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 20:22, 19 May 2009 view sourceAnthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)209,150 edits →Uncontroversial requests: del vandalism← Previous edit Revision as of 20:45, 19 May 2009 view source Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)209,150 edits →Uncontroversial requests: Saint-Émile, Quebec City → Saint-Émile not done: I found another Saint-ÉmileNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the ] section below. If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the ] section below.
<!--Please place new uncontroversial proposals at the BOTTOM of the list, with a blank line between separate proposals, using a copy of: {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} --> <!--Please place new uncontroversial proposals at the BOTTOM of the list, with a blank line between separate proposals, using a copy of: {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} -->

* '''] → ] — Only Saint-Émile page. ] (]) 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 20:45, 19 May 2009

Administrator instructions

For requested mergers, see Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. For media restoration, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Media Restoration.

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 requests

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 reasonable 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 relist 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 proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. If you support an incomplete or contested move proposal, please consider following the instructions above to complete the proposal, and move it to the "Other proposals" section below under the current date. Proposals that remain incomplete after seven 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

19 May 2009

18 May 2009

17 May 2009

  • 2000–2009 → 2000s (decade) —(Discuss)— Current article name is inconsistent with all if not most templates that use "2000s" (i.e. Category:2000s music groups) and the general popular consensus that the decade be called "2000s". The actual term "2000–2009" is not notable and is used nowhere outside Misplaced Pages. A similar move to this has been requested before, but this was for a move back to "2000s", not "2000s (decade)", which is my request. I feel the latter gives enough disambiguation to address the concerns of some users of moving the article simply to "2000s". — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE 06:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

16 May 2009

  • Plenty of article titles have characters not on a standard keyboard; also, why is the Challenge M portion being dropped? This is not uncontroversial and should be discussed first. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Swap Array data structure and Array data type —(Discuss)— Data types are primitive (e.g. Machine data types), whereas data structures are higher-level and more abstract; therefore, the present "data type" article, which describes the more abstract concept, is misnamed. The opposite is true for the sister article. This is all a result of the very recent split of Array. I raised the same issue on the talkpage prior to the split's execution, but there was insufficient input and thus no clear consensus as to the right nomenclature. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Tea Party protests → Tax Day Tea Party —(Discuss)— The current article seems to cover only the Tax Day Tea Party protests, but with brief statements on the history of Tea Party protests and how they started. This is OK for the article, however, it is encyclopedic to have an article about one event (April 15 Tax Day protests) that suggests it covers all Tea Party protests. The current article also does not cover the different organizations that started the February 27 Chicago Tea Party protests, but instead, the article assumes the same organizations that started a previous event also started the April 15 Tax Day event. This is not the case. Different organizations started these two different Tea Party events. So it not correct to claim the generic article name "Tea Party protests," when in truth the article is only covering the Tax Day Tea Party protests. The allegations between both events are different, and the organizations that guided the events are different, and the outcomes of each event are different; thus, this calls for the generic name "Tea Party protests" to be moved to a clearer name of "Tax Day Tea Party." --Tycoon24 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

15 May 2009

14 May 2009

Please see discussion/survey at Talk:Bitch#Requested move
NOTE: I think there is concencensus to move this. All we need is an Admin to do the work now. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article was moved without consensus to the current title. It appears that there a consensus has been reached on the Talk page (9 to 5) to return the article to the original title and to open a new discussion on an appropriate page move. This controverisal page move was performed by User:Setanta747 who has previous history in making these types of controversial edits. The title British military history although a redirect, has history and therefore requires an admin to make the page move. Can I ask an admin to check the Talk page and make the appropriate page move. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus has not been achieved for the move. Please see the debate on the Talk page. There are as many editors opposed to the move as those in favour of it. LevenBoy (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I second the point made above. This is a blatant attempt to force through a page move without agreement. LemonMonday Talk 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I refute the points made by the above two editors. There is no consensus for the current title of the page moved out of process and there is significant support to move it back, followed by the starting of a new process to form a new agreed title, as the unproperly formed status quo has no consensus.MITH 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess this isn't the place for argument, but I refute MITH. There is definitely no consensus, as evidenced by the argument here, amongst other places. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

13 May 2009

12 May 2009

Backlog

Move dated sections here after seven days have passed (December 19 or older).

Category: