Wikipedia:Requested moves

[[:|WP:RM]]

Requested moves is used to ask for, and vote for, moves that are not particularly straight-forward or those that require the assistance of Wikipedia's administration. This will either be because the destination of such a move requires technical expertise to transfer or merge one article's edit history to the intended destination, or when the move proposed is controversial. If the talkpage is blank, it may generally be assumed that the move will not be controversial, but a note to the Userpages of the main contributors always promotes collegiality.

If there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion here, it is eligible to be moved. An archive of the discussion and votes on this page regarding the proposal and its outcome is then copied to the talk page of the article.

It is advised that a discussion regarding a proposed move be initiated on the talk page of the articles in question with the hopes of achieving a consensus among those that frequently contribute to the article. If a consensus is reached, a move may be achieved by contacting an administrator directly who may decide to complete the move, or recommend further discussion here.

However, if despite this initial attempt to discuss a move a consensus is not reached on the talk page, it is beneficial to raise the question here as it opens up the discussion to a wider audience of Wikipedians that were not involved in previous discussions who may offer suggestions overlooked, impartial opinions, and other comments in the process of voting on the request.

It is important, for the ease of navigation from request to request and simply because of the chaos posed by jumping from talkpage to talkpage in order to observe discussions all over Wikipedia that discussions regarding a requested move and voting on that proposal take place here on this page.

Instructions on requesting a page move

In order to notify other editors of this request, add a note to the article's talk page (not the article itself), using the Move template. This template should be inserted at the top of the page using the following text:

{{move|new name}}

Replace "new name" with the name of the page to where you wish to move the article. This produces the following text on the page where you inserted it:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Next, add the details of the requested move to the list below (new items at the top). Please create the request in the style:

====[[original name]] &rarr; [[new name]]====
{reason for move} -- ~~~~ 
* Support/Oppose - reasons for your vote (optional) ~~~~

Please sign and date all votes and comments, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. Remember, pages should be named in accordance with naming conventions.

Notices

Please add new notices to the top of this section.

February 7

RS-485 → EIA-485

This page was moved by an anonymous user via a cut-and-paste. Therefore, I'm requesting that the page history be merged/moved along with it. –radiojon 19:00, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Deep Throat (Watergate) → Deep Throat

And Deep Throat → Deep Throat (disambiguation)

Watergate is primary meaning. Neutrality^talk 00:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. Even so many years later, the movie seems to have become a permanent fixture in porn folklore. The Watergate usage is even admittedly derivative. But I don't have a major concern either way. Neutral. older≠wiser 01:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Not only is the movie still mentioned somewhat often, but the generic term is also still in use (and with the passage of time, both the movie title and the Watergate source will become less prominent). With all that competition, no one meaning is so predominant that it should displace the dab page. JamesMLane 02:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose as well, agree with JamesMLane. -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
Oppose. The act is the primary meaning. The disambiguation page needs reordering. — Davenbelle 03:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
The act is certainly the original meaning, the movie a derivative of it, and the Watergate figure a derivative of the movie. All three are common contemporary usage, so I must oppose this move. — Ливай | ☺ 03:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Though it's certainly the first thing I think of (lacking context), it's not the overwhelmingly prevailing meaning. Oppose. ADH (t&m) 04:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The movie came first, and the memory of Watergate, unfortunately, is dying. BlankVerse 09:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The sexual practise is far more widely known than the pseudonym of Woodstein's unnamed source. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 6

Pan Africanism → Pan-Africanism

The version with the hyphen seems to be much more commonly used (see this Google search for example), and this move would make the article consistent with many other articles including Pan-Arabism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-African colours, etc. — Ливай | ☺ 16:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. And we probably should merge and redirect Pan-African colours to Pan-Africanism.

February 5

DVI (disambiguation) → DVI

Apparently, the move is being blocked because someone edited the redirect. DVI currently redirects to Digital Visual Interface, but it seems that the disambiguation page would go better there. “alerante ” 19:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opppose. The redirect presently at DVI is easily editable. If you really think it would be better going to DVI (disambiguation), feel free to edit the redirect. , but looking at the article pages that currently link to DVI, exclusing the TLAs from AAA to DZZ page, I have to say that six of them are for Digital Visual Interface and only two are for any other meaning. So it seems that the current redirect is the correct one; primary topic disambiguation is already available through that article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) → Chinese Exclusion Act

Absurd redirect; no other nation has had a "Chinese Exclusion Act"; apparently the other meaning is a "nickname coined by the Chinese-Canadian community" for the Chinese Immigration Act. Neutrality^talk 06:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the name "Chinese Exclusion Act" suggests that it is an "Exclusion Act" that is Chinese, jguk 10:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose the common name of the Canadian Chinese Immigration Act is the "Chinese Exclusion Act." - SimonP 04:44, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with SimonP BlankVerse 09:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Organ (anatomy) → Organ

Anatomical meaning is primary. Neutrality^talk 06:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? My dictionary lists the 'musical instrument' definition first. Also, if amount of information means anything, the organ (music) article is quite large compared to organ (anatomy), which is little more than a list of links to other articles. Although I think it is fine how it is, organ (music) would be my choice for promoting to primary definition. —Mike 07:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose: Organ should be a disambig page. violet/riga (t) 11:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The musical instrument definition is the first that comes to mind. (Which does not mean it should be moved to Organ - a disambig is just fine.) — Itai (f&t) 12:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Six of one; half a dozen of the other. Retain the status quo. Noisy | Talk 12:26, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Looking at the articles linking to Organ, it seems that rather a lot of them, possibly most, are doing so in a musical context. Indeed after further investigation, I suspect I would probably have accepted Organ (musical instrument) -> Organ because the first meaning that occurs to me is the musical one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Since Organ is such a sparse disambiguation page, I would support Organ (musical instrument) -> Organ BlankVerse 09:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 3

Papua (Indonesian province) → Papua Province, Indonesia

Papua is not an Indonesian province, but is the larger Island.

