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 Sikon (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 17 November 2006 (→[] []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:57, 17 November 2006 by Sikon (talk | contribs) (→[] [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete. Things like capitalization and spelling mistakes would be appropriate here. If there is any prior discussion as to the name of the article please link to it. If there is any doubt as to whether a page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section.

Please use {{subst:WP:RM2|Old Page Name|Requested name|Reason for move}} in this section only; do not copy, paste, and edit previous entries. No dated sections are necessary, and no templates on the article's talk page are necessary.

If your request was not fulfilled, and was removed from this section, please relist it in the other proposals section below.

  • Carambole billiards → Carom billiards — Original name is archaic; hardly anyone actually uses "carambole" in English any longer, and the billiards industry, tournaments, modern billiards books, etc., consistently use "carom". Also need a vice-versa move such that "Carambole billiards" becomes a redirect to "Carom billiards" instead of the otherway around as it is right now. —— SMcCandlish ツ 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Other proposals

Make sure that all of the proposals listed below have a discussion set up on talk page of the article to be moved. Please use the template {{subst:Misplaced Pages:RM}} and, if necessary, create a new dated section.

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

16 November 2006

15 November 2006

14 November 2006

  • JDG-009X Devil Gundam → JDG-009X Dark Gundam —(Discuss)— This is a very peculiar case, IMHO. The original Japanese name of this Gundam is Devil (デビル, deberu), but it was never written in English as Devil Gundam. The official English name is Dark Gundam, as seen on Bandai's site. Google is not much help either, since "Devil Gundam" comes up with 11,100 hits, and "Dark Gundam" comes up with only 750 hits. But the official English name is still "Dark Gundam". I'm actually unsure myself which one this should be, because the Japanese name is based on an English word, but there's a different English word used for the official English name. Yes, it's confusing, and I'm sorry. —Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The move of this page to Pretenders to the kingdom of Portugual was not discussed in the first place. Charles 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

13 November 2006

  • Bay of Green Bay → Green Bay (Lake Michigan)—(Discuss)—The current name conflates local disambigutory references with "the official name" for the Bay, in contradiction of every map and other published resource referenced...furthering this erroneous conflation with erroneous statements made within the article itself. This, in effect, sets Misplaced Pages up to be a proponent of changing the name of the Bay, instead of merely covering the Bay itself. While there is no problem with the WP article discussing the usage of "Bay of Green Bay", there is a severe problem incurred by WP promoting this terminology. This is being listed on WP:RM mostly to elicit further discussion w/o resorting to WP:RFC, prior to making a move that previous discussion seems to indicate is supported by consensus among the small number of editors who have already commented thereupon. Tomer 08:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Moved: there was 80% consensus at the time I moved it, subsequent to the move, one user wanted further discussion, but since their proposal was outnumbered 10:1, and is the least popular of all among the three choices. I'm disinclined to revisit the discussion unless there is another explicit move request to do so. -- Karada 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Iacta alea est → Alea iacta est —(Discuss)— Page was recently renamed the other way, which is why I didn't want to just revert it but to put up for discussion. The current word order is the correct quote, but the original name of the page is much more commonly used by modern writers. See the talk page for the article. —FiggyBee 05:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

12 November 2006

  • Ionthas → Chaos (Dragonlance) —(Discuss)— I believe this page was considered for moving before, but I have proof that Chaos is not only the more common name, it is the correct name. In Dragons of a Vanished Moon HC Appendix (page 528-529), it states the Chaos's true name is Ionthas, and was prior to his fall (such as Lucifer coming to be known as Satan). However, in Holy Orders of the Stars, which supersedes that Appendix in matters related to the gods, it states on page 109 that Chaos is his only name. Therefore, this page, per naming policies, must be moved. I think Chaos (Dragonlance) was the former title and whatnot so this has to go through this policy, if I'm wrong tell me and correct it. Thank you. —DoomsDay349 20:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Greater_Romania_Party → Great_Romania_Party —(Discuss)— The current translation is (gramatically and semantically) incorrect. Besides that, there are sources that point to the correct name, including the Romanian Parliament's website. The correct name is also in full conformity with the Misplaced Pages Naming conventions. According to the NC for organizations and political parties, the English translation of the name should be used. The English translation is Great_Romania_Party. It seems there are some wikipedians that refuse to stick by the rules and invent new ones - such as "using the most comonly used translation" even if this is an incorrect translation and no surce was given to support this argument. —-Paul- 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

11 November 2006

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed.

Category: