Wikipedia:Requested moves

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 action by a admin to perform such moves.

Please note that if article A redirects to article B, and article A has only one item in the edit history, you can usually move B to A without needing an admin to do anything. (Once you have edited A for any reason, you can no longer do this.) Also, if a renaming has a chance of being controversial, it's a good idea to suggest it on the article's talk page first.

Also, 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 - and then you need to come here.

Requesting a page move

It is suggested that an attempt to gain consensus for a move first be attempted on the talk page of the article. If there is disagreement, or if the page move cannot be technically performed, then it is appropriate to list it here. The following instructions will describe that process.

In order to notify other editors of this request, add a note to the article's talk page (not the article itself), using Template:Move. 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:

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.

After five days here, if there is a rough consensus to move the article, it is eligible to be moved. An archive of the discussion on this page should be copied to the Talk page of the article.

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.

December 22

Secant → Secant line

Secant should be a disambiguation page for Trigonometric function and Secant line. This is consistent with the bold words in the current article. Additionally, it is quite likely that someone who wishes to access the "Secant" article would be interested in the trigonometric function. -- MIT Trekkie 22:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Squire's Tale → The Squire's Prologue and Tale

Currently a redirect with a minor history, move to be consistent with other pages about The Canterbury Tales. – [[User:ABCD|User:ABCD/sig]] 01:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support. Can't think of a case against Icundell 12:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense. Timrollpickering 12:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It would be nice if more things were consistent. At least this is a good start. —ExplorerCDT 19:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds right. SECProto 21:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Victorian regional railway stations → Category:Regional railway stations in Victoria

This category should be renamed to be more uniform with pages names, and it also just 'sounds better'. Most of the pages in this category are controlled by a template (Template:VictorianStations), so it is no big deal moving pages to the new name. -- Somebody in the WWW 00:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) *Support. Also "Victorian" often implies the Victorian era. Timrollpickering 10:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) * Support. When I first saw the title I assumed it refered to the era not the place. Icundell 12:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• WP:CFD is the appropriate page to handle Category deletes. Categories can not be moved. - UtherSRG 12:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Moved to WP:CFD - UtherSRG 12:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

December 21

Smoot-Hawley Tariff → Smoot-Hawley tariff

We need this move to conform to our naming policy, and to be consistent with other <name> tariff pages. Smoot-Hawley tariff currently redirects to Smoot-Hawley Tariff -Rholton 22:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Screw the naming policy. Screw consistency. It's arbitrarily applied (see below discussion of Main Page instead of the policy-conforming Main page, or Latin instead of the consistent Latin language), not to mention that it lacks aesthetics and balance. That lower-case t in tariff looks silly. Bad Feng Shui. —ExplorerCDT 22:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So in this minor case, you say screw the naming policy and leave it under an arbitrary title, but in the case of a large, major page (the main page) you say we should go with the naming policy? Look at the comment you put up for moving the main page. You appear to be just speaking your opinions on a whim, rather than thinking about them. SECProto 02:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I said clearly I didn't like the naming conventions policy. Main Page became further proof of how arbitrary it would be applied. I think it should be abolished. —ExplorerCDT 03:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • You also said clearly that you supported the movement of the main page to agree with the naming policy. If that isn't so, go change your addition to "Main Page". And thanks for listening to what I said and reading what you first said down there.... SECProto 13:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm using Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Forgive me for donning the role of advocatus diaboli as I know that's against policy, but sometimes civil disobedience is useful in that regard. I think the policy is wrong, and this is just one way to force a debate.—ExplorerCDT 16:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. (Main Page is unique; Latin is an agreed exception. Generally, convention is convention.) Rd232 00:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Latin isn't that "agreed" an exception. 10-4 by my count, which may be a majority, but not an "agreed exception" as I connote the phrase. —ExplorerCDT 16:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's an exception. It's agreed by (currently) a two-thirds majority. How is it not an "agreed exception"? Rd232 18:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Because not everyone agrees. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Perhaps the best way to avoid controversy would be to name the article "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act". In this case 'Tariff' would obviously be part of a proper name and should be capitalized. —Mike 01:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm neutral between the suggested move and the above alternative. Either will do. Rd232 14:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. - UtherSRG 12:38, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that tariff is part of the name of this specific tariff, and therefore should be considered a proper noun. SECProto 21:09, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

December 20

Main Page → Main page

Consistency with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy regarding the non-capitalization of second and subsequent title words that are not proper nouns. I assume the reason for it to be titled Main Page is for aesthetics, that the lowercase p does not look balanced. I admit wholeheartedly, I do not care for this naming convention policy, and I cite aesthetics and balance as my reasons. But even Caesar's wife must be above reproach, and thus Wikipedia itself must stand tall before the wagon of her conventions. —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Tentative support - While I recognize that it like is nothing more then a main page, I wouldn't mind some confirmation that Main Page isn't more of a title that we've given to it. Oberiko 21:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - I can think of a dozen alternate names that would probably do better than "Main P/page", if this is something we are going to open up discussion about a change. -- Netoholic @ 01:19, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
• Object. Main Page is not an article about main pages, so "Main Page" is no better or worse than "Main page" as far as the convention is concerned. Logically speaking, the main page ought to be in the Wikipedia: namespace rather than the article namespace. But it's probably best to leave it alone. Gdr 13:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
• Object. Leave it where it is. I just don't see the point of putting a redirect between the Main Page and every page that points to it for the sake of satisfying our naming conventions. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is a unique page that is not an article, nor a 'workspace' page; it is a bridge to both. It is now entrenched under its current capitalization; I see no reason for change. Radagast 13:30, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's a unique page; there needs to be a fairly persuasive reason to change it. Rd232 15:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, though I certainly won't complain if it doesn't happen. I also agree with Gdr that it would make some sense to have it in the Wikipedia: namespace, but that would add redundancy to the URL. Fredrik | talk 15:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it were an article about main pages in general, then "Main page" would be an appropriate title, but that's not the case. "Wikipedia:Main page" (or someting else in the Wikipedia namespace) would probably be best if we were starting from scratch, but we are not. Changing it from "Main Page" to anything else would be a disruptive step that would need a very good reason to outweigh the disruption, and no sufficiently good reason is apparent. —AlanBarrett 16:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. In addition, would the sidebar be changed if it were moved? - UtherSRG 17:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. (And don't get me started on the silliness of title non-capitalization. It's just wrong.) Nelson Ricardo 18:34, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, the title non-capitalization policy is plain silly. But if they're going to enforce it articles we write, then Wikipedia's basic pages should be subject to the rule. No exceptions. If this fails, the policy should be abandoned. —ExplorerCDT 18:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Gdr, "Main Page is not an article about main pages". dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Neither is it an article about something called "Main Page". Fredrik | talk 22:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • indeed. I also agree with the part that it should properly be in the WP: namespace. dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There may be a better name for the page (as Netaholic suggested above. But the argument seems to be that we need to change it to be consistent with policy (or, that the policy should be eliminated). This is plain folly. There's nothing wrong with having specific exceptions. If people absolutely insist, then change the policy to make a specific exception for the Main Page.
• Object. This is the page which makes a first impression, as in the title page of a book, which uses different capitalization than the body of text in a book. Ancheta Wis 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Further proof that the Naming Conventions policy is arbitrary and wrong. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment: this proposal only exists to illustrate ExplorerCDT's dislike of the title case naming convention. Rd232 18:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for stating the obvious. It's not like I haven't made my intentions clear from the get-go. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Fredrik | talk 19:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• See Civil disobedience. Sometimes you just have to force a discussion over arbitrary rule. It's not disruptive, it's constructive. Further, read the top of the page you recommended to me...it says: This is a proposed policy. While it is not an official guideline of Wikipedia and carries neither official weight nor provisions for enforcement... Wikipedia can only benefit from this discussion. —ExplorerCDT 19:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• There is no supreme authority to be disobedient against on Wikipedia, only the community of Wikipedians. Disrespect for the community won't get you its support. To quote the page, "In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are hardly ever effective tools of persuasion. Rather, they simply come off as spiteful or vengeful.". Yes, Wikipedia benefits from discussion, but you should have brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or the village pump instead. Fredrik | talk 19:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Receive it as you may. I prefer to compel discussion through demonstration. —ExplorerCDT 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your opinion of the naming convention is not very well illustrated by objecting to a special case. You would rather have to show that it is bad for titling regular articles (which I think is not the case). dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Violently oppose. Horrible idea. Numerous things depend on the main page being fixed to its current location (screen scrapers in particular). →Raul654 20:05, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

December 19

Pet skunk → Domestic skunk

"Domestic skunk" is the more formal name. -- Nathanlarson32767 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support Nathanlarson32767 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the term "domestic skunk" is factually inaccurate, since these have not been "domesticated" in any way (as far as I can tell from the article) - they are merely tame. Domestication is not synonymous with "taming" - Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behavior, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions being under human control for multiple generations. Unless these skunks have been altered much more than I can tell, they would not qualify as domestic, and thus, the new title, while a useful re-direct, is not a suitable page title. There may be something better than Pet skunk - that doesn't really have the ring of a formal encyclopedia entry to me - but the name of an article should at least be factually accurate. Guettarda 20:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guettarda said it well. "Skunks as pets" may be a better article title. - UtherSRG 20:50, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Possibly. The literature refers to both "Skunks as pets"[1] and "Domestic skunks"[2]. I wonder, though, how many years of captive breeding it takes for an animal to be considered domestic? It took many generations to obtain the brown, tan, and white skunks we have today[3]. As the article notes, they were raised for fur for several hundred years. By comparison, ferrets have been raised in captivity for about 2,500 years, and they are definitely considered domestic by now. Ferrets and skunks have many of the same care issues, in reference to housebreaking, etc. Nathanlarson32767 21:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Most animal articles, such as cat, dog, ferret, horse, etc. combine the feral/domesticated animal information into one article. Skunk and spotted skunk used to be that way, but I broke off the pet skunk content into its own article. Should it be integrated back into skunk? Nathanlarson32767 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Per an email from Jane Bone, of Skunks as Pets[4]: "Well, they are domestic skunks that are in fact pets. Pet skunks could refer to the ones from the wild. Where as Domestic Skunks mean not from the wild" In other words, a domestic skunk is one that was bred in captivity, as opposed to being caught in the woods and turned into a pet. Nathanlarson32767 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merging back in would probably make sense, although it is quite long now for that. Note that there is a difference between a "domestic" animal (one kept as a pet) and a "domesticated" animal (one which has been bred through many generations so as to be adapted to living with humans). While cats, dogs, horses, ferrets etc. are all domesticated (although they can all go feral) and the behavioral difference is enough for biologists to label them as subspecies of their wild cousins, pet skunks are simply "tamed" wild animals and are more akin to pet rats, ferrets, rabbits, reptiles, or even cuttlefish; their behaviors are very similar to those of their wild kin. So while it is wholely appropriate to have a distinct article for the domesticated subspecies, it is more appropriate to note on the species page some information about their being kept as pets. Remember also that Wikipedia is not a pet owner's manual. - UtherSRG 22:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Here is what Lynnda Butler of Skunks as Pets said in an email: "They are all referred to as domestic pen-raised skunks...and by the way, they get wonderful care!!!! I should be so lucky. This way they have been kept far from any disease and rabies contact. We try to correct vets who refer to them as "exotic"....they are not....that seems to give them a license to charge more!!!!! Lynnda" Not to digress, but there is nothing listed on the "Wikipedia is not" page about pet owners' instructions. Wikipedia also has numerous How-to guides with procedural instructions. Nathanlarson32767 23:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Captive breeding, care, all these things to not make animals domesticated. Lab rats are not domesticated, ferrets are borderline. Colour patterns are easy to change - it often takes just a few genes. Even so - almost all the animals in the pictures have 'wild-type' patterns. I understand that they are loving, hand-raised pets. But most domestics (all that I can think of) are classified as separate species (or at least sub-species) from their wild relatives. In addition, I would hazard a guess that at least a certain proportion of pet skunks are actually wild-caught, or within a few generations from the wild. Or is there a distinction between "domestic" skunks (which have seen maybe a hundred generations of captive breeding) and simply "tame" skunks? If there is, I am willing to revise my position, but then the article should only apply to those skunks, and not simply any old skunk kept as a pet. Guettarda 01:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If the criteria for calling them domesticated is that there has to be an official sub-species of domesticated skunks, then they are not domesticated. Skunk taxonomy (and skunk research in general) is in an early stage of development; it was only recently that DNA work led to them being transferred out of the weasel family[5]. I don't have enough information to know how big a difference there is between the wild skunk lines and the captive-bred skunk lines, which make up the vast majority of legally-owned pet skunks. Anyway, if they're not going to be called "domesticated," what do you think would be a good article name? (For reference, here is the article Domestic vs. Domesticated by Pamela Troutman of Shelters that Adopt and Rescue Ferrets.) Nathanlarson32767 04:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Usage of "domestic skunk" in skunk literature: Bow to Me for I am the Domestic Skunk by Diana Geiger, People for Domestic Skunks, American Domestic Skunk Association, Pets People Places article mentions "a domestic skunk, bred in captivity." "Domestic skunk" turns up 2,340 Google hits, compared to 31 for "domestic raccoon," although both have been raised as pets. Nathanlarson32767 11:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While "domestic skunk" may get 2,340 Google hits, "pet skunk" gets about five times that many. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Domestic and pet are not synomyms. Icundell 12:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's cool where it is. I like the idea of a pet skunk. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herbert George Wells → H. G. Wells

In my experience, he is most commonly referred to by his initials, and these are generally used on his books as well. (Interestingly, Wikipedia:Naming Conventions actually uses him as an example for initial style, stating that it should be "H. G. Wells" and not "H.G. Wells.") I'm reminded of a scene in Time After Time when Wells, who's traveled into the present with his time machine, reveals his identity: "My name is Herbert George Wells." The other person stares at him blankly, and he says "H.G. Wells!"; this clicks. I think that pretty well covers it. --LostLeviathan 21:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Rd232 23:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. older≠wiser 02:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Niteowlneils 02:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I don't see why this is absolutely necessary, as the redirect from H. G. Wells to Herbert George Wells works. But since I've never heard him referred to by his full name, sure why the hell not. Support. —ExplorerCDT 06:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 21:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. We have A. J. P. Taylor after all. Timrollpickering 07:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Looks like this used to be at H. G. Wells in the past, and is where it is as a result of a copy 'n' paste move by User:Urhixidur on Oct 16th. An admin should merge the histories (both the article and the Talk pages). -- Netoholic @ 01:26, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
  • Page histories merged. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support with reservations. It's consistent with T.S. Eliot and A.A. Milne, but I think it is a bad policy and the redirects end up bass ackwards. Icundell 09:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problem with going with the initials is that there are no consistent orthographic conventions for initials (whatever the style guide may say). H. G. Wells, HG Wells, H.G.Wells? Let's stick with his full name as the name of the article, just as United States is the name of the article despite nearly everybody calling the country USA or US. And it doesn't matter what the scriptwriter from Time after Time said, they got his accent completely wrong. They had Malcolm McDowell speaking like somebody educated at Eton, but recordings of his voice show that, to the end of his life, he bore the accent of the man he was, an escaped draper's assistant from Bromley. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accents aside :) don't redirects deal with spelling issues? Users may guess several forms of HG Wells, but probably not Herbert George Wells. Rd232 20:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• support, use common names--Jiang 15:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support, if this wasn't listed here, I'd have just moved it. Unless we came up with a policy that banned initials in article titles entirely (which I don't think we should do unless we decided to abandon "most common name" entirely, which we shouldn't do), this is clearly someone who should be at with the initials. john k 20:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Google: about 716,000 for "h. g. wells", about 44,800 for "herbert george wells". All his work was published in the form H. G. Wells. I would add that although been reading Wells since I was nine years old and consider myself a fan, I have a personal acquaintance I've known for ten years who calls himself "Herb Wells" and it wasn't until a year ago that I even thought to ask whether there was a connection. (There wasn't). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

public ownership → public sector

The latter term is more common; the former term, although substantially equivalent, seems to be unhelpful to creating a good page. (See current introduction.) NB The page was originally Nationalization, but the arguments were really about public ownership and about the validity of government involvement in the economy, for example in public services. Public ownership may also be a UK-centric term; I'm not clear on this. Rd232 18:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Objection (not really against the move, but as these articles being redirected as they are) — I don't see why the two of these articles are connected in the first place. When you get down to the nitty-gritty of it, the two terms don't define the same thing. Public Ownership can refer a.) to a company of which shares (securities) are available for sale to the public, or publically held or traded, as much as it can refer to b.) a company whose existence is as regulated monopoly (i.e. Power Companies like the former Montana Power) but the control of the company outside of the regulatory oversight is generally the same as any regular corporate entity, or c.) a company the government has taken over for the public good (through Nationalization). Public Sector on the other hand just refers to the part of the economy concerned with providing basic government services (defense, police, public works, public education, &c.). These, in all reality, should be two separate articles. —ExplorerCDT 06:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Public sector and public ownership have distinct meanings. The former refers to a mode of business financed by public funds and organized on behalf of the community (but sometimes carried out by private contractors), the latter to the legal possession of property, including business assets, by or on behalf of the community by an appointed representative such as the government. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - different concepts. Icundell 21:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I invite anyone with an opinion to come and edit the articles and help clarify the matter. Public sector currently directs to public ownership, and any help in developing both articles would be much appreciated. Rd232 22:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. See public sector as an opening gambit. A bit rough and ready. Have tweak public ownership a bit too. Icundell 10:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boy, I wish people said that to me more often :) ... Cheers for your help. Rd232 20:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Single

Single → single (music)

Single (disambiguation) → Single

• This seems to be one of those words that no one definition can be determined as the "primary" one. In fact, I don't even think that the music reference is the most common use of the word. As such, I think we should make the disambig page at single. -- Netoholic @ 04:54, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Naive cynic 11:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Rd232 18:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Timrollpickering 18:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Niteowlneils 02:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. No question about it. —ExplorerCDT 06:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• At last! A move proposal to which I can give my unqualifed support. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 18

Salty Chocolate Balls → Chocolate Salty Balls

• Article is improperly named. Original source is an episode of South Park entitled "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls" (TV Tome is only one to call it Salty Chocolate Balls) see Season 2 for verification of title. Song is titled "Chocolate Salty Balls {PS I Love You)". Song lyrics are "...suck on my chocolate, salty balls." So why is article at Salty Chocolate Balls? The VfD discussion notes this mistake as well. Alkivar 22:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I love big, salty, brown, chocolate balls. Therefore, I support. -- Naive cynic 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Prima facie case. Support. Rd232 18:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Timrollpickering 20:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Mr Google agrees. Support. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I think the article should actually be at Chef's Salty Chocolate Balls, (this is the title of the episode according to southparkstudios.com, which is affiliated with comedy central) since ideally the article should include episode info, since all the other info and the song come from that episode. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latin → Latin language

• Most languages are under "X language", except when the language name is not also an ethnonym. "Latin" (as the existance of Latin (disambiguation) illustrates) is not unambiguous, and can refer as a noun to a member of the ancient Latin people, to a Roman Catholic or Protestant (in Orthodox Christian usage), to a member of the "Latin race" (i.e., Iberian/French/Italian, in 19th century parlance), etc. The talk page is getting nowhere, so I think this needs input from the broader community. —Tkinias 22:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. According to the disambiguation policy, primary meaning should not be disambiguated. Primary meaning of Latin is the language. -- Naive cynic 22:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The primary meaning of "French" as a noun is French language, much as the primary meaning of "Spanish" as a noun is Spanish language, yet those are at "X lanaguage". Indeed, I am aware of no other uses of "French" or "Spanish" as nouns. On the other hand, "Latin" is used as a noun to refer to people in addition to the language. —Tkinias 02:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I would have thought that "the French" was more likely to refer to the people of France rather than the French language (ditto "the Spanish", the people of Spain, Spanish language), no? -- ALoan (Talk) 03:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I should have clarified that I was referring to singular nouns. There is no other meaning I can think of for "French" or "Spanish" as singular nouns. OTOH, "the French" or "the Spanish" is the rather archaic but formally correct way to refer to the languages (as in the ossified expression "translated from the French by..."); my 100-year-old Latin grammar always refers to the language as "the Latin". The fact remains that these are no more ambiguous than "Latin", which as a singular noun refers both to a person and to the language. —Tkinias 03:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Naive cynic. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 02:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Consistency is important for users and editors alike; the argument about disambiguation, as Tkinias says, could be applied to most language names and yet is not, when ‘Latin’ is actually in greater need of disambiguation. We can speak of “the French” and “the Latins”; but while we can speak of “a Latin”, we cannot speak of “a French”.
    — Ford 02:47, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • Consistency is a nice thing, but we don't have it anyway - there are several other languages whose articles are not under the "X language". -- Naive cynic 11:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Just because we are not yet consistent does not mean we cannot move in that direction.
        — Ford 12:14, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
        • It depends on whether we want to move all language articles to "X language". -- Naive cynic 12:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems rather redundant. "Latin" is incredibly more likely to be referring to the language than anything else. SECProto 04:38, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've discovered I don't like the entire "X language" convention. The argument about "primary meaning" holds for basically all languages — my naïve expectation is that a person coming to an encyclopedia and typing "french" in the "go" box is looking for French language, not French people. As for what articles link to, less than 80 pages link to French people (Special:Whatlinkshere/French people) while more pages link to French language than the software will display (Special:Whatlinkshere/French language). So why shouldnt it be at French? If we're going to apply mysterious article naming logic, we could at least be consistent about it. (And if not liking that drives us on to change our standard for the better, then so be it.) BTW, there are two disambiguation pages for Latin: Latin (disambiguation) and Latin (adjective)) —Muke Tever 07:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose primary meaning is the language and I think a special case should be made for something as widely used as the Latin language anyway. It is probably spoken by more people than any other tongue, whether they know it or not. adamsan 12:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose primary meaning is the language. older≠wiser 12:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - primary meaning is the language. And if Muke Tever is correct (if the language links dominate that much), we should seriously consider moving all languages in the opposite direction. Rd232 18:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support moving all languages this way. Currently, one cannot be sure (without checking) where a link like French, German, or Latin will wind up, so I always disambiguate—[[France|French]] or [[French language|French]]. As I mentioned on my original post on Talk:Latin, I frankly care not whether it's at Latin or Latin language, so long as all languages are treated consistently, and I can predict when I'm writing an article where the link will end up. (I can't imagine why treating languages consistently gets so much opposition...) —Tkinias 18:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. If I type "Latin" in the Go box, I expect to read about the Latin language. However, in the case of French language, etc., I would oppose moving them to French; the current disambiguation pages there are excellent, and are quite practical when someone writes something like "is a French poet," rather than the more standard "is a [[France|French]] poet." The difference is that it is extremely rare for English speakers to refer to Latin culture, Latin cuisine, etc.; and if one talks about Latin literature, then one is talking about literature written in Latin. I think that the status quo is quite acceptable. --LostLeviathan 22:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, LostLeviathan. Usually when we refer to Latin literature we call it by what it has been known as for centuries...Classics.—ExplorerCDT 15:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where you live, but in my part of the States there is a lot of Latin culture. It is more PC today to use the untranslated Latina/-o, but the traditional English term is Latin—hence Latin America. Indeed, one is far more likely to be referring to Hispanics than anything pertaining to ancient Rome or the Latin language when one says Latin around here. —Tkinias 09:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. If I type "Latin" in the Go Box, I'd rather expect to read about the music genre rather than the language of Juvenal, Cato, and Livy which is generally more interesting. Latin should be a disambiguation page, leading to Latin language, Latin (music), perhaps something referring to the Latins both the ancient tribe that lived near Etruria and became the progenitors of the Kingdom of Rome, before the Republic, and the people that today are grouped as Latin—hispanics, spanish, portuguese, &c. We really need a disambiguation at this page. As for the language page, Latin language gets my support. Consistency demands it—above personal preferences.—ExplorerCDT 06:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, what do you expect to read about when you type in the Go box, say, "Acid", "Club", "Dance", "Gospel", "Jungle", "Metal", or "Soul"? -- Naive cynic 00:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Nice of you to read and comment on only one line without reading what I mentioned in the rest of the paragraph. Obviously you are blind because any fool would have noticed that one line was meant to be tete-a-tete rhetoric directed towards LostLeviathan concerning his subjective statement that after having typed Latin into the Go box he expected to be led to the language article. I guess some people either don't read, or—because of some deficiency in comprehension—need more-than-obvious rhetorical flourishes explained to them. —ExplorerCDT 15:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Consistency, apparently, is not a priority... —Tkinias 09:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. If I type Latin, I expect Latin. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a heavily linked-to article; moving will occasion a major fuss. "Latin" is originally and ordinarily the name of a language. Most other uses are abbreviations for Latin American, and this probably should be spelled out the first time it's used in that context in any case. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ordinarily maybe, but originally no: Latin is originally an ethnonym, regularly formed (Latium : Latin  :: Rome : Roman). Not its fault that the region ended up severely outclassed by its capital. ;) (—Muke Tever 02:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Guettarda 19:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Suppport. While the language is the primary meaning, "X_language" is the standard article naming for language articles. If we are to leave this, we should move all "X_language" articles to "X", and deal with the mess that creates. - UtherSRG 12:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

My Pet Goat → The Pet Goat

• The Pet Goat is the correct title of this work. Jonathunder 04:53, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
• Support. Makes no sense to use a factual inaccuracy simply because it's common. Beginning 19:22, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Alkivar 19:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The article could be made more NPOV, but the book has achieved a degree of fame (notoriety?) and should have an article. I can't name a single elementary school reader—except maybe some of the ones we used in the '70s—but I know about this book. Bin Laden made reference to the book in his last video; that says famous to me... —Tkinias 20:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I've extensively rewritten the article to NPOV it and clarify the work's cultural significance. —Tkinias 21:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Much much better, no longer reads like a Michael Moore muppet wrote it. Alkivar 00:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The work's only claim to fame is that a President read it to elementary school children while his countrymen burned and fell to their deaths. Whatever its true name, the name by which most people (around the world) know it is "My Pet Goat." The article can contain a correction on the title and a redirect can take care fo those few people who do know the correct title. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support. use accurate titles--Jiang 15:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support. john k 20:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It shouldn't be too confusing. When people get the redirect, they'll see the picture of Bush and know they're at the right page. Nathanlarson32767 21:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Front (WWII) → Great Patriotic War

• Support. It was agreed in Talk:Eastern Front (WWII)#Straw Poll on name of the article that Eastern Front (WWII) would be moved to Great Patriotic War. It was carried 4 votes to 1 (or 0) (not sure if gdr was voting or commenting) and the last vote cast was more than a month ago. Please move both page and talk page. However, if the move was previously fully discussed on the article's Talk: page, it can be moved right away. please do it ASAP Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose There is no indication that the straw poll on the talk page was advertised in any way so as to solicit the opinion of community beyond a few editors of the page. And there is no strong evidence presented that "Great Patriotic War" is the name most commonly used in English to refer to this conflict. older≠wiser 13:56, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Strenuous Objection. Great Patriotic War is an exclusively Russian euphemism for World War II that no English-speaking Wikipedia reader would ever search for, and anyone less than an academic, history buff, or war buff would ever be familiar with in the first place. It may be fine for the Russian language edition of Wikipedia, where Russian speakers would be familiar with the phrase (moreso than they are with the Western World War II), but as for the English language Wikipedia, keep it as it is. Certainly adding the pre-1941 information to the article is necessary, perhaps as a section entitled "Beginning of the Great Patriotic War" but the GPW was only part of the operational theatre on the Eastern Front and should not be confused as being the entire Eastern front. I doubt you would consider the efforts of the Greeks, Bulgarians and the Poles part of the GPW, but they were part of the effort on the Eastern Front. Something many scholars include when discussing the war in the East. The requested move is akin to renaming the American Civil War article to War of Northern Aggression. No one would ever look for that save a few Southerners still jaded that their side lost. —ExplorerCDT 14:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You say GPW was only part of the operational theatre on the Eastern Front and should not be confused as being the entire Eastern front. Which is precisely why I think it should be renamed to GPW. If the article is expanded to include the other conflicts then there can not be redirects from names like "Great Patriotic War" and "Russo-German War" "Soviet-German War" or "German-Soviet War" because the article would cover more than those names imply and redirects to subheadings do not work. For this reason people who edit the current page are refusing to allow the additions you are suggesting -- because they define the Eastern Front to be only the German-Soviet War. If the current article was moved to GPW then the Eastern Front could be developed along the lines of the Western Front (WWII) in the style of the North African Campaign -- brief sections with links to main articles. At the moment the coverage of the Eastern Front is as if the Western Front only included those campaigns which occurred after the Americans entered the war. Philip Baird Shearer 17:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Still not swayed. Still object, just as strenuously. Expand the article. No need to rename it to a title rank with Soviet sloganiering propaganda no one in the West uses on a regular basis, much less attends to more than required for a footnote. —ExplorerCDT 19:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • If we expand the article to be the Eastern European Theatre, then we'll end up having to link to the Soviet-German War from within it regardless, just as we link to the Polish September Campaign and Balkans Campaign. Unless you're advocating having them all on one page, which would, IMO, make it terribly long and unwieldly. Oberiko 03:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name Eastern Front is much more common in English. -- Naive cynic 15:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This commentis from the Talk:Eastern Front (WWII) — If it was renamed then there could be an article linking all the campaigns and wars which took place on the on the Eastern Front (EF) between 1939 and 1945. This could include a link to the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in the first section along the lines of "For the artical on the main war on the Eastern Front of World War II see Great Patriotic War" for those who thing the EF and GPW are the same thing (I suppose that is most Americans, because the US came into the war after the start of the GPW!). This way the GPW could remain clean without including details other events which happened on the Eastern Front before the start of the GPW and during the war like Yugoslavia and the Warsaw uprising. Redirects can exist from alternative names German-Russian War etc. Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support, mostly for the same reasons why ExplorerCDT opposses. The article at present is about the Soviet-German War, not every action taken East of Germany. Presently, we want to isolate it from the Polish September Campaign and the Balkans Campaign, which already have their own pages. As shown above, Eastern Front, while usually meaning to the GPW, can also refer to the Eastern European Theatre as a whole and is therefore ambiguous. For my last points, GPW is, while perhaps not quite as common, is certainly a very well known term and doesn't seem to be that distant a second and does not (even in Russia) include combat outside of the Soviet-German War.
  • Agree with separating the specific conflict from the general front but is this the best name for it? Timrollpickering 16:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll be honost, I don't like the name Great Patriotic War. But, really, here are our choices: Soviet/Russo-German/Axis War; Eastern Front (WWII); GPW. The first is accurate, but little known, so it's automatically at last place. The second is common, but ambiguous (as we can see in this very discussion), and already a disambiguation. The third is common, non-ambiguous, but seems pretty jingoistic. Commonality is always the first deciding factor, so the first option is out. Clarity, AFAIK, is the second priority, so that puts the GPW ahead of Eastern Front (WWII). Oberiko 03:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• In which case I Support. Timrollpickering 13:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose - the name is POV...it buys into Stalin sending poorly armed men to be cannon fodder as being "Patriotic" and ignores that there was more to this war than Russia defending itself. The deportation of all sorts of minorities took place in the context of this war. Justifying Stalin's actions as "Great Patriotism" is really giving him too much credit. Do we really want to buy into Soviet-era doublespeak? Maybe we can call it Operation Barbarossa to make sure we address all sides (of course this still leaves out the Finns and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). Also, seems to separate it from the broader WWII context. — In addition, then do we rename the Vietnam War War Against the Americans to Save the Nation? I could see using Second Indochina War since it gives context, but the Vietnamese name gives the entire war to one side. Guettarda 16:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barbarossa does not include any of the other major battles / phases of the Soviet-German War such as Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration or Berlin. Oberiko 16:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know, I was just fishing for another one-sided name to make a point - I realise it was a poor analogy, especially since I am arguing for completeness. Guettarda 17:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you aware that it was named the Great Patriotic War because Napoleon's Russian Campaign is known as the Patriotic War in Russia? Far from justifying Stalin's actions, it is a sign of the weakness of the communist system (like the opening up churches), that they had to delve into the Tzarest past and appeal to Rodina instead of communist ideology. The trouble with any other name like the more accurate "Axis-Soviet War" is that any other name even less well know, or "Soviet-German" less accurate. As to the use of the word "war", at the moment we have an article called Pacific War (which is a misnomer because it includes the bombing of Australia, and fighting in Asia and on the Indian Ocean), but is used because it is argued that most Americans use the term. That does not make it any less part of World War II. In a slimlar way there is the Peninsular War which is part of the Napoleonic Wars. "Compleetness": Do you think that the operations in Italy and Norway should be included in the Western Front article? If not why not as you are proposing that everything on the eastern front should be in one article which is already large and still skimps on many actions involving numbers of men an material which dwarf the Western Front. For example the attack on East Prussia and Poland in early 1945, or the eastern front in 1939, or the war by the Partisans in Yugoslavia etc?Philip Baird Shearer 23:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with renaming this article so that a proper overview of the Eastern Front can be written in its place, but I oppose renaming it to "Great Patriotic War", as this is very one-sided. Axis-Soviet War or German-Soviet War would be better names. Popularity is not the only thing that we take into account when picking a name for an article: if it were we would have to call the article "Eastern Front". Gdr 17:04, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Personally I do not mind what it is renamed too because with any name redirects will be possible. I just happen to to think that GPW is the best of a bad bunch. But it would worse not to move the article to a any new name. Philip Baird Shearer 23:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But why is it the best of a bad bunch? You've failed to explain this. GPW is popular, but not neutral. The alternatives are neutral but not popular. I think that neutrality is a more important principle for Wikipedia than matching popular usage. Gdr 11:06, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Because none of them are well known. There are two other alternatives "Axis-Soviet War" "German-Soviet War". As I said above "Personally I do not mind what it is renamed too because with any name redirects will be possible." Of those two the former is more accurate than the latter but is less well known and the latter is less often used than GPW. Please explain why you think that GPW is not neutral? After all it was the great war of World War II and both sides fought with patriotism (more so than for ideology).

