Wikipedia:Requested moves
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]] → [[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 10
Current title has wrong capitalization.
February 9
Simple issue of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Many Jewish sages have been known primarily by something other than their 'full and correct' name.--Pharos 15:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- support. He had dozens of other names but this one seems to have stuck. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- support, I think this is the single name he is best known as. Rje 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Current title has wrong capitalization. -- Zundark 16:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I moved this conversation to the talk page of the article, where it should be discussed further. The move does not need admin action to perform, only some consensus as to what is best. -- Netoholic @ 21:30, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I think most people would recognize the character by his name in the 'real' world. Also, this would allow the name to match the style of the majority of the names found in Category:Matrix characters -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Without a doubt, the saddest move I've ever seen proposed here. Uh... support, I guess. ADH (t&m) 06:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I would look for either "Neo" or "Mr. Anderson" (and the latter is already taken). —Mike 07:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I can't actually believe it's at that title. sjorford:// 20:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not that I am greatly interested in this particular subject, but technically wouldn't a Neo (The Matrix) or maybe more accurately Neo (Matrix series) format be better for this sort of thing?--Pharos 21:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
February 8
See .au discussion below. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
- Support --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, there's no reason to redirect ".so" to "SO" when there's a perfectly legit article for ".so". Cburnett 07:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The domain name is primary usage, and aligns page naming with the 200+ other ccTLDs. .au is currently a redirect to this page. File format usage is very much secondary, and is disambiguated. -- kjd 14:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Primary vs. secondary usage is very much debatable; neither usage is overwhelmingly predominant. That said, the article should properly be at .au (top-level domain). ADH (t&m) 14:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - one look at Template:CcTLD should be enough to settle the debate. --Boco XLVII 21:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the fact that .au is one of only two top-level domains disambiguated in this manner, I'd like to point out that I could just as easily argue that Georgia (U.S. state) is mistitled based solely on Template:United States—perhaps more persuasively, as it's the only disambiguated state article, whereas there are two exceptions in your example. Obviously, neither argument carries much weight. ADH (t&m) 22:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support - consistency wins here. Also, the audio file extension is simply "au", without the separator. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
- Support - makes a lot of sense. Longhair 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, echoing Netoholic. Rd232 00:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support, the disambiguation notice (which could also be added to .so) suffices to dispel any possible confusion. — Ливай | ☺ 00:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, what's the value in redirected ".au" to ".au (domain name)"? Nothing. Cburnett 07:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
February 7
Maybe Harry Potter needs the former, muggles need the latter. User:Anárion/sig 11:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While it seems "spell checker" is more frequently used, the pedant in me agrees with you.— Ливай | ☺ 12:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)- Oppose, if it really is a US/UK difference as Tony Sidaway claims. — Ливай | ☺ 23:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. With more and more dictionaries including the verb "spellcheck" (used in the article itself, in fact) the (by far) more common term wins out. ADH (t&m) 13:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's called spell checker everywhere. Grue 13:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive. dbenbenn | talk 15:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And how is keeping it at one spelling variant ("spell variant") more non-"proscriptive" than keeping at the other? User:Anárion/sig 15:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a British/US variant issue. It cannot be solved by moving from one variant to the other--leave it where it is and document the variants in the article (which has been done). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, questioning whether there is (now - maybe there was once) a British/US distinction, and noting that the article is in category "spelling checking programs". "Spell check/er" is now dominant usage. Rd232 00:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not a British/US variant issue. Spell checker is the commoner name everywhere. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Watergate is primary meaning. Neutralitytalk 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
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.
- Support, but don't merge Pan-African colours; a properly written Pan-Africanism article would be quite too long for this inclusion.--Pharos 16:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Done. Pretty minor move though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:03, Feb 10, 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.