it stands now is primarily about the signal produced by Magnetic Flagman. There were two other manufacturers of similar signals and I'd like this original article to concentrate primarily on the original. "Magnetic Flagman" is currently a redirect. Since I no longer have admin rights by my own choosing, not to mention a new username, I'm at your tender mercy. Thanks much! I've been rather looking forward to perhaps restoring the FA status of this article. --PMDrive1061 06:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

October 01, 2007

  • Argus RentalsArgus Car Hire —(Discuss)— I'd like to request that this article, Argus Rentals, be moved to Argus Car Hire. The reason that I'm requesting it, rather than just moving it, is because Argus car hire (note capitalization) has been created (not by me) and speedily deleted, appropriately, four times recently. My reasoning for the move is as follows. Argus Rentals is a subsidiary of Argus Car Hire. While Argus Rentals has existed since 1996, Argus Car Hire, the parent organization, has been in business since 1959 and, through their subsidiaries, have grown to a notable size (rentals in UK in addition to rental brokering globally). I would like to expand the article, once moved, to include a historical account of Argus Car Hire, much like the articles on The Hertz Corporation and Budget Rent a Car, however I feel this would be inappropriate to do in the Argus Rentals article. Thanks! —Ioeth 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

September 30, 2007

  • México (state)State of Mexico-(Discuss)-First of all it has an accent, and the English language has no accents, second of all, I don't know who named the article but the name is ambiguous, everyone knows it under the name of State of Mexico (Estado de México in Spanish), precisely so I wouldn't be confused with the name of the country, therefore the name of the article should be State of Mexico, in fact everything within the article (but the title) uses that name, thank you. Supaman89 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

September 29, 2007

This is a merge request, not a move request. —  AjaxSmack  22:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

September 28, 2007

  • SoobakSubak —(Discuss)— WP:MOS-KO requires that non-loanwords be romanized using Revised Romanization. Since most people have never heard of subak, and wouldn't know what it is, it is not a loanword (unlike judo and taekwondo, for example, which are loanwords). Using revised romanization, "수박" should be romanized as "subak". Therefore, the page should be moved to Subak. I would have done it without making a formal request, but an admin is needed to move it. —Bradford44 13:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Support And if there are any alternate definitions, put them there, otherwise redirect.--ZXCVBNM 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

September 27, 2007

October 2, 2007

Gracenotes gave me the normal procedure for moving a new page, with an error in the title, but it seems to have failed due to a third page not seen.

My attempt to move "National Technical Means of Verification" to "National Means of Technical Verification" was rejected, apparently because there is already a stub article "National Technical Means". I'd propose that the latter article merge into the new one, at the same time correcting the common misconception that this is simply a euphemism of reconnaissance satellites. I believe everything in that page is covered in the new one.

As my fairly extensive discussion of non-satellite MASINT techniques shows, there is much more to verification. Indeed, I probably should have added some satellite systems that are not reconnaissance in the usual definition, such as the VELA program and its successors. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed.

This move request may be a little premature -- there's currently a merge discussion going on at Talk:Cooker#Merge discussion. Ewlyahoocom 07:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: