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.

January 1

KTMA → KMWB

The KMWB page was just a temporary redirect to Sinclair Broadcast Group until another article could be created. The article KTMA (an old name of the same station, a few owners earlier) had started to be edited instead of KMWB. —User:Mulad (talk) 08:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Scorpions → Scorpions (band)

To comply with Naming conventions, name of bands. Band simply uses "Scorpions" on cd covers and official site as per the external links in that article. -- Aqua 07:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd rather see the band article moved to Scorpions--all other uses seem to default to the singular, which the band article already disambs at the top. Niteowlneils 18:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's most common that plural forms redirect to singular, even if there is something like this that could hold that title. Disambigs, like Scorpion (disambiguation), address singular, plural, and other forms. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Support move. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

December 31

Yes → Yes (band)

This move has already taken place by doing a copy/paste. Someone needs to delete the Yes (band), which was a redirect to Yes, and then move the Yes to [[Yes (band). The reason for this request is that the vast majority of edits to Yes were related to the band and not the word. -- DCEdwards1966 01:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes is currently a simple dictdef. Yes (band) should be at Yes with a link to Wiktionary for the word. violet/riga (t) 01:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with that. I didn't move the article, I just wanted to get the page history straightened out. DCEdwards1966 01:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I've reverted it, and left a note on the Talk page to bring the argument here, and to use the Move tab if it should be moved. IMHO, someone looking for the word will go to Wiktionary, while someone looking for Yes at Wikipedia is more likely looking for the band, so I think it should stay that way. (i.e. 'what violet/riga said') Niteowlneils 03:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That works for me. DCEdwards1966 04:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support move to Yes (band). Yes should be a disambig. See Yes (disambiguation) for some ideas. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Unless someone presents some other well-known things known only by the name Yes, then the band should be at Yes. I see nothing at Special:Allpages/Yes that would be referred to primarily (or even occasionally) by only the word Yes. older≠wiser 17:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Starship Voyager → USS Voyager

USS Voyager is a redirect to Starship Voyager, but since it was modified once to remove a superfluous space, I cannot move over it. This would be consistent with "official" Star Trek usage as well as other Star Trek ship names (for example, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), USS Defiant, USS Galaxy, and so on). -- — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) Update: I regret that there are many articles linking to the original page. I check Wikipedia at least once a day; I will be happy to take care of fixing the links should this change be approved. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support for now. Should a real warship of that name ever be catalogued, the present article could be moved to a version with its NCC suffix. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree. An alternate solution could be to add "(Star Trek)" or some similar text. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 11:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The US Navy had USS Voyager (SP-361), so Star Trek's Voyager should be listed with the NCC suffix.--Gunter 12:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Even though it's a pop culture subject, it's far more well known than the US Navy craft, and there's no current conflict. And what Tony Sidaway said. —Michael Z. 23:03, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
• I was going to support, but the real vessel article has just been written, and USS Voyager has become a disamb page, so the starship should probably go to USS Voyager (NCC-74656) or USS Voyager (Star Trek) (either being better than "Starship Voyager"). Niteowlneils 03:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Help! As Niteowlneils noted, someone has just written a page on the real USS Voyager, so I decided to move this article to USS Voyager (Star Trek) (which was a redirect to Starship Voyager). I double-checked the directions at meta:Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page#Moving_over_a_redirect, and then moved it—but the edit history on the new page just shows the creation of the redirect. I thought the edit history would have been transferred! I don't want to change anything else until I figure out what went wrong—if anyone can help, I'd greatly appreciate it. And sorry for the trouble. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It sometimes takes a bit for things to catch up--looks like the whole history is there to me--if you don't see it yet, click on one of the links to change the number of edits to display EG ((20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).) and that should update the list. Niteowlneils 17:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I support (Star Trek) over NCC--from what I can make out, NCC is usually used when more than one ship in the Star Trek universe shares the name. And less than 60 linked articles to change--I've taken on more, and am more than willing to help with these. Niteowlneils 18:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nippon Culture Broadcasting → Nippon Cultural Broadcasting

• It is a misspelling. The history should be united. --Tigers boy 04:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, altho' it seems to have been done, except merging the histories. Niteowlneils 18:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fang → Fang (people)

The Fang page currently links to information about an African Tribe! Surely the majority of people would thing of teeth. Fang should be a disambiguity page.--Gunter 01:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. A fang is not just a tooth, it's a venom-holding weapon. Ask anyone in the street what a fang is they won't say an african tribe. Nicholas 15:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. English-speakers interested in teeth would enter tooth or teeth. The African tribe is a reasonable guess at what someone entering "fang" would want to know about, and there is a link to Fang (disambiguation) at the top. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Fang should be a disambig. violet/riga (t) 01:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose concur with Tony Sidaway Kappa 03:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zaire → Zaïre

