Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quota (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 11 December 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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;

{{move|new name}}

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

#.3 Birmingham New Street Station → Birmingham New Street

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.

Color → Colour

  • Many editors have attempted to use the more common international spelling of this word for this article, but this has been blocked by the minority who say 'please use the spelling in the title of the article'. But the spelling in the title cannot be changed by a Move because of the redirect. Can we please switch the redirect and the article?

[Obviously cut-and-paste can be used, but that's messy for a big article like this.]

In general .. surely Move should be able to switch a redirect? Thanks! quota

Rejection. While (as an American) I do prefer British as opposed to American spellings, there is no reason to waste time on such bickering between the two versions of English spelling. There is no institutional attempt to internationalise spellings. Some people write in British English, some in American English. That does not indicate an organized movement to adopt one or the other. Someone wrote the article, titled it "color"...let is stand as written. The other spelling "colour" is referenced in the first line and the redirect suffices, so there's no confusion that will be born from leaving it as it stands. There is no reason to bicker over it, because color is not an exclusively British phenomenon (as was an earlier requested move, when someone asked that Euroscepticism be moved to the Americanized spelling Euroskepticism—which was overwhelmingly rejected). The only reason there are two spellings in English is because the American English form is closer to the Latin root of the word, color, while the British English form is still stuck with words like colour, honour, valour, etc, as influenced by the spellings of the Isles' Norman French invaders—the bastard offspring of the French -eur ending.

  • You should check your history. The Norman invasion was in 1066. The spelling color was in use in England through Shakespearean times, and the 'u' spelling didn't become common until later (after the USA was colonized) - though it was in use as early as 1350.
    • Actually I know my history and my linguistics well. The Middle English period, where the language was heavily impacted by the French the Normans (who were actually Norsemen) brought with them, started after the invasion, in 1066 to roughly 1500 AD. Shortly after, the Elizabethean period brought forward a shift in vowel pronounciation, but the -our endings (based from the French) had been cemented into English spellings centuries before. Also, sign your comments. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are important things to waste our time with, quota...this is not one of them.

  • There is constant churn in the 'Color' article due to this problem. That is the waste of time.
    • Agreed, thank God I have nothing to do with that. And Wikipedia has a policy about bickering over British vs. American English spellings. Follow it, and you'd save yourself a lot of grief. Sign your damn comments. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lastly, I take considerable umbrage at your pre-emptive characterization of the people who would potentially reject this as a "minority." I doubt 280 million people in the United States, and the myriad millions of people who learn the American English spellings

  • 10,000,000,000? You exaggerate.
    • Again, sign your damn comments.
      • apologies; thought that would be in the history [and there was no need to swear] quota
    • Never said 10 billion.
      • Huh? A myriad is 10,000. 10,000 millions is 10 billions. quota
    • It is estimated that just over 400,000,000 people speak English as a first language, worldwide. 68% of these live in the United States. Also estimated that 350,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 more speak it as an additional language. So, at least 750,000,000; at most, 1.4 billion. I said...280,000,000 + a myriad millions + India, and others...not enough numbers there to make 10 billion, but enough of a difference to recommend you repeat kindergarten and learn how to add again. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Since you seem to have descended to ad hominem 'arguments'; I'm unwatching this discussion. There's no point in attempting a discussion with the irrational. quota

as a second tongue would be a "minority"...considering even India (with their billion or so folks) tries to officially favour American English over the version which a small island nation of 70,000,000 people tried to enforce over them.

  • You seem to be forgetting the European Community, which uses International English as its second language. And China. And Australasia. Exactly where, outside the USA and its colonies, is American spelling taught?
    • I didn't forget them, just didn't mention them individually (hence, and others abovestated). International English, which doesn't exist as a single solitary "language" (see the article) and is (according to the MLA) mostly limited to international academia...Most of the impact of English on foreign non-English populations is a combination of the influence of Ogden's Basic English and Voice of America's Special English on the non-English speaking world...and those are dependent mostly on American English spellings, the former being endorsed by Winston Churchill as an international language. Notice, they both spell it "color." Also, Europe (and Japan) after World War II saw a rise in non-English speaking people's learning English. However, the level of impact has been linked to which army controlled which sector (the British, Canadian, and American) and most recently the invasion of American commercial culture throughout the world. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not (I, for one, don't), American English is the lingua franca of the world today.—ExplorerCDT 21:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • object. Wikipedia:Manual of Style says keep the status quo - no reason to go through the difficulty of a move for an unimportant change. And what Explorer said. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 23:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, see above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:56, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Screenshot.png → Image:Leet_Screenshot.png

