Misplaced Pages

:Requested moves/Current discussions: 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.
< Misplaced Pages:Requested moves Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:31, 17 March 2010 editRM bot (talk | contribs)87,489 edits Updating requested pagemoves list← Previous edit Revision as of 11:16, 17 March 2010 edit undoRM bot (talk | contribs)87,489 edits Updating requested pagemoves listNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
===March 17, 2010=== ===March 17, 2010===
* ''(])'' — '''] → ]''' — More neutral title; a compromise between "CRU hacking incident" and "Climategate". ] ] 11:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

* ''(])'' — '''] → ]''' — * ''(])'' — '''] → ]''' —


Revision as of 11:16, 17 March 2010

March 17, 2010

March 16, 2010

March 15, 2010

March 14, 2010

March 13, 2010

  • (Discuss) — Gin Chinese → Gin people — * The official name of them is not based on Chinese language, but native language. Gin and Kinh are different transcription of Vietnamese language of their endonym, just as the majority of China call themself Han people. In Chinese document, Chinese language is called "Han Chinese language" as "official English" in ethnic introduction and Vietnamese language is treated as the abbr of "Gin Vietnamese language" or "Gin language in Vietnam", whereas "Gin language in China" or simply "Gin language" refer the language of resident of Fangchenggang. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Ibn Sina Peak → Lenin Peak — The name of the peak has been Lenin Peak for decades, and is still the most used name in English. The official name of the peak in Kyrgyzstan is still Lenin Peak (peak lies on the border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan). "Ibn Sina Peak" name is only used in Tajikistan. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 12, 2010

  • (Discuss) — Ulema → Ulama — Yes, I see there was already a discussion about this archived below, but the vote was :2 support:3 neutral:2 opposeOf the two who oppose, both assert (without any support) that ulema is more common in English. Except it isn't. The Library of Congress and the Encyclopaedia Britannica both use ulama. Google pulls 3.78m for ulama -wiki versus 2.78m for ulema -wiki. The results show exactly what one would expect: ulema is a regional Turkish and Pakistani use; ulama is the proper Arabic term, more common in English, and used in organizations even in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Turkey. You'd think the idea of ulema as proper English comes from use under the British Raj or possibly British dealings with Ottoman Turkey, but google.co.uk gives 36,900 pages in the UK for ulama -wiki and only half as may (18k) for ulema -wiki. The page is in the wrong place. -LlywelynII (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — B.o.B. → B.o.B — B.o.B's name is spelled/typed as "B.o.B" not "B.o.B." --NO 4 Life 22:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Reno Silver Sox → Reno Silver Sox (Golden Baseball League) — The team that currently has the "(minor league team)" disambiguation had over 40 years of history and affiliation with Major League Baseball teams. On the other hand, the GBL team, currently at the disambiguous ambiguous title, existed under this name for 3 seasons. Ghits will be skewed in favor of the GBL team because it played in the internet age while the MiLB team disbanded in 1992. The GBL article also has a lot more inlinks but I suspect that a lot of them, including several MLB team season articles, are intended to point to the MiLB team, therefore I do think that the MiLB team is the primary topic. —KuyaBriBri 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Misplaced Pages:About → Help:About — As well as a means of segregating information based on readership, the namespaces determine what sort of content can be expected. Misplaced Pages namespace is the project namespace and should be kept for editing and all other related pages. The Help namespace should be for help. This page is primarily for reader help and therefore should not be in Misplaced Pages namespace (which is for editors). Help:About current redirects to this page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 11, 2010

  • (Discuss) — Kyiv Bilshovyk Uprising → Kiev Bolshevik Uprising — To substitute the Ukrainian words Kyiv (Київ) and Bilshovyk (Більшовик) for its English equivalents "Kiev" and "Bolshevik".Currently, this article is titled "Kyiv Bilshovyk Uprising". Wouldn't "Kiev Bolshevik Uprising" be a better title ? *It would be more consistent with the criteria mentioned in the "Deciding an article title" section of our policy on article titles.*It would be consistent with our entries on both Kiev & Bolshevik.*A Google Books search for "Kyiv Bilshovyk Uprising" comes up empty (although asking if I meant "Kyiv Bolshevik Uprising").
    A Google Books search for "Kiev Bolshevik Uprising" doesn't return any direct results, but indicates that at the very least those words are used in English-language publications.I'm not familiar with the name(s) given to these events in English-language publications, and the current formulation is a good descriptive title, but at the very least we should make the words understandable to our anglophone readership. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Cansei de Ser Sexy (album) → Cansei de Ser Sexy — The page for Cansei de Ser Sexy is currently a disambiguation for two articles: this one, and the one for the band, in which the Discussion found a consensus that the band's name should stay as an acronym. Thus, the only article that would have this full name spelled out would be this one, so to be more efficient, I suggest moving it to get rid of the (album) at the end, and deleting the disambiguation page in its place. Closetoeuphoria (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