Simple misspelling. Zaire is incorrect. Nicholas 15:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose Oh no it isn't. Google about 32,500 English pages for Zaïre, 2,350,000 English pages for Zaire Philip Baird Shearer 15:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC).
• Oppose Most people wouldn't use the diaeresis. jguk 16:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Use most common name in the English language. older≠wiser 16:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zaire is the English name, and that's all there is to it. ADH (t&m) 16:54, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Google results are irrelevant, and just show many people are unsure how to get the ï character on their keyboard. The diacritic issue is also irrelevant, as the article on Côte d'Ivoire shows. Zaire should redirerct to Zaïre, not the other way around.- XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 17:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support for Xed's reasons. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
• Oppose. →Raul654 19:11, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Niteowlneils 03:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would never think of spelling Zaire with an umlaut, but that's not the issue. If the article was already at Zaïre I would oppose a move to Zaire; on the other hand there is no reason to move it the other way. Leave it be. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• err, yup. Oppose. SECProto 19:02, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

December 30

Shard of Glass → London Bridge Tower

London Bridge Tower is the correct name, but redirects to Shard of Glass, a press nickname. Move in line with 1 Canada Square(Canary Wharf Tower) and 30 St Mary Axe (Erotic Gherkin) -- Icundell 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support - obviously Icundell 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Duh. ADH (t&m) 00:04, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: DCEdwards1966 04:57, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: You can also cite Tower 42 rather than NatWest Tower and several other examples. -- Solipsist 09:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: Keep the article where most people will search for it. jguk 10:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should we use Shard of glass or Shard of Glass :-) ? Icundell 11:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. That's what redirects are for. Rd232 11:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose as a Londoner who has the other two buildings in his sight nearly every day. The popular name should be the main entry, and you cite some bad precedents. The Erotic Gherkin is a name by which the building in question is known to millions. A few thousand may know the building as 30 St Mary Axe. The same goes for Canary Wharf Tower, same goes for Tower 42. If anything, these articles should be moved, not Shard of Glass. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You appear to be arguing that popular usage should be used as a substitute for accuracy. London Bridge Tower is the name given by its owners, the local authority and will probably be its postal name. Nicknames should be the re-directs, proper names the main article. Icundell 12:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That kind of formal accuracy is a weak argument for the name of an article. We're not going to move Bill Gates to William Henry Gates III for instance, because while the latter is more formally accurate it is not the name by which Bill Gates is known to the public. The question I ask is: what words would the user be most likely to type into the find box or into Google (which gives precedence to HTML titles of web pages) when searching for information about this building? If this is a reasonably unique phrase (that is, typing it in shows mostly articles about the subject I'm interested in), I consider it to be a good candidate for the name of an article.

Strongly disagree - formal accuracy is a strong argument. Given the ability to redirect, there is little reason for an encylopedia to prefer the informal name to the formal one. (However, precisely this argument was defeated re East Germany.) Also, "shard of glass" has a generic meaning which will be more familiar to most people. Rd232 13:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Stand on any London street and ask passersby to point to "Tower 42", "30 St Mary Axe" and "1 Canada Square". You'll get lots of blanks looks, although the three buildings are seldom out of their sight. Now ask them to point out the Natwest Tower, the Erotic Gherkin and the Canary Wharf Tower and you'll get smiles and directions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of slang. If the "Shard of Glass" page has a redirect people will have no problem finding London Bridge Tower. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we couldn't have redirects, that would be a very strong argument. But we can. And encyclopedias are supposed to tell people things they don't know. Rd232 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we were being consistent with "30 St Mary Axe" and "1 Canada Square" the article would need to be moved to "32 London Bridge Street". jguk 12:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Partly an ontological question. Are we describing entities, which have correct formal names (which should be preferred); or terms (where common usage is much more important)? If we start distinguishing these consistently, it would be logical to describe both "name X" (informal name for Y) and describe other things about Y on page "Y". That, it seems to me, would be logical, consistent and encyclopedic. Rd232 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a building. No need to get philosophical; just called it what it is properly called. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is a need to get philosophical. This question comes up so often precisely because there is no agreed ontological basis for resolving conflicts between different Wikipedia conventions. Rd232 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support We can't have Wikipedia littered with slang names for articles. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It will be littered with "slang" terms whether you welcome that or not. Wikipedia naming conventions favor the use of such common names for people and things: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support London Bridge Tower is the proper name, and so should be the primary title for the article. This is exactly why we have redirects. TACD 15:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support The policy is self-identification. I'm pretty certain Bill Gates calls himself that, ditto 1 Canada Square, Tower 42, etc. Press/slang nicknames should never be used unless the entity itself starts using them. Dtcdthingy 20:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. We use 30 St Mary Axe, 1 Canada Square, so there is clearly a de facto policy of using real names instead of popular nicknames. See also Tall buildings in London and similar articles. Gdr 21:19, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • As noted above, this would mean the article should be called 32 London Bridge Street. jguk 23:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Um, no. The suggestion is to use the (or at least, a) official name, not the street address. 30 St Mary Axe is called that [1], as is One Canada Square. --Dtcdthingy 00:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Why the "official" name when the naming conventions clearly recommend the popular name? The Shard of Glass is what Londoners call it, same with Canary Wharf Tower, the Natwest Building, the Erotic Gherkin, the Oxo Tower and the Lloyd's building (which all presumably also have obscure names that nobody actually uses in real life). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ipswich, Suffolk → Ipswich

• Ipswich, Suffolk is almost always the Ipswich people refer to. See also [2]. We disambiguate in the same way for other places - see, for example: London. jguk 20:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are numerous other Ipswich around the world, people searching would want to be able to choose which, not be railroaded. Disabmiguity page should be kept.--Gunter 21:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's also the name of a fairly well-known software company. Jonathunder 21:56, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
• Support. Any other usage exists because of this one. Icundell 22:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support +Ipswich (disambiguation) --Dtcdthingy 23:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Ipswich could be any number of towns, outside of the U.K. ADH (t&m) 23:53, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: However, the move has already taken place without waiting for consensus. DCEdwards1966 04:55, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The move seems to have happened in response to a request at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Ipswich, which initiated the request here. It is probably a misunderstanding. -- Solipsist 09:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I have move it back. - UtherSRG 23:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral: I expected to support, but Ipswich, Queensland has a slightly larger population than Ipswich, Suffolk - the ones in the US look much less significant. On the other hand Ipswich, Suffolk is of course the original and has 180 internal links, compared to 25 for the Ipswich, Queensland. -- Solipsist 09:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The internal link count shows that this is by a substantial margin the most likely Ipswich to be sought. A disambiguation page should not, in general, be the first thing a user sees in such cases. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: When a user searches for "Ipswich" the page they expect to see is probably dependent on where they are in the world. I have no doubt that someone in the UK would expect to see Ipswich, Suffolk. But, someone from the US, Canada or Australia would probably expect something different. DCEdwards1966 23:16, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Most common and well known use of "Ipswich"; others should be on a disambig. violet/riga (t) 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - all other uses are derived from this one, pretty much all of the links for Ipswich mean Ipswich in England. The precedent has already been set for places like Cambridge, Oxford, Exeter and Durham and many other towns in Britain. Jooler 11:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Ipswitch software company is spelt differently too. adamsan 14:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Semyon Lavochkin → Lavochkin

• The Lavochkin disambiguity page has two links, both pointing to the same Semyon Lavochkin page. All info on the disambiguity page is duplicated on the Semyon Lavochkin page.

--Gunter 19:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • oppose - redirect Lavochkin to Semyon Lavochkin at it's current location. --Whosyourjudas\^talk 04:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with Whosyourjudas DCEdwards1966 05:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Sony Corporation → Sony

• This will move the page back to where it was for at least 3+ years until yesterday, which I think counts as consensus. It was moved by one user wanting to reflect an obscure quirk of Japanese corporate law in a completely not-useful way. The two pages listed on the new Sony page are subsidiaries of Sony Corp, so could equally well still be linked after the move. -- Dtcdthingy 11:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Rd232 14:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am the user in question. Sony is a brand, a marque, trademark even. The name of the corporation is "Sony Corporation". You don't call the "Disney" company "Disney" because everybody calls it that. You call it The Walt Disney Company because that's its name. Christopher Mahan 18:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC).
  • Which would make sense if the page was only about the Corp, but it's not, it's equally about the brand and the product and the subsidiaries and lots of things in between. Move it to a general Sony page, branch off sub-pages if necessary -- Dtcdthingy 20:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sony should be a redirect to Sony Corporation. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Sony's subsidaries and other external links can be referenced at the bottom of the Sony page, there is nothing ambiguous, it's all one big family. --Gunter 20:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. An utterly unnecessary disambiguation. The Walt Disney Company should also be moved to Disney. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The article's scope is not limited to the corporation. ADH (t&m) 17:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

December 29

Lita (Amy Dumas) → Amy Dumas

• It seems logical to keep the real name or so in the title of the article. Lita could always be redirected to the page. -- CMC 03:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: The article should be under her real name. DCEdwards1966 20:58, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Picture_016.jpg → Image:Wellington from Oriental Bay

• It's my first time uploading an image. The upload page doesn't warn that the local filename gets used as the image name and you can't change it. Ben Arnold 22:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for renaming an image. Just change the name on your computer, upload it again and change the linking on the page in question. Something that YOU can do in 10 seconds. (also posted at User's talk page) —ExplorerCDT 03:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well 10 minutes anyway... I'm on dial-up. How do I delete the old image? Ben Arnold 05:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • HERE: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion —ExplorerCDT 05:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ben Arnold 02:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 28

Miyazaki Telecasting Corporetion, Miyazaki Telecasting, and Miyazaki Telecasting Corporation → Miyazaki Telecasting Co., Ltd.

• The histories should be united. -- 211.124.255.135 13:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I agree, they should be merged. --Peacenik 21:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Rd232 14:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GNURadio → GNU Radio

GNU Radio is the proper name. There is a redirect page at GNU Radio;. I'll clean up the article after it is moved. -- Pmsyyz 05:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support: Though the article does need to be cleaned up so as to not read like an advertising pitch, its official name is GNU Radio as seen here [3]. A google test in this instance is unreliable, because most of the links refer to the webpage URL where the name is combined. —ExplorerCDT 05:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. -- Naive cynic 12:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 27

Thrush (bird) → Thrush

Birds are the primary thrushes and should be at thrush. Thrush is now a redirect to Thrush (disambiguation), and should be deleted to make way for thrush (bird) to be moved. --Yath 01:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Big time object. This request (which was never discussed on the article discussion page) is a perfect example of a collective waste of our time. The disambiguation works and is necessary. Further the birds are not "primary" by any means. I hear the word "thrush," the first thing I think of is the infection. The little bird is an afterthought. Leave it as it is. —ExplorerCDT 01:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note that there has been no suggestion to do away with the disambiguation page. --Yath 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yeah, so. Thrush shouldn't be just for a simple little bird. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. If I type thrush I don't want disambig. It's a very common bird family against a relatively obscure disease and an obscure 1960s fictional entity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Obscure disease? Ever hear of "diaper rash?" or a "yeast infection?" It's one of the more common infections out there, and the reason pharmaceutical companies make billions marketing products as treatments. Get a disambiguation page. It's a delay of what, 10 seconds at most? Think of the other side, some kid looking through Wikipedia for information on the little yellow sores in his mouth, not being able to find what his mother called "thrush." I could care less about the 1960s TV-Land reference, that show sucked anyway. But it's there. So, Keep the disambiguation page. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The disambiguation should stay, but thrush as a disease, while quite common, is almost always known by more colloquial names. Not so for the bird. ADH (t&m) 03:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose It is absurd to characterise the disease as 'obscure', given that nearly all women carry the cause. Icundell 10:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - as per ADH. - UtherSRG 03:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both uses are common. And ADH's point isn't really helpful, unless we want to pick one of the colloquial names for Thrush (disease) and house the article there. Rd232 14:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Thrush (disease) does not exist. The article is under its proper name, Candidiasis. ADH (t&m) 18:07, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Support - both uses may be common, but the bird wins probably 2:1 by any measure I have tried. -- Netoholic @ 16:18, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

I don't think 2:1 is high enough that the bird can be considered a strongly dominant usage. Rd232 19:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose - Thrush Aircraft also exists, so Thrush needs to be a disambiguity page.

  Google give hits for Thrush as follows: Bird (260K), Disease (179K), Aircraft (52K), so disambiguity is in order. --Gunter 19:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  As noted above, nobody's suggesting that the disambiguation page be deleted. This is what's known as "primary topic" disambiguation per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types of disambiguation. ADH (t&m) 23:38, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

  I adopt this approach to disambig. If you put the disambig first you'll ensure that everybody has to go to two pages. If around half or more of users will probably go for one meaning, put that meaning as first choice and a link to disambig. Half the users get a hit first time, The other users get a well earned lesson in being more careful in their choice of search terms in future. Win-Win. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Thrush meaning candidiasis is too common. Thrush (disambiguation) should be moved to Thrush. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - If someone says 'thrush' I'll first think of the disease. (This may be because I am female!) Stay as the disambig; the fact that the article on thrush has a 'technical' name is irrelevant. --Vamp:Willow 20:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - Keep as a disambig page at thrush. In the UK it is common to refer to the Mistle Thrush as just a 'Thrush' (or is it the Song Thrush). However, many users looking for the bird will go straight to one of the more specific species. Those who don't are probably the youngest users, but the disambig page doesn't mention anything too graphic and provides the bird as the first link. People looking for information on the infection are most likely to search for just 'thrush' - indeed all the top Google results relate to the infection. -- Solipsist 10:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bill Richardson (politician) → Bill Richardson

There is consensus that Bill Richardson (politician) is a far better known personality than Bill Richardson (radio). I have moved the disambig at "Bill Richardson" to "Bill Richardson (disambiguation)" -- Jord 17:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unless you were to move his page back to Bill Richardson, there's not much point in that. A bigger issue is probably that there have been a number of politicians named Bill (or William) Richardson, including a few other Congressmen and a longtime California state Senator (H.L. "Bill" Richardson) who ran for U.S. Senate. Outside of politics, there are probably any number of others. I'd recommend leaving the Bill Richardson page as a disambig, but moving the N.M. governor's page to Bill Richardson (governor) or Bill Richardson (New Mexico). MisfitToys 21:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose there are too many famed individuals named Bill Richardson to justify the move...and more than just the two listed on the disambiguation page.—ExplorerCDT 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons MisfitToys stated above. I hope someone will add a few more Bill Richardsons to the list, even if they don't currently have articles. --LostLeviathan 21:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just wonder whether the three authors named Bill Richardson (that I know of) will require a disambiguation page at Bill Richardson (author) and what their individual articles should be named. —ExplorerCDT 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No, Bill Richardson (author) should in that case be a redirect to the main disambiguation page for the name. No point in having a twisty maze of little disambiguation pages. Gdr 21:23, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
• Oppose can't really see any evidence of consensus (or discord for that matter) and who's to say there aren't others? Icundell 22:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Afrikaans language → Afrikaans

As per the naming conventions, if the language's name is unique, it shouldn't have the "language" suffix. The name Afrikaans refers exclusively to the language. -- Naive cynic 09:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Agree. I don't agree with all the naming conventions, but this is a good one. SECProto 21:14, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, tentatively (leaning to agree) (changed vote) Afrikaans also refers to the people who speak the langauge. Before I decide a final stance, Naive cynic, I'd like your answer on the question of whether Afrikaans would be best as an comprehensive article on the Afrikaans people, discussing culture, history, etc.? —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that it is also used in this meaning. The article you ask about already exists under Afrikaner. -- Naive cynic 12:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Didn't know that existed. Then, wholeheartedly support —ExplorerCDT 15:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose! Naming conventions say that all languages should have language in them. Neutrality^talk 22:12, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would encourage you to read the naming conventions before making authoritative comments about them. -- Naive cynic 12:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Afrikaans is not an ethnonym; cf. Ladino, Quechua, Esperanto. Latin had more points in favor, and it's survived several move attempts. ADH (t&m) 04:05, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Rd232 14:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Automobile → Car

"Car" is the most common term; "car" is used throughout in the article; "car" is what people use in everyday speech throughout the world; and the only earlier discussion on the topic suggested moving the page to "car" with no opposition. jguk 09:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Why not reopen discussion on the talk page first? This page DOES say you should try to reach consensus there first. There are a couple of problems with this move, the first being that a simple move is not appropriate. Automobile and car are not complete synonyms. Automobile refers to all self-propelled vehicles, technically; in actual usage, it refers to all classes of four-wheeled, self-propelled vehicles used for personal transportation, including pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans/MPVs as well as cars. Thus, a refactoring is needed to make an article at car, because car is a subset of the class automobile. The second problem is that there are other meanings for 'car' which don't mean the four-wheeled personal transportation device, including the railroad car, trolley car, etc etc etc. Automobile's virtue is that it IS an unambiguous term. This is a qualified slightly support from me: I support it if you are willing to do a good amount of the work required to make this move really work. Otherwise, you're being an "idea person" and leaving the heavy lifting to others. I suspect that much of the content at Automobile could move to car, but a short article should be left at automobile. —Morven 09:37, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • PS. characterising the previous debate as having 'no opposition' isn't quite the truth. Nobody supported keeping it at automobile, but the non-synonymous nature of the two words was recognised, and there was disagreement about where to move TO. —Morven 09:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• I oppose for many of the reasons Morven put forward. Automobile includes all of the relevant vehicles, while car does not and could include non-relevant vehicles. In this world of crossover SUVs and pickup trucks, it is especially wrong to move automobile to car - a large percentage of the motoring world uses non-car automobiles for transportation! --SFoskett 15:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Morven laid down a pretty good case (despite his slight support for the move). Although, I would like to see Automobile article discuss in detail more vehicle types than just the car and truck. —ExplorerCDT 21:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. I'm not sure how Morven's argument gets him to "slightly support" the move, because the same thoughts lead me to the opposite conclusion. "Automobile" includes all the vehicles in question and is unambiguous; "car" is both narrower and ambiguous. Leave the article where it lies. Car should be a disambig page. —Tkinias 21:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. The current car actually points to automobile, which is silly. The bulk of the article is about cars and every single illustration with the exception of the Jeep and the Hummer are recognisable as cars. Move the article to car and then fish stuff out at your leisure to make articles on other kinds of road vehicle. The current article provides very poor coverage of automobiles with the exception of cars and smaller utility vehicles. truck and bus artic/semi, etc, have their own articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, since the opening line reads "An automobile, usually called a car", and has done since April 2003 - and provided that jguk agrees to do consequential clean-up. Icundell 11:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A move will encourage whatever refactoring is necessary, and long-term lead to better coverage of non-car automobiles. Rd232 14:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. To continue the quote above,it runs "An automobile, usually called a car (an old word for carriage) or a truck ..." Car is simply not accurate. - Vague | Rant 07:07, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article describes automobiles in general, not merely passenger sedans. ADH (t&m) 23:48, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: Those opposing the move seem to be using the word "automobile" to have a meaning greater than the meaning of "car" which is unfamiliar to me, and also which is not borne out by the article itself. It would be useful if those who believe automobile does have a wider meaning than "car" could add this to the article. jguk 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've made a very small start, but in honesty the topic needs attention by somebody with far greater knowledge than I. Since most of the content of the article is about cars it would make sense to have it under that title instead, but an article is still needed that talks about vans, cars, trucks, tractors and all automobiles in general. TACD 15:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Automobile' is unambiguous, but 'car' can refer to any automobile or other types of conveyance (ie. streetcar, elevator car, etc.). Car should be a disambiguation page. —Mike 21:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

December 26

Japanese Cabinet → Cabinet of Japan

Better wikipediawide consistency both in terms of "Cabinet of xxx" name structure for all Westminster-model democracies (ie Cabinet of the United Kingdom, Cabinet of Australia, Cabinet of Canada) and "xxx of Japan" name structure for all articles about Japanese political institutions (ie Diet of Japan, Constitution of Japan, Prime Minister of Japan). Presently impeded by a double-edit. -- The Tom 00:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• For sake of aesthetics and consistency, Support. I do have my problems with United States Cabinet but I won't get into that issue. —ExplorerCDT 02:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Well, there's definitely a large can of worms at play here. Dare I point interested eyes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers)? -- The Tom 04:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • DARE I POINT OUT THAT YOU CREATED THE ARTICLE FOUR HOURS BEFORE YOU POSTED THE COMMENT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE!?!?!?!?!?! [4]—ExplorerCDT 15:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support mildly. It's worth pointing out that "Japanese Cabinet" gets 16,700 Google hits, whereas "Cabinet of Japan" gets only 640. That would explain why the article was named "Japanese Cabinet" in the first place: That's how it's most often referred to in news articles. But, neither is the cabinet's official name (in Japan it's simply "the Cabinet"), so I support for the reasons ExplorerCDT gave above.
• Support. Silly question but do any of the Google hits refer to furniture produced in Japan? Timrollpickering 11:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's also worth pointing out that the use of Japanese in almost all contexts (except when talking about the "the Japanese", or just naming the language), but especially in the phrase Japanese Cabinet is an intrinsically adjectival syntax. —ExplorerCDT 15:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) is worth looking at... this is part of a larger issue... —Tkinias 23:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • NOTE User:The Tom only created that article on December 26, 2004 [5] —ExplorerCDT 15:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, yes, you're right, I did. I saw this one particular page move as the tip of a bigger iceberg, and decided to start a broader discussion where people could see if we wanted a policy on these matters or not. If nobody wants one, then we won't have one, and I certainly won't appeal to one to justify any moves now or in the future. -The Tom 02:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Toronto, Ontario → Toronto

There are around 500 direct links here, but as many from Toronto and Toronto, Canada. Taking into account that most external links and find queries are likely to come in the form of the city name only, I think it should probably be moved to Toronto. Same reason as London contains the article on London, England and York contains the article on York, England. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. If someone links to Toronto without further clarification, they clearly mean Toronto, Ontario. Furthermore, many people (non-Canadians) are aware that there is a large city in Canada named Toronto, but are not aware that it is in the province of Ontario. I don't see any downside to making the move, and it somehow feels more clean. --LostLeviathan 23:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, indeed difficult to see why this hasn't already happened given that Toronto is currently a redirect to Toronto, Ontario anyway! Shouldn't need any discussion imho. --Vamp:Willow 00:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Naive cynic 00:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - I think this is because of the general style for North American cities of City, State/Province. It's also used for Australian cities (although I think Melbourne exists by itself). Adam Bishop 01:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - When people say "Toronto", it's quite safe to assume they mean Toronto, Ontario. →Raul654 01:43, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: The name of the article should abide by current naming conventions. Having Toronto redirect to Toronto, Ontario should be sufficient. DCEdwards1966 02:36, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, for sure. Are there other Toronto's? it would make much more sense for "Toronto" to be the title of the article for toronto, ontario. SECProto 03:36, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, there is Toronto, Australia...Adam Bishop 22:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Most likely meaning of "Toronto". —Tkinias 22:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Just like London, New York City and a lot of other big cities that stand on their own, including Canadian cities like Montreal and Ottawa. —ExplorerCDT 23:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Clean. Simple. Nuff said. Icundell 00:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yet another exception to the naming convention. So now we start having exceptions and just because Toronto is a large city, it gets preferential treatment? If we are going to enforce a naming convention, then stick to it. Hundreds of other cities and towns get redirects. People in Western Canada would ask why should Vancouver, Calgary or Winnipeg have to follow naming conventions while all the large eastern cities do not? Looks to me like eastern NA bias here. RedWolf 06:51, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