As the name suggests. I forgot to rename the file and uploaded it [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 22:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Images can't be renamed. Just re-upload it again with the correct name, fix the article links, and mark the one you don't want as a speedy deletion {{db| Exact duplicate of [[:Image:Leet Screenshot.png]]}}>. -- Netoholic @ 09:07, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

palmOne Treo 600 → Treo 600

  • The name of the manufacturer is not normally used in the name of this product. palmOne's own website refers to it simply as the Treo 600. [1] Similar articles include Tungsten T (not "palmOne Tungsten T"), Zire Handheld, etc. I would have done this move myself, but a redirect from Treo 600 already exists, and I want to swap the two. --LostLeviathan 20:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, a parallel move should be made from palmOne Treo 650 to Treo 650. --LostLeviathan 20:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota → Ellsworth Air Force Base

  • Page should be standardized like the rest of the Air Force Base pages. I'm going to go through them and see how many need to be fixed.Mikeb 19:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No objection. Like there's any other Ellsworth AFB that makes this one need to differentiate that it is in South Dakota. This is just another example of how RamBot messes up things... —ExplorerCDT 07:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Political divisions of China → Political divisions of the People's Republic of China

  • on par with the articles on Economy, Demographics, Foreign Relations, etc.
  • Political divisions of China should be a disambig page leading people to the article on political divisions of the Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia respectively.

Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway → E and N Railway

  • This is the official name for the company.[2]
    • The official name is E and N Railway Company Ltd. This is, however, irrelevant, as the article is about the railway in general, rather than about the company in particular. Opposed. -- Naive cynic 12:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That is the name of the railroad. The current name should be used (minus company, etc). Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway no longer describes anything. If it was an article about the former railroad, then it could be called that, but the article also deals with the current railroad, which is called E&N Railway or E and N Railway. --SPUI 13:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • ignore this entry - I moved it to E and N Railway, and changed the first paragraph to make it clear that it's talking about the current company, and then the predecessors in the context of the current company.

Wikipedia:Naming and listing conventions (Chinese SARs) → Wikipedia:Naming and listing conventions (Hong Kong and Macao)

Legend (1985 movie) → Legend (movie)

  • {Another case where two pages on one subject were made, but one page with little information (and a stub page) should be merged with the longer page.} Hiphats 20:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hotel Rwanda → Hotel Rwanda (movie)

  • {I was not aware a page had already been created on the film, but both versions do have information not in the other--the two must be merged.} Hiphats 20:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Canis Major (dwarf galaxy) → → Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy

WED Enterprises → Walt Disney Imagineering

  • Walt Disney Imagineering is the current name of this organization. tregoweth 22:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • agree - Orange County public records confirm it. --SPUI 11:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edvard Benes → Edvard Beneš

  • The original reason given for this location was that Wikipedia could not support the "š" in a title; however the Beneš decrees page exists. Timrollpickering 12:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Strongly opposed. The Beneš decrees article is seriously broken - š in the title is wrongly encoded as %9A, which is neither ISO-8859-1 nor UTF-8. This breaks tools expecting standard-conforming URLs. -- Naive cynic 23:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Irregular Galaxy Pegasus Dwarf → Pegasus Dwarf Irregular Galaxy

  • It's name is PegDIG or Pegasus Dwarf Irregular Galaxy, the article title is convoluted. 132.205.64.202 08:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sombrero Galaxy M104 → Sombrero Galaxy

  • It's name is the Sombrero Galaxy, it's designation is M104, and according to style, it should be Spiral Galaxy M104 if the M104 is part of its article title. However, it has a name and galaxies with names go under that name, like Whirlpool Galaxy. 132.205.64.202 08:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andromeda (TV series) → Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda

  • The actual name of the series is "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda". Any user looking for the television series isn't necessarily going to know that they should qualify their search with a "(TV series)" disambiguation. Therefore it is only natural that we use the actual title of the series. —Mike 04:58, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Keep the old one as a redirect to it. 132.205.64.202 05:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't move - The more common name is "Andromeda" (IMDB, TV Tome, TV Guide). Anyone looking for this in a category or other alphabetic list would be looking under "A". Existing redirects are in place, and will work fine. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
  • Support move, since we have to disambiguate we might as well use the offical name. - SimonP 06:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm pursuaded by Netoholic's argument on this one. Don't move. - Jonathunder 00:31, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
  • Object agree with Netoholic. I don't think that name is very common. --- Aqua 06:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

2015 (game developer) → 2015, Inc.