March 10, 2010

  • (Discuss) — New town → Planned city — New Town is an odd read for many. These places are commonly called Planned cities and this term is commonly used in the article. As a part of this, it might be necessary to split off some of the UK stuff that clearly relates to a name used there for specific places. I'll add that new is a rather confusing term for places that have existed for hundreds of years. I'll add that the proposed name matches what is used on commons, Category:Planned cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Impulse (disambiguation) → Impulse — The previous "Impulse" article was already moved to Mechanical impulse and is now a redirect. Completing the move of this dab page was contested on the grounds of being potentially controversial. Per the previous comment above, the word "impulse" is used as a title for many different subjects, and there is no demonstration of any primary topic. Hence, in lieu of any actual objections, I am requesting that this page be moved. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

  • (Discuss) — Stereotypes of white people → ] — I suggest that the article be renamed Prejudice/Discrimination against white people, or Anti-white sentiment/racism, along the lines of several other articles in the series. This article is part of the racism series, and is the only article that deals with racism against white people as a subject. An article which is solely about anti-white stereotypes is therefore inadequate. The article should also cover reverse discrimination, and racially-motivated crimes against white people, and all major themes and events which are or are alleged to relate to anti-white racism. (I'm aware that some of the other articles in the series also deal exclusively with 'stereotypes'; I would also support an equivalent page-move for those articles. I am aware this would be a seperate issue, but I thought I would point it out in case anyone brought up the precedent of co-articles about stereotypes.) BillMasen (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Sándor Radó → Alexander Rado — When checking what articles link to this one I noticed several links from the redirect "Sandor Rado" that were about a totally different person (I have since disambiguated these links to Sandor Rado (psychoanalyst). It seems there's another notable person going by the name of Sandor Rado, and considering the subject of this article is more widely known by the name "Alexander Rado", maybe that would be a better choice for the article title. -- œ 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Cal Poly San Luis Obispo College of Engineering → Cal Poly College of Engineering (San Luis Obispo) — The name of the College of Engineering is "Cal Poly College of Engineering." See ceng.calpoly.edu. The university notes its official name as "Cal Poly" and "California Polytechnic State University." See http://warc.calpoly.edu/universityid/univnameuse.html. The usage of "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo" is explicitly rejected. Id. In addition to offical name usage, it is the name that is commonly used: the College of Engineering itself uses it (see again, ceng.calpoly.edu); calpoly.edu, calpoly.com, calpoly.net, calpoly.org are all owned by Cal Poly and associated with Cal Poly servers; Cal Poly does not use "San Luis Obispo" in its athletic teams (see http://gopoly.com/), facebook uses "Cal Poly" to denote the university, etc. This is in contrast to "Cal Poly Pomona," which explicitly rejects usage of "Cal Poly" without "Pomona" (see http://www.csupomona.edu/~publicaffairs/graphics/nomenclature.shtml); does not use "calpoly" in its web address (see csupomona.edu), is not the original Cal Poly, and does not label its engineering college without the word "Pomona." Furthermore, the "Cal Poly College of Engineering" artile used to directly go what is now the "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo College of Engineering" article. It was only recently changed, and the change was erroneous. In an effort to compromise, I suggest moving this page to "Cal Poly College of Engineering (San Luis Obispo)." Sawagner201 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — BevMo! → Beverages & More — "Beverages & More" is the full, and most recognizable, name for this topic and therefore the appropriate name per WP:TITLE. "BevMo" is an abbreviation only appropriate within a context of established familiarity, e.g. the outside source cited only uses "BevMo" after properly introducing the company as "Beverages & More". Additionally, the exclamation point should be dropped per MOS:TM. ENeville (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Afro-Brazilian → ] — If it is correct that neither official sources nor the academic world nor people in Brazil refer to these groups as 'African Brazilians' or 'Afro-Brazilians' but use the term 'negro' and 'pardo', then this certainly means the naming of this article can't be upheld. It can be determined in a later step whether a separate article is appropriate for 'pardos' or whether it makes more sense to cover this group in a substantial extent within this article. The naming of Black people in France or Black people in Europe seems to be a more appropriate naming scheme for this. The alternative name 'Brazilians of Black African ancestry' (such as in Portuguese of Black African ancestry) seems to be somewhat acceptable, but inferior as it ignores the fact that race is a socially constructed concept and not immediately bound to a specific ancestry. PanchoS (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) — Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — Those editors whose attention span extends back into the mists of history, or January 2010 to be more precise, may vaguely recall that there was an abortive discussion over moving this subject, the only just-Elizabeth II we have an article on that anyone might have heard of, to just-Elizabeth II. The arguments in favour of the move remain much as they were. Shorter but still unambiguous. Least amount of wounded national pride (obviously there's nothing can be done to please people who have a problem with the "II"). In line with the general guidance for titling articles. Probably other things which will be mentioned below I'm sure.The arguments against remain the same too. Doesn't meet some obscure, badly written, and poorly thought-out guideline hidden away in a corner of Misplaced Pages behind a door marked "Beware of the Tiger", etc. Some other stuff too that someone will be along to tell you all about shortly. Clearly there are many other articles which could be moved for the same reasons (Elizabeth I of England → Elizabeth I; Edward VIII of the United Kingdom → Edward VIII; George VI of the United Kingdom → George VI; blah; blah; blah), but this isn't about any of those. Points will not be deducted for repetition, hesitation or deviation, but it would be good to avoid these pitfalls all the same. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)