There is a convention to make exceptions for larger cities to the naming convention for cities, in favour of the broadest naming convention (most common usage). Whatever its origins or validity, that is the case. Some other larger cities might be worth the same move; let's not get upset about bias. I would guess most of the voters above aren't even Canadian. Rd232 16:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 24

The Incredible Hulk (TV Series) → The Incredible Hulk

The main article about the comic book series was moved to Hulk (comics) from The Incredible Hulk, leaving a redirect. I'd like to see the article about the TV series moved there, rather than leave the non-disambiguated main title as a redirect. A line has been added to the top of the TV series article pointing to information on the comic book series. -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the main title be a summary of the subsidiary article (comics, movies, TV, etc) or (at the very least) a simple disambiguation page? Didn't the comic come first? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • All of the information about the comic character and series is at Hulk (comics) -- Netoholic @ 04:38, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Oppose. For nearly the entirity of the comic's run it has been titled The Incredible Hulk and that should be at that page. The TV series certainly shouldn't - would you want Superman to be about the movie? Timrollpickering 20:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no content at The Incredible Hulk right now, it is only a redirect. In the future, someone may come and write an article about that specific comic series, but right now the only info on it is in the character page at Hulk (comics). Until someone does, we only have one appropriate article to take the main (non-ambiguated) title, and that is the one about the TV series. This does not have to be a permanent change. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
    • The character is more likely to be called "The Incredible Hulk" because of the series. That page should either redirect to an article on the character, be the main location for that article (a natural title is better than a disambiguation in brackets) or perhaps be an article on the series if there's merit for the two to be separated. It should most definitely not be used for an adaptation in another medium. Timrollpickering 21:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: People searching for "The Incredible Hulk" are most likely looking for either the comic or the character, not the TV series. DCEdwards1966 06:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Compromise Proposal: Perhaps The Incredible Hulk could be a disambiguation page listing articles on each of the hulk franchises (comics, tv. movies) and other auxilliary articles if any. —ExplorerCDT 21:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. All of that information is already in the article; it's pretty much what one would expect when typing "The Incredible Hulk" in the Go box, though perhaps a bit disorganized. --LostLeviathan 22:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Page should be overview of entire franchise + subsidiary/related articles. If some of this is in TV article, then copy it for future development. Rd232 23:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Update: Someone has moved The Incredible Hulk to Hulk (comics). I hope an admin will quickly undo this, as it's rather annoying;and no consensus on this move has been reached here. --LostLeviathan 23:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The comic character is the primary meaning and all the subsidiary relations can be linked from there; however, I would not have a problem with making The Incredible Hulk a disambiguation page. older≠wiser 14:40, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Video game → Console game

Console game should describe typical gameplay, history, what to expect from a console game. The current redirect is in error, as a console game is not at all the hardware that it is played on, the console. Video game currently contains an article primarily on console games, and it should be moved to console games. Talk:Computer_and_video_games outlines plans for clarification of the entire area. --Slike 11:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article on video games looks exactly like I'd expect such an article to be about. The article is consistent with the popular usage, at least here in the US, where "console game" is a much frequently less-used phrase, usually used to clarify that the game is played on a video game console (such as a Playstation) rather than on a personal computer. --LostLeviathan 18:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, seconding LostLeviathan's comments. Rd232 23:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please read -Talk:Computer_and_video_games as it outlines plans for clarification of the entire area.— Slike | Talk | 00:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Concur with Lost Leviathan. There is (clearly) an issue, but this is not the solution. FWIW I think first of genre (sports sim/driving sim/shoot em up whatever) and then what's available for whatever my platform du jour is. Icundell 00:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chinese yo-yo → Diabolo