  • Well, the reason is obvious, there is a small article about the game company 2015 and there was a stub for 2015, Inc. I guess because of the stub, even though I deleted the (nowhere important) information in the stub, the move won't work. -- Lightkey 19:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Jeong Hyun Cheol → Seo Taiji

Alexander John Cuza → Alexandru Ioan Cuza

  • This is an article on one of the Romanian kings. His name is Alexandru Ioan Cuza. The article should be placed under this title - his name, after all and not under the heading of the English equivalent "Alexander John Cuza". SeekingOne 16:17, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sources also refer to him as Alexandru Ion or Alexandru Ioan but it seems the English version is Alexander John. Jonathunder 18:53, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  • It's ugly, but Wikipedia policy is to translate all monarchs' names unless they are pretty universally used untranslated in English. He seems (on a cursory Google examination) often to be called by the anglicized name in English, as opposed to Spain's Juan Carlos, who is never known as John Charles in English. —Tkinias 21:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


LaVeyan Satanism → Modern Satanism

  • Incorrect name was "fixed" by cut-and-paste move while adding new content. Maybe should be move, not sure. Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Current sports events → November 2004 in sports

This is a mess of my own making! Can someone please:

  1. delete November 2004 in sports/mistake
  2. move Current sports events to November 2004 in sports & revert it to a Nov. edit.
  3. create a new current events in sport.

Thanks Martin TB 21:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

      • What is wrong is that when I did the original archive I didn't use the 'move' function. At the moment all the history for November 2004 in sports is still attached to Current sports events. I tried to follow the archive procedure and just made a mess of it because someone had already created November 2004 in sports and redirected it to Current sports events so I could not move the current page to the archive page - I did a copy/paste instead, which is not Wiki-practice. What I believe needs to happen is:
  1. delete November 2004 in sports
  2. Move Current sports events to November 2004 in sports.
  3. Copy/paste the moved page to Current Sports events (which by now should be a redirect page)
  4. revert the new November 2004 in sports to the edit I made when I started this mess (8.00am 1/12/04)
  5. delete November 2004 in sports/mistake.

I hope that's all clearer. Martin TB 10:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Icosane → Eicosane

  • Eicosane is where this page was originally, before someone moved it to Icosane last march. I did a google search for both terms. Icosane came up with 378 results, Eicosane came up with 6780 results. Eicosane is also what it should be if IUPAC nomenclature is followed. SECProto 19:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Good call. I note that the article's two external links use "eicosane", and that one is currently broken because of the use of "ICOSANE" instead of "EICOSANE" in the URL... —Tkinias 06:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)



Crawley Fastway → Fastway

  • As explained in Talk:Crawley_Fastway, the scheme is generally known as 'Fastway' and it will eventually serve Horley as well. Crawley Fastway and Gatwick Fastway should link to Fastway
    • The first 30 results (out of 269,000) from a Google search reveals that Fastway is also the name of a postal service in New Zealand, a defunct rock band, some sort of ticketing system in Finland and a courier company in the UK. Given that, and its clear appeal as a marketing name, it is likely that Fastway will end up getting disambiguated to Fastway (guided busway near Gatwick Airport) or similar anyway. May be better to think up a more unique article name. -- Chris j wood 22:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Fastway is also the name of a 180-location chain of convenience stores in the Western United States. No reason to give birth to a page title that will require a huge amount of disambiguation. —ExplorerCDT 08:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eurosceptic, Euroskeptic, Euro-scepticism, Euroskeptics, Anti-EU, Euro scepticsm, Europhobe, Euro-skeptic and Euro-sceptic → Euroskepticism

