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 19:28, 15 November 2007 view sourcePeeJay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers208,587 edits →Other proposals: The Football League → Football League← Previous edit Revision as of 20:37, 15 November 2007 view source Vegaswikian (talk | contribs)270,510 edits →November 15, 2007: removed burma to myanmar- Discuss on talk page to develop a consensus before we have another survey without any consesus supportNext edit →
Line 49: Line 49:
*'''] → ]''' —('']'')— While the organisation's logo includes the definite article, it is not commonly included in regular speech, and should be removed from the article name per ]. —- ] 19:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) *'''] → ]''' —('']'')— While the organisation's logo includes the definite article, it is not commonly included in regular speech, and should be removed from the article name per ]. —- ] 19:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''] → ]''' —('']'')— move over redirect to official ] name —18:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)] *'''] → ]''' —('']'')— move over redirect to official ] name —18:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]

*'''] → ]''' —('']'')— This one hasn't died down yet, debate under way. Thanks, ] 16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
**'''''Procedural Close''''' This was just discussed ''last month'' ! ] 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


*'''] → ]''' —('']'')— The merge/move was discussed at length at the talk page but both names carry revision history that must be cleaned-up —] 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC) *'''] → ]''' —('']'')— The merge/move was discussed at length at the talk page but both names carry revision history that must be cleaned-up —] 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:37, 15 November 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.

Purge the cache to refresh this page 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: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.

Incomplete and contested proposals

  • Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse → Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel — Hesse was not united during Frederick's reign and was composed of the landgraviates of Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel. Hesse-Darmstadt became the Grand Duchy of Hesse and Hesse-Cassel became the Electorate of Hesse, but because they had the same rank before elevation to different statuses, they had differencing names. The article was moved over a year ago on the assumption it was a noble title, but it was a ruling one. —Charles 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Charles listed this under "Uncontroversial proposals", but since this page has been moved four times since creation, I'd say that it's name is at least somewhat controversial. Noel S McFerran 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say confused, admittedly, but certainly not controversial. Three moves were by one editor: Incorrect move to a form specified for kings, emperors and consorts, incorrect move to the wrong territory and a final move to the correct territory. A second user came in and assumed it was a title of a royal house (e.g. a title like "duke of Savoy" or "duke of Orléans") and moved it. A move to the correct territory is non-controversial in light of the past confusion of others. All of this occurred over a year ago. Charles 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
RM would certainly go through without a hitch, I'd say. If it is thought to be necessary given this, I'll go ahead with that, if not, I think the noncontroversial nature can be realized through the admittedly confusing move history. Charles 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • resource energy → non-renewable energy — WP:NC resource energy gets half as many hits on google as non-renewable energy. I had never even heard of it. None of the Google hits I checked even use resource energy in the same manner as the article. The company "Resource energy" for example, makes ethanol, a renewable energy source, another page uses the term renewable resource energy to list how much of their electricity is from renewable sources. —199.125.109.108 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Item was previously listed under "uncontroversial proposals", but it is clearly contested. Resource energy was a title previously reached by other editors as a compromise for a naming convention, as what fits in the category of non-renewable energy is not consistent depending on who you ask. However, it would appear that some editors would rather have the page as an unreferenced description of their own opinion. -Theanphibian 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Non-renewable energy is a very common term, I can find no references at all that use the term "resource energy". It appears to be a made up term for Misplaced Pages, not something that Misplaced Pages allows. 199.125.109.134 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Other proposals

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

November 15, 2007

November 15, 2007

November 13, 2007

November 12, 2007

November 11, 2007

November 10, 2007

November 9, 2007

November 8, 2007

November 7, 2007

  • RTP 1 → RTP1 -(Discuss)— The name of this Portuguese channel is in fact RTP1, and not RTP 1. The sister channel RTP2 has a correct title.
  • Asha → Asha (Zoroastrianism) —(Discuss)— I am proposing a move of existing “Asha” article to “Asha (Zoroastrian principle)” and the new “Asha” or “ASHA” has to be re-directed to “Asha (disambiguation)” page. (existing ASHA also to move later) This is because I see that a variety of Asha's with distinctive senses. —Avinesh Jose 07:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sophie of Sweden → Princess Sophie of Sweden —(Discuss)— WP:NC(NT) specifies, for females, the current form of this article's name (Sophie of Sweden) for the following: empresses-regnant, queens-regnant, empresses-consort, queens-consort and princesses around or before the 17th century. Sophie was "only" a grand duchess and in practise, and cited as in accordance with WP:NC(NT), articles for consorts below the rank of queen are moved to the form Title Givenname of Place. —Charles 05:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed.

Oppose. There are both Macedonian and Bulgarian minorities in Albania and fail to see how to see why why the ethnic Macedonian spelling is preferred. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
An existence of a Bulgarian ethnic minority is not officialy recognized by official Albania. (source: Southeast European Times),and hence the Bulgarian language is not in official use. There's no a reason why the title should be in Bulgarian. However I didnt remove the Bulgarian spelling inside the article, its still there (despite not being properly sourced) Dzole
Support. As seen above Albania says there is no Bulgarian minority. It would be irredentist POV to list Macedonian cities under Bulgarian names. Ireland101 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, several additional sources were added (explained in a detail), and an image, along with a source, which has been already accepted by many other editors in Vergina Star. Dzole 05:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Spice World (film) → Spice World —(Discuss)— Spice World currently redirects to Spiceworld (the album) with a hat to Spice World. This seems backwards to me. The movie is definitely better known, and the space/capital configuration is the proper spelling for the movie but improper for the album. A move to Spice World for the movie with a hat disambig at the top would suffice. — Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Militsiya → Militia (Police) —(Discuss)— The term Militia was used in many former communist states in their respective official languages. Currently it is not clear what perspective the article deals with: Only the ex-Soviet and/or the modern Russian one? Or it includes the Eastern Bloc countries such as Poland which had the Milicja Obywatelska and the Non-Aligned SFR Yugoslavia which had its own Milicija? All of these countries regardless of their differences adopted the term "militia" for their police forces following the same Bolshevik Leninist example: The usage of the term "militia" for "police", despite its original military conotation, originates from early Soviet history, when the Bolsheviks intended to associate their new law enforcement authority with the self-organization of the people and to distinguish it from the "bourgeois class protecting" police. A decision should be made: either the article will deal with the Russian police only OR it will deal with all the (former) communist police forces named Militia regardless of the country. Moreover the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ministry of Police) has its own article with a detailed overview of the history of law enforcement in Russia. —Dzole 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rodimus → Hot Rod (Transformers) - Discuss - Misplaced Pages: Naming conflict suggests quite clearly ] that common names take precednce over current. Hot Rod is far better known than Rodimus and has been used in the bulk of fiction (including the most recent IDW comics), while Rodimus has only a few toys, and is used primarily because Hot Rod is copyrighted these days.SMegatron 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: