Wikipedia:Requested moves

[[:|WP:RM]]

Sometimes you want to move a page, but cannot do so because a page of that name already exists. This page allows you to request deletion or archiving of that page by a sysop, which then allows the move.

Procedure notes for non-admins

Remember that to move a page, you must be logged in. Once you have logged in, if you try an illegal move, you will be given a message.

To request that a page be moved, add the details of the requested move to the list below. (You can use this link to do so.) Please write in the style:

===[[original name]] → [[new name]]===

{reason for move} ~~~~

The ~~~~ turns into your username, and the date and time. Comments should be added in the form:

** {what you think} ~~~~

so the entry will eventually look like this:

#.# original name → new name

{reason for move} username, date and time
- {Opinion #1} username, date and time
- {Opinion #2} username, date and time

Please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.

After four days here, if there is a rough consensus to move the article, it will be moved. However, if the move was previously fully discussed on the article's Talk: page, it can be moved right away.

If not, you must add a note to the article's talk page (not the article itself), using the move template;

replacing "new name" with the name of the page to where you wish to move the article. This produces:

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

on the page where you inserted it.

Examples

#.1 For example → Exempli gratia

I just created an article at For example. I decided to move it to Exempli gratia but made a typo in the move and moved it to Exempli gracia instead. Realising that I had made a mistake, I moved it again to Exempli gratia and edited the original redirect. Could someone help me move it back to For example? • Benc • 20:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Done. (Don't worry, we won't yell at you because you didn't use the exact format. This page is user-friendly.) --JoeAdmin 20:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

#.2 Elf → Elves

because Tolkien said so, dammit. --FrodoWikins 20:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- House style is to use the singular form for article titles. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. • Benc • 20:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

#.3 Birmingham New Street Station → Birmingham New Street

(Birmingham New Street Station is universally known as Birmingham New Street. The page at Birminham New Street has a minor history (no content only redirects). Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (Duncharris' sockpuppet (because I'm the little voice in your head)
- Oppose: See Talk: Birmingham New Street Station
- I think it's good to have "station" or the like somewhere in the name of metro/train station articles, for clarification. If "Station" is not part of the official name, however, or common usage, then lower-case it, moving it to Birmingham New Street station. Postdlf 04:10, 18 Oct 2004 (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.

Notices

Please add new notices to the top of this section.

POP3 → Post Office Protocol

No comments on week old proposal on talk:POP3. Reason to do this is consistency with other internet protocols, e.g. IMAP4, SMTP, IRC etc., where the acronym is the redirect and the spelled out name is the article. -- Rick Block 17:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If that's the standard used with such protocol acronyms, I would have no objection. —ExplorerCDT 17:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Channel Four → Channel Four Television

There is a debate mentioned at Talk:Channel 4 on which of these titles is better. 66.32.249.42 02:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geoffrey de Charney → Geoffroy de Charney (with redirection)

Geoffroy is the original spelling of the name, therefore we should have the article under the original name, and not the anglican name, which, of course, should redirect the reader to the original name article.

Mau Mau → Mau Mau Uprising

The article, even from its initial stub, stated "The Mau Mau Rebellion", and has been revised and edited as an article about the revolt rather than a participant in the revolt. For over a year the article has begun "The Mau Mau Uprising was" without anyone removing the boldface from "Uprising". The article is clearly on the wrong page. (Mau Mau Uprising is currently a redirect to the Mau Mau page, which describes the Uprising.) Cheers, BanyanTree 23:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ten Key Values of the US Green Party → Ten Key Values

There is no such entity as the "US Green Party," and I've been trying to clean up articles concerning North American Greens. The Ten Key Values' formal name is just that: "Ten Key Values," no "of the X party" at the end. I'd ask that all content there be moved to the plain "Ten Key Values" location currently serving as a redirect. Edit: I should also note that many different Green parties/organizations use various similar (but differently worded) versions of the Ten Key Values. A generic "Ten Key Values" article describing the basic fundamentals of each individual value (which all Greens groups share) is needed. Shem 19:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Humphrey Repton → Humphry Repton

The spelling of the subject of this article is incorrect and therefore the article needs to be moved back to Humphry Repton. Although Humphrey is now more usually written with an 'e', in this case 'Humphry' is correct. Looks like its been wrong for the last two years. This is a common and understandable error repeated on many web pages, but it needs fixing. JPDW 03:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grass Snake and Ringed Snake

Import the history of Ringed Snake article into Grass Snake article. The early history of Grass Snake article was left in the Ringed Snake article due to a cut-and-paste move. Concensus about the article name was achieved, it should be called Grass Snake. -Hapsiainen 22:47, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

G7 → Group of Seven (organization) and G8 → Group of Eight

These should be disambiguation pages instead, the disambig stuff is on these pages as well. 132.205.45.110 17:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vlukashin → Vukashin

Name "Vlukashin" is not used, Vukashin is used and neutral. See longer discussion at Talk:Vlukashin. Nikola 22:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Germanic tribe → Germanic tribes

The article Germanic tribe (singular) should be moved to Germanic tribes (plural). It is the natural name for the article, and would make linking to the article easier. 68.46.123.33 10:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But linking is already easy. Just write [[Germanic tribe]]s. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization). And in any case, Germanic tribes is a redirect, so does it matter? Gdr 00:04, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

* No offence, Gdr, but if you actually read the naming conventions page you recommend, it says right off the bat: "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English" Since the subject of this request is a term describing 50-60 tribes, it is and has always been Germanic tribes in the lexicon—and your argument about a redirect already being in place is invalid, because that's what this requested moves page is all about...and...Germanic tribe should be redirecting to Germanic tribes, not as it is now. I have no objection to this move. —ExplorerCDT 17:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Germanic tribes seems more proper, as there is more than one Germanic tribe. 132.205.45.110 15:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contradance → Contra dance

The more common name is "Contra dance"; it is suggested in the Talk page, and Contra dance is and has only ever been a redirect to Contradance. (It just had a typo, so it has 2 entries in it's history, so it can't be moved automatically.) JesseW 05:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Super Mario Land 2 → Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins

Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins is the full title of this game (see this screenshot). Super Mario Land 2 is just a shortened form, so Super Mario Land 2 should redirect to Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, not vice versa. Jason One 00:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

YOUNG HOLLA RAP → Freestyle rap

The article is about freestyle rap. YOUNG HOLLA RAP, whatever that is, is not mentioned. Tim Ivorson 19:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorted. Tim Ivorson 22:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be moved to freestyling or freestyle rapping, as suggested on its talk page. Tim Ivorson 19:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gnetae to Gnetophyta

To bring it into line with current scientific usage, and in common with the wiki pages on the allied subjects Pinophyta and Cycadophyta - MPF 18:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bacalao → Bacalhau

Revert to original. It refers to the staple-food of Portugal. Even though it is relatively popular in Spain it is primarimly a Portuguese dish; there is no reason why the page should be in Spanish and not in Portuguese. --TintininLisbon 02:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tricolore → Flag of France

The reason for this move is to bring the article into parallelism with the other articles listed in Category:National flags. Denelson83 04:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would not object if you realized that the spelling is la "tricoleur." Tricolore is the Italian flag. Therefore, I'm forced to object. —ExplorerCDT 17:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Grand Illusion (movie) → Grand Illusion

Grand Illusion, the English title of the film, is much more familiar to English-speaking readers. Have discussed this on the talk page Ellsworth 19:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. --ExplorerCDT 14:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Towers of Paine → Torres del Paine

Much better known by their Spanish name, even when being discussed in English. Torres del Paine has a history of just 2 redirects. sjorford 13:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree. Many accounts in English call them "Towers". In English, "Torres del Paine" is used primarily to refer the national park of that name, whereas "Towers of Paine" more often refers to the mountains themselves, as you can see by a Google search. Gdr 18:09, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
- Agree with the move request. 16,500 Google hits for "Towers of Paine" discussing either the mountains or the Natl. Park. 71,600 Google hits for "Torres del Paine", again covering either the mountains or the Natl. Park. There were still 37,600 Google hits when an English-only search on "Towers of Paine" was done. It is very clear that "Torres del Paine" is the most common usage, even in English. gK 03:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with the move. The Spanish name is the one I've coma across most; if given in English form, it is as often or more often as the Pillars of Paine, not the Towers of Paine - MPF 18:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One-all (well, 2-1 if we count the nominator). Would anyone else like to comment on the proposed move before it is done or the request deleted? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pyridoxine → Vitamin B6

The redirect Vitamin B6 was originally listed on WP:RFD, but I realize now I should have listed this move here. The reason for the move: The page Pyridoxine actually talks about the two major forms of Vitamin B6, pyridoxine and pyridoxamine. However, pyridoxine is just one of these forms. Originally the page pyridoxamine was an exact duplicate of pyridoxine except for the image, but I redirected pyridoxamine to pyridoxine and added the pyridoxamine image to pyridoxine. However, since pyridoxine actually talks about both forms of Vitamin B6 it should be moved to Vtamin B6. What follows is the original discussion on WP:RFD. Exabyte (talk) 05:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Pyridoxine is just one form of Vitamin B6, and the content of both this article and Pyridoxamine talks about both forms (in fact they are exactly duplicate except for the image). The Pyridoxine article, because it is actually about both forms, should be moved to Vitamin B6 and either the image from Pyridoxamine should be included in the article and Pyridoxamine be changed to a redirect or the resulting redirect from the move should be converted to an article and Pyridoxamine changed to be specifically about pyridoxamine. Exabyte (talk) 20:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment on the proposed move before it is done? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)