Wikipedia:Requested moves
- This is currently under development. We would now like some guinea pig pages to see how it works.
Sometimes you want to move a page, but cannot do so because a page of that name already exists. This page allows you to request deletion or archiving of that page by a sysop, which then allows the move.
Procedure notes for non-admins
Remember that to move a page, you must be logged in. Once you have logged in, if you try an illegal move, you will be given a message.
To request that a page be moved, add the details of the requested move to the list below. (You can use this link to do so.) Please write in the style:
===[[original name]] → [[new name]]===
- {reason for move} ~~~~
The ~~~~ turns into your username, and the date and time. Comments should be added in the form:
** {what you think} ~~~~
so the entry will eventually look like this:
#.# original name → new name
- {reason for move} username, date and time
- {Opinion #1} username, date and time
- {Opinion #2} username, date and time
Please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.
After four days here, if there is a rough consensus to move the article, it will be moved. However, if the move was previously fully discussed on the article's Talk: page, it can be moved right away.
If not, you must add a note to the article's talk page (not the article itself), using the move template;
{{move|new name}}
replacing "new name" with the name of the page to where you wish to move the article. This produces:
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
on the page where you inserted it.
Examples
#.1 For example → Exempli gratia
- I just created an article at For example. I decided to move it to Exempli gratia but made a typo in the move and moved it to Exempli gracia instead. Realising that I had made a mistake, I moved it again to Exempli gratia and edited the original redirect. Could someone help me move it back to For example? • Benc • 20:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Done. (Don't worry, we won't yell at you because you didn't use the exact format. This page is user-friendly.) --JoeAdmin 20:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- because Tolkien said so, dammit. --FrodoWikins 20:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- House style is to use the singular form for article titles. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. • Benc • 20:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
#.3 Birmingham New Street Station → Birmingham New Street
- (Birmingham New Street Station is universally known as Birmingham New Street. The page at Birminham New Street has a minor history (no content only redirects). Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (Duncharris' sockpuppet (because I'm the little voice in your head)
- Oppose: See Talk: Birmingham New Street Station
- I think it's good to have "station" or the like somewhere in the name of metro/train station articles, for clarification. If "Station" is not part of the official name, however, or common usage, then lower-case it, moving it to Birmingham New Street station. Postdlf 04:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Procedure for admins
It is important to check to see if the redirect has major history; major history contains information about the addition of current text (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).
Redirect pages with major history can 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.)
Alternatively, the article and the redirect can be swapped. 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).
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; clink 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.
I moved Turkey to Republic of Turkey, simply because "Turkey" could mean one of many things (i.e. the bird, the nation, cold turkey). That being said, I though that it would be wiser to make "Turkey" the disambiguous page. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea? -- The King Of Gondor 22:17, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- No, the country is more important than the bird. Dunc|☺ 22:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Object - I've moved Republic of Turkey back to Turkey (it was disconnected from its talk page). Nothing (apart from this page) links to Republic of Turkey, and most (if not all) of the links to Turkey are references to the country rather than any other meaning. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Object. what Duncharris said. — OwenBlacker 11:48, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Grand Illusion, the English title of the film, is much more familiar to English-speaking readers. Have discussed this on the talk page Ellsworth 19:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Move onto top of a redirect. Target makes more sense for content of article. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Object - isn't wikistyle usually to have articles in the singular, with redirects at the plural, unless the singular does not make sense? Since dark reaction means one of the dark reactions listed there, why can't we leave it where it is? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The article is about the dark reactions: carbon fixation and the calvin cycle. It is extremely rare to have just one referred to as "a dark reaction". --Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Dark reactions is a redirect to Calvin cycle. Would it not be a good idea to have one article that contains all of the information spread between dark reaction, Calvin cycle and carbon fixation? Or could it all be included in photosynthesis?-- ALoan (Talk) 13:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Photosynthesis links to dark reaction as a "main article". Calvin cycle is a very specific reaction, as is carbon fixation; each deserves its own article. Dark reactions should be a semi-disambig, then, along the lines of dark reaction right now - and photosynthesis should link to it. Hence the move request. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a biochemist, so I'll take your word for it, but it is a little hard to reconcile what you say with the text of the articles:
- dark reaction says that there are two dark reactions, carbon fixation and the Calvin cycle, but then goes on to say that C3 carbon fixation is the first step of the Calvin cycle, and C4 carbon fixation and CAM supply carbon dioxide to the Calvin cycle;
- C3 carbon fixation says "this reaction occurs in all plants as the first step of the Calvin cycle";
- C4 carbon fixation is not terribly helpful either way;
- Crassulacean acid metabolism says "the carbon stored during CAM eventually enters the Calvin cycle", which implies that CAM is not a part of the Calvin cycle, but rather precedes it;
- carbon fixation says that it occurs "when the three carbon dioxide molecules taken in each time there is a turn in the Calvin cycle in the dark reactions of photosynthesis", which seems to imply that carbon fixation occurs as part of the Calvin cycle;
- Calvin cycle says "this set of reactions is also called carbon fixation", which again implies that the Calvin cycle and carbon fixation are synonymous, and, indeed, the first reaction lists there seems to be the same one as is included in C3 carbon fixation.