Entry for Diabolo was removed and the topic nowadays just redirects to Chinese yo-yo. Chinese yo-yo is not the correct name for the item depicted in the entry. The juggling prop is called Diabolo universally in juggling circles. The original move was probably initiated by an ill-informed newbie to the art. The content of the page has deteroriated as people have been removing stuff which does not relate to Chinese yo-yo (which also looks different). Also the external links and the picture are irrelevant to 'Chinese yo-yo' as they clearly refer to Diabolo. Diabolo and Chinese yo-yo are quite two different things. I propose leaving a new empty entry for Chinese yo-yo which could be used to tell about the particular item. Addition: To see what I mean. Here's a Chinese Yo-Yo and here's a Diabolo. I ask for this change now because I thought someone more proficient with Wikipedia would come to resque and correct the error. -- Fizzl 10:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Initiated by me. I wrote much of the original Diabolo entry. Fizzl 10:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I've never heard the item depicted and described in that article refered to as anything but diabolo. —Rory ☺ 11:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I used to juggle diabolos, and I never called it a Chinese yo-yo. Dbenbenn 22:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think it is fair to characterise the original move as ill-informed. But if different editors are pulling in different directions, it sounds like you may have a case for demerging the article. Diabolo can then concentrate on the juggling and Chinese yo-yo can concentrate on its origins, history, and use in Chinese dance etc. In which case a straight move wouldn't be required. -- Solipsist 10:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 23

==== Developing nation → Developing country==== and equivalently Developed nation → Developed country The latter term is much more common (outweighs the former 10:1 in Google). Also "nation" potentially raises more political development issues than is usually intended; the term is economic. Rd232 15:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I would assume the article was probably written by an American, since in general we Americans have little understanding of the conceptual division between a nation and state (and even less an understanding of a nation-state I might add) and have confused the terms to the point of making them synonymous when they aren't. —ExplorerCDT 15:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Country gives a more precise meaning. Icundell 19:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support as long as developing nation and developed nation remain as redirects, as they are commonly used synonyms. --LostLeviathan 00:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Naive cynic 01:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. "Nation" is quite incorrect usage here (and taken literally, "developing nation" is quite insulting, implying lack of cultural development). —Tkinias 22:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No it does not. To be pedantic it implies a lack of national institutions and nothing to do with culture. To take Germany as an example. It had cultural development long before it had national unity and national institutions. Indeed one could argue that for part of its existence as a nation that its cultural development went into reverse! The UK is a nation state but it consists of 3 and 1/4 countries. Just as the UK consists of more than one counrty (as did the USSR), there are countries like Korea (and before reunification Germany and Vietnam) which consists of more than one nation state. Normally when one says developing nation, one means the region inside a nation state not in the one of more (or less) countries which make up the nation state. Developing nation is usually used as a short hand for economically developing nation state. As IMF statistics are calculated by nation state and not by country, and development aid, loans etc are allocated by nation state and not by country, I am not sure why anyone would want to put the article under country. Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The UK is a nation state but it consists of 3 and 1/4 countries." I would say precisely the reverse is the case - the UK is a state or country consisting of English, Welsh, Scots nations, plus NI. In general, country is synonymous with state, the latter being a political term. Nation is a cultural term. We use nation state for states that consist primarily of a single nation (or perhaps claim to or aspire to). Your IMF remark, BTW, is wrong - the IMF [6] talks about countries, not nations or nation states. Rd232 17:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more or less". The trouble is that the words country and nation do not have a precise meanings and vary depending on the context. England is a country and the major English national sport is football. The UK is a nation state consisting of 3 and 1/4 countries, England, Wales, Scotland and most of Ulster, which one of the four provences of Ireland (and ignoring for this example semi-detached Channel islands and the Isle of Man). One does not go to the nationside one goes to the countryside, so country has something to do with territory occupied by a people who can be identified as a nation. As for the IMF as they say On this site, the term "country" does not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law after all it is the International Monetary Fund, it is not called the Intercountry Monetary Fund. It is the United Nations not the United Countries. Philip Baird Shearer 18:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look mate, by your logic, I could go on about the different meanings of "developing". Ultimately, what matters is the compound term we're describing here, and it is "developing country" by a country mile (pun intended). Rd232 21:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm moving this up the page for further discussion - apart from Philip Baird Shearer there seems to be broad support, so let's have some more votes and see where it goes. Rd232 21:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Google results can be misleading and I'm one who supports 'official' names rather than 'most commonly used' names. (And I'm sure that most Wikipedians disagree with me on this.) I support this because the IMF, UN, and WTO all use 'country' rather than 'nation'. And for those arguing over the meanings of 'country' and 'nation', my dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary) gives this help:

Synonyms: 'Nation' primarily signifies a political body rather than a physical territory—the citizens united under one independent government, without close regard for their origins; secondarily it denotes institutional ties, a community of economic and cultural interests. 'Country', in strict usage, is a geographic term signifying the territory of one nation, but it is often used in the extended sense of 'nation'. —Mike 21:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Trying to ascertain whether proposal does have broad consensus. Looks like to me - so can we have it moved? Rd232 00:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It will be done as soon as an admin notices this section. Please don't move the discussion or comment elsewhere on this page. Is there some urgency with this? -- Netoholic @ 01:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)