Are we ever going to axe this one? It's been here since November 24th...18 whole days.—ExplorerCDT 07:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • "Eurosceptic" redirects to Euroscepticism, which (due to the same spelling issues) has now been moved to Euroskepticism. The same applies to the rest. However, please note that Euro scepticsm also includes a spelling error in the title. --Liveforever 21:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Last I checked, Wikipedia has a policy about useless bickering over British vs. American English spellings. Seeing as you're the only one inclined to Americanize the spellings, and that you've boldly edited it despite no one else EVER having done so for this petty reason before. You did this without obtaining a concensus. I've chosen to revert your changes back to the British spelling that has prevailed until your edit today. As it is an internal European phenomenon (scrutinizing political decisions related to joining the European Union), my feeling is that it should have British-English spelling, as it has until your arrogant edit earlier today. Therefore, strenuously object. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. ExplorerCDT is absolutely right. Indeed, since this is a European Union phenomenon, and British English is the form used in the EU, using the United States spelling is quite inappropriate. (I'm a USian, so I'm not a Queen's English partisan by any means...). —Tkinias 00:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Object for reasons given by ExplorerCDT. DCEdwards1966 01:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. This is a predominantly British phenomenon, and certainly is so as far as the English language phrase is concerned. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 03:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Key → Key (disambiguation) and Key (lock) → Key

  • The dis-ambiguation page is a big dis-ambiguation page that almost definitely needs the title Key (disambiguation). A little more than a month ago, I wrote it at Talk:Key, but only 2 Wikipedians responded. 66.32.255.227 02:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. --Menchi 23:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree, reasons as before at Talk:Key. — Matt 16:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. The rationale for the change is logical and apparently necessary. No objection. —ExplorerCDT 17:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Would you argue that the "lock" key is the primary meaning that users might be searching for when coming to Key? One data point is a Google test; a search for "key" has few results for a "lock" key (none that I could see in the first 120, at least). I can't see a case for primary topic disambiguation here on the basis of popularity. — Matt 17:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Disagree: I think it is fine the way it is. DCEdwards1966 01:01, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it should be noted that lock (device) is not at lock. Although the lock article is currently pretty much a disambiguation page itself at the moment with a dicdef, I'd say that the reasons as to wether it should have the primary name applies to both equally. --Aqua 01:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. All meanings of key given in Mirriam-Webster other than the thing for opening a lock are much less common or are derived from it. Cryptographic keys, identification keys, etc., are derived from the lock key, which has etymological priority and according to M-W is still the primary sense. "Lock", FWIW, is less clear, as the device may be etymologically connected to the sense of "tuft of hair"... —Tkinias 21:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Key (lock) is no longer the clearly predominant meaning of key. -- Naive cynic 23:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)