- This all leaves me a little confused as to which reactions are separate and which are parts of other things. You seem to be saying that carbon fixation precedes the Calvin cycle, but these articles seem to imply that they are synonymous (or, at least, one it part of the other). In any event, I'm still not convinced that dark reactions (plural) is better than dark reaction (singular) is the right place, from a WP:MOS point of view. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a biochemist, so I'll take your word for it, but it is a little hard to reconcile what you say with the text of the articles:
- Photosynthesis links to dark reaction as a "main article". Calvin cycle is a very specific reaction, as is carbon fixation; each deserves its own article. Dark reactions should be a semi-disambig, then, along the lines of dark reaction right now - and photosynthesis should link to it. Hence the move request. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Much better known by their Spanish name, even when being discussed in English. Torres del Paine has a history of just 2 redirects. sjorford 13:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree. Many accounts in English call them "Towers". In English, "Torres del Paine" is used primarily to refer the national park of that name, whereas "Towers of Paine" more often refers to the mountains themselves, as you can see by a Google search. Gdr 18:09, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
- Agree with the move request. 16,500 Google hits for "Towers of Paine" discussing either the mountains or the Natl. Park. 71,600 Google hits for "Torres del Paine", again covering either the mountains or the Natl. Park. There were still 37,600 Google hits when an English-only search on "Towers of Paine" was done. It is very clear that "Torres del Paine" is the most common usage, even in English. gK 03:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- One-all (well, 2-1 if we count the nominator). Would anyone else like to comment on the proposed move before it is done or the request deleted? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The redirect Vitamin B6 was originally listed on WP:RFD, but I realize now I should have listed this move here. The reason for the move: The page Pyridoxine actually talks about the two major forms of Vitamin B6, pyridoxine and pyridoxamine. However, pyridoxine is just one of these forms. Originally the page pyridoxamine was an exact duplicate of pyridoxine except for the image, but I redirected pyridoxamine to pyridoxine and added the pyridoxamine image to pyridoxine. However, since pyridoxine actually talks about both forms of Vitamin B6 it should be moved to Vtamin B6. What follows is the original discussion on WP:RFD. Exabyte (talk) 05:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Pyridoxine is just one form of Vitamin B6, and the content of both this article and Pyridoxamine talks about both forms (in fact they are exactly duplicate except for the image). The Pyridoxine article, because it is actually about both forms, should be moved to Vitamin B6 and either the image from Pyridoxamine should be included in the article and Pyridoxamine be changed to a redirect or the resulting redirect from the move should be converted to an article and Pyridoxamine changed to be specifically about pyridoxamine. Exabyte (talk) 20:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Would anyone like to comment on the proposed move before it is done? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please remove the stub that's currently at Star Wars:Dark Forces and move the more expanded Star Wars Dark Forces in place. BFunk 18:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)