• Agree. "East(ern) Front" is an ambiguous name, and Great Patriotic War, even if one-sided, is the most commonly used unambiguous name in English. The name may be jingoistic, but it's what the war is called. "German-Soviet" or "Axis-Soviet" may be precise, but they are not at all commonly used. AFAIK it's just the Ostfront in German, which does not clearly identify the war. Barbarossa is just as one-sided as GPW, and refers only to one operation; it would be like calling the whole of 1944–45 in the West "Operation Overlord". I haven't heard any other good alternatives. (Google test: "Great Patriotic War", ca. 70,000 hits; "German-Soviet War", ca. 1,000 hits; "Axis-Soviet War", exactly one hit.) —Tkinias 22:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've never heard of "The Great Patriotic War," so I'll assume that the majority of other wikipedians haven't either. SECProto 04:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Same here, but I have repeatedly heard of the 'eastern front'. I would argue that 'Eastern Front (WWII)' isn't particularly ambiguous. Also, it gets about 100,000 hits, as does 'Eastern Front (World War II). Seems like there has got to be other alternative resolutions of the issues referred to by 'Philip Baird Shearer 17:21, 17 Dec 2004' (which seem to be at least in part contradicted by 'Timrollpickering]] 16:47, 17 Dec 2004'. Niteowlneils 05:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Great Patriotic War is POV (Soviet), and the existing title is perfectly adequate, and probably more familiar/understandable to the average reader. Rd232 20:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm yet another English speaker who has always heard this war referred to as the Eastern Front of WWII. And I would certainly expect NPOV concerns if someone entered "Eastern Front (WWII)" and was redirected to "The Great Patriotic War." It makes a great deal of sense that Russians would call the war something different, but they are a minority of English speakers, and I see no reason why their name for the war should be regarded as more correct. (Google gets a roughly even number of hits for either term, depending on how you parse "Eastern Front WWII", but while general WWII history sites are responsible for most of the Eastern Front hits, most of the "Great Patriotic War" hits are at Russian sites or sites devoted to Russian history.) --LostLeviathan 21:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So on which front was the Polish campaign of 1939 fought? On which front was the Partisan conflict in Yugoslavia fought. On which front was the Continuation War fought? Did you read the comment above?:

• Yes, I read it, but I find it unconvincing in light of overwhelming popular usage; a disambiguation heading can deal with those. --LostLeviathan 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it was renamed then there could be an article linking all the campaigns and wars which took place on the on the Eastern Front (EF) between 1939 and 1945. This could include a link to the Great Patriotic War (GPW) in the first section along the lines of "For the artical on the main war on the Eastern Front of World War II see Great Patriotic War"

This would also alow "yet another English speaker" to know that the Russians call it this (and the reason why they do see Patriotic War). If the article is expanded to include all the conflicts on the Eastern Front then the redirects like Great Patriotic War will be wrong. As I said above GPW is not a perect name but it is the best of a bad bunch (see what Oberiko wrote on the 18th for the details of why this is). Philip Baird Shearer 23:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It can be mentioned in the first paragraph that the Russians call it (or some specific part of it) the Great Patriotic War. I still don't think the name of the article should be changed. --LostLeviathan 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Eastern Front starts in 1939.

"Eastern Front" + 1939 = 44,000 hits

"Eastern Front" + Soviet = 67,000 hits

"Great Patriotic War" = 59,000 hits

So claims that GPW is an unknown term is ridiculous.

The article clearly says it is Soviet-german conflict, hence the name is correct.

"Eastern Front" is yet to be written. Mikkalai 05:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. POV – ABCD 02:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. POV and "Eastern Front" is more common. Fighting in the Balkans and in Poland is not generally known as the "Eastern Front," in any event. john k 20:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 12

Rhythm video game → Music game

I've outlined my reasons for this proposal at Talk:Rhythm video game, and so far I've gotten one agreement and no objection. The reasons for the change fall into two categories:

1. "Music game" is both a broader and more accurate term. An obvious example of a game that seems, intuitively, to be a music game but not a rhythm game is Karaoke Revolution, a singing game in which pitch is more important than rhytm.
2. "Music game" is the more commonly used term; although rhythm game is also frequently used, "music game" gets far more Google hits. I feel fairly certain that the term "music game" is more commonly used both in reviews and in online directories such as DMOZ. [6]

Also, I think the "video" part is redundant; while there may technically be some other music-related games, I'm sure that they could be handled through a disambiguation heading. This would also make the article more consistent with other articles on video game genres, including fighting game and shooter game. (In the case of strategy game, both video and board games are thrown into the same article; a music game article could certainly do the same.)

Note that making this change would entail a couple of other changes: "Rhythm" would be changed to "Music" at Computer and video game genres, and the "Rhythm computer games" category would be renamed the "Music games" category. --LostLeviathan 01:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hrm. I think "music game" is too broad. "Musical chairs" is a music game. - UtherSRG 03:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• While musical chairs is a game played with music, I don't think one would describe it to someone unfamiliar with it as a "music game"; that particular combination of words, in my experience, only refers to video games. Similarly, one could describe boxing as a fighting game, but when you say "fighting game" you're generally talking about a video game genre. I think that if someone types "music game" into the Go box, they expect to read about Dance Dance Revolution, Frequency, and others like them. If you really want, you could put a sentence at the top of the article clarifying: "This article is about a video game genre. You might also want to read about musical chairs." --LostLeviathan 07:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm, I think I mildly object. Rhythm video game seems to cover it pretty well. Musical video game instead, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I agree. - UtherSRG 17:23, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

• • • I also agree with ALoan. "Music game" is just too broad, but "Musical video game" or perhaps just Music video game seems the right fit. Jonathunder 21:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)