Avebury Henge → Avebury

  • Avebury Henge is not a common name for this site (Google count: 603 vs. (for example) 4,460 for "Avebury stone circle"). Given that the site comprises numerous different features, referring only to the henge in an article that covers the earthworks, several stone circles and a barrow doesn't do the complex justice. Given the rarity of the current name and that the site and the village are synonymous, I request that the archaeological site be moved simply to Avebury and the disambig page that's there now be moved to Avebury (disambiguation). adamsan 20:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the suggested merge of the village article with the henge article. They are not synonymous; Avebury, Wiltshire describes a modern village and civil parish (including the adjoining villages of Beckhampton and West Kennett), with details on population, local government, history, etc; the stone circle is only one thing briefly discussed and then largely from the perspective of the recent history of the circle. Avebury Henge discusses the stone circle in much greater detail from an archeological perspective. Any individual reader is unlikely to be interested in both the detailed history of the henge, and the current demographics of the civil parish. No issue with renaming Avebury Henge to Avebury stone circle or such; I agree the name isn't the one that immediately springs to mind for the circle. -- Chris j wood 22:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, would you accept the monument moving to Avebury though and the parish remaining at Avebury, Wiltshire? If not, we must put our heads together and come up with a new title for the monument article. adamsan 22:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Ok, obviously provided there is a clear link from Avebury to Avebury, Wiltshire. -- Chris j wood 00:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Definitely agree to this. Most people typing in Avebury as a bare word would expect to see an article on the rather pretty and archeologically significant stone circle; some might want to see something about the nearby village and a link at the top should be enough. You probably need a redirect from the "Avebury stone circle" to "Avebury", too. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 00:42, 26 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)
    • BTW, Shem, there is a legal entity in the United States known as the Green Party. See Green Party (United States). That's the article both of these should redirect to, and the information currently contained in both of these Ten Key Values pages should be pasted into a new chapter there. —ExplorerCDT 00:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Ten Key Values is an awfully vague title. Why not Ten Key Values of the Green movement? 132.205.15.43 02:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • (William M. Connolley 21:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If there is no such thing as the party, then a good start would be to tidy up the article, which begins by asserting the existence. Until that is done, the current title seems quitee appropriate. I would guess that lots of other (also non green) orgs also have 10 key values so just that plain name would be ambiguous.
    • Why isn't this just a section of a North American green movement page? This isn't the "New Deal" of the 1930s, it's pretty much a statement of principles, which is just general party ideology or platform. It should be incorporated into a page on the movement, and not an independent article. That's my $0.02. —ExplorerCDT 21:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with Explorer. It should be merge back into the main article. --Menchi 23:53, 24 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)
    • The term "contradance" seems to be more prevalent in the article than "contra dance". On the other hand, the Googletest is about 1:4 for "contra dance": 22,400 for "contradance"; 79,300 for "contra dance"-- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Objection. The Oxford English Dictionary does not give priority to the form "contra dance" or most other two-word spelling variants. It only lists a two-word variant, contra danse or contra dance in common usage, but directs the reader to the compounded one-word form. The OED lists and gives priority to the compounded one-word form as a variant of the word contredanse, contredance, contradance or contradanse, and mentions archaic synonyms of country-dance, country dancing, and contra danse. Ironically, the two usages refering to "country" are derived from a corruption of the language, as the dance has nothing to do with anything remotely "country" being that its etymological origins are from the French word contre meaning "opposite." —ExplorerCDT 15:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. The on-line OED gives no two-word or closed-up forms at all (I'm not sure what edition ExplorerCDT is using). It gives only contre-dance, contre-danse, and contra-dance, in that order. Merriam-Webster, OTOH, gives contredanse (with French 's') as the standard form, with contra dance as a variant. It does not recognize a one-word spelling with an 'a' at all. Since contredanse is the preferred U.S. spelling and is the second-choice U.K. spelling, that seems best, but contra dance is certainly preferable to contradance which both U.K. and U.S. authorities consider incorrect. —Tkinias 00:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Using the 10-volume print edition of the OED from 1928, didn't bother comparing with the new 20-volume 3rd edition. I also didn't look for the hyphenated variants, which are listed as you have enumerated. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • This was based on the latest update at OED.com (and M-W.com for the U.S. spelling). The Web OED is handy because if your word (or spelling) is not a headword it will give you entries where the word/spelling appears. —Tkinias 21:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal: How about we move it to "contredanse", and redirect the near a dozen alternate spellings to the contredanse spelling? —ExplorerCDT 18:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Since this is #1 U.S. and #2 U.K. it seems the best compromise. —Tkinias 18:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ontario Provincial Highway 401 → Highway 401

  • Highway 401 is (arguably) the busiest highway in North America, and the main trunk highway for an area containing almost a third of Canada's population. A link to a disambiguation page for US 401 and the secret route numbering for I-75 in GA can be added to the top of the main article, with the rest of the content being for Ontario's 401. Snickerdo 23:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree. SECProto 00:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
oppose - This would make it inconsistent with every other Ontario highway, and for no good reason. If this functionality is wanted, simply redirect Highway 401 to Ontario Provincial Highway 401. --SPUI 04:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the same reasons as SPUI. Why change the entire standard? The redirect from Highway 401 to Ontario Provincial Highway 401 as it currently is suffices. Whether or not some number cruncher says it "is {arguably) the busiest highway in North America" has no bearing on how the article should be named, and disambiguation proposed by Snickerdo is unreasonably preposterous. —ExplorerCDT 07:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NBC → National Broadcasting Company

  • Please help me with move. National Broadcasting Company is the official name of NBC Universal's US broadcast subsidiary. Edwin 22:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Undecided. I'm inclined to agree with you, but I need better reasons to jump aboard. I don't see the need when the redirect as it currently is suffices...as is the case also with Columbia Broadcasting System redirecting to CBS, and British Broadcasting Corporation redirecting to BBC. The only one I've found, of the major American networks that breaks this mold is ABC which goes to a dsambig that lists American Broadcasting Company (FOX isn't an acronym, so they don't count). PBS and NPR redirect to the long form, but they're different anyway. Give me something more, and I'll change my vote, but I haven't been won over. —ExplorerCDT 07:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=8338423"