Change from ambiguous title to official title. 1) The whole island of Papua is not a Province of Indonesia; 2) Papua Province is the proper Indonesian title; and 3) the precise title "Papua Province, Indonesia" is already established as the English title outside of Wikipedia. To confirm established world usage outside Wikipedia: Google "Papua Province" provides 740 English all non-Wikipedia pages; Google "Papua (Indonesian province)" provides 237 copies of Wikipedia pages.--Daeron 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I don't think this naming mess can be solved just by moving particular individual articles. This must be taken up in the context of a general discussion of the naming of the many closely related articles. This is a contentious and controversial area. I want to see an overall scheme of naming the multiple related articles; I want to see that discussed comprehensively. Google test is being used misleadingly above: it will not find the cases that simply call this province "Papua". "Papua (Indonesian province)" is not intended as a display name for links: the parenthesized part is a disambiguation. You won't get a lot of hits from outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors on "John Brown (servant)" for Queen Victoria's Scottish servant, but John Brown (servant) is, indeed the appropriate title under our disambiguation conventions. I'm not sure that we don't have a similar case here. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's the percise point of the using brackets for a Google search -- it does not get pages that only say Papua. And you can look at the types of pages & how they use the two titles above; from the front search results for Papua Province, Indonesia other encyclopedia (not copies of Wiki) like Papua, province, Indonesia; but government & ngo's like to use percisely Papua Province, Indonesia because the Indonesian name for it is Papua Province, not Papua which is the entire Island or inside Indonesia could be used as an abbreviation of Papua Province.--Daeron 20:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You say "I don't think this naming mess can be solved just by" .. But this is only about one miss-named title, not your larger issue.

Oppose. This is a disambiguation and obviously parentheses are the standard format for disambiguations. Gzornenplatz 20:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, the disamibuation page for the articles is called Papua. A comma is in common use to identify the owning or larger state entity. THere is no Wikipedia convention or style requirring brackets be used.-Daeron

Oppose. Is there a reason for not using the simpler Papua Province? Is some other "Papua Province"? Unless all of the other Indonesian provinces are also named similarly, i.e., "ProvinceName, Indonesia", then I don't see why this should be. And I agree with Jmabel regarding parenthetical disambiguation. older≠wiser 20:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sort of, Papua Territory or the like was the south eastern quarter of Papua. I keep getting the German & British claims mixed up; my studies have only focused upon the Dutch and Indonesian claimed region. Otherwise ask John & Wik, they were the ones who insisted Indonesia had to be in the title.--Daeron

Strongly, strongly oppose. No other Indonesian province is located at anything like what Daeron is proposing here (or at Name Province, for that matter). There is a place called Papua. We are disambiguating it from several other usages of Papua by noting that it is an Indonesian province. I see no problem with the current location. Unless we move every other article on an indonesian province to Name Province, Indonesia, there is no justification for this move. john k 05:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note other articles at West Irian Jaya, Banten, Central Java, East Java, Maluku, West Kalimantan, and so forth. john k 05:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Papua is the proper name and a disambiguation pages is called for at Papua since there are many uses for the name. Trödel|talk 17:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose OneGuy 05:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Procedure for admins

It is important to check to see if the redirect has major history; major history contains information about the addition of current text. (This is sometimes caused by the accidental creation of a duplicate article - or someone doing a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) Never simply delete such redirect pages, (which we need to keep for copyright reasons).

The "right" way is to merge the histories, using the procedure outlined here. This is a slightly fraught procedure, which on rare occasions doesn't work correctly. There are also circumstances (e.g. duplicate pages) where it's not the correct choice anyway. Once done, it cannot be undone, so don't pick this option unless it's definitely the right one.

Alternatively, the article and the redirect can be swapped. This leaves the bifurcated history, but has less chance of causing problems. Simply move one of the pair to a temporary name, and then delete the new redirect which that move will left behind at the original location; next, move the other page of the pair across to the first one's old location, and delete that left-over new redirect; finally, move the first one from its temporary location to its new name. You will then need to delete the new redirect at the temporary location, and finally fix the old redirect to point at the article again (at this point, it will be pointing to itself).

Another option is for redirect pages with major history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into the article's talk page. (An example of such a page is a Talk:Network SouthEast, which was originally created as a duplicate article at Network SouthEast and later archived, when the original article was moved from Network South East.)

A minor history on the other hand contains no information, e.g. the redirect page Eric Tracy has a minor history but Eric Treacy (which incidentally is the correct spelling) could not be moved there because of a spelling mistake in the original page. Redirect pages with minor histories can simply be deleted.

Whichever of these various options you take, moving pages will create double redirects in any redirects that pointed to the original page location. These must be fixed; click on the "What links here" button of the new page location to check for them. It is the responsibility of the admin doing the move to fix these, though periodically a bot will fix any you miss.

When you remove an entry from this page (whether the move was accepted ot rejected), don't forget to remove the {{move}} tag from the page (alas, this has to be done manually). It's worth periodically checking either Category:Requested_moves or here to see if any pages missed this step. Checking either of these regularly has the side-benefit of finding pages where people added the {{Move}} tag to the page, but didn't realize they needed to edit WP:RM as well.

The discussion about articles that have been moved should be archived on the article's Talk: page, so that future Wikipedians can easily see why the page is where it is.

Admins volunteering to do tidying tasks should watch this page for new notices.