Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Naive cynic (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 17 December 2004 (→[[Eastern Front (WWII)]] → [[Great Patriotic War]]: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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

Procedure notes for non-admins

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

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

====[[original name]] → [[new name]]====
  • {reason for move} ~~~~

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

** {what you think} ~~~~

so the entry will eventually look like this:

#.#.# original name → new name

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

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

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

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

{{move|new name}}

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

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

on the page where you inserted it.

Finally, if adding the first entry for the day, add a date heading: 

=== Mon xx ===

Examples

#.#.1 For example → Exempli gratia

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

#.#.2 Elf → Elves

#.#.3 Birmingham New Street Station → Birmingham New Street

Procedure for admins

It is important to check to see if the redirect has major history; major history contains information about the addition of current text. (This is sometimes caused by the accidental creation of a duplicate article - or someone doing a cut-and-paste "move", instead of using the "Move this page" button.) Never simply delete such redirect pages, (which we need to keep for copyright reasons).

The "right" way is to merge the histories, using the procedure outlined here. This is a slightly fraught procedure, which on rare occasions doesn't work correctly. There are also circumstances (e.g. duplicate pages) where it's not the correct choice anyway. Once done, it cannot be undone, so don't pick this option unless it's definitely the right one.

Alternatively, the article and the redirect can be swapped. This leaves the bifurcated history, but has less chance of causing problems. Simply move one of the pair to a temporary name, and then delete the new redirect which that move will left behind at the original location; next, move the other page of the pair across to the first one's old location, and delete that left-over new redirect; finally, move the first one from its temporary location to its new name. You will then need to delete the new redirect at the temporary location, and finally fix the old redirect to point at the article again (at this point, it will be pointing to itself).

Another option is for redirect pages with major history to be archived into a talk namespace, and a link to them put into the article's talk page. (An example of such a page is a Talk:Network SouthEast, which was originally created as a duplicate article at Network SouthEast and later archived, when the original article was moved from Network South East.)

A minor history on the other hand contains no information, e.g. the redirect page Eric Tracy has a minor history but Eric Treacy (which incidentally is the correct spelling) could not be moved there because of a spelling mistake in the original page. Redirect pages with minor histories can simply be deleted.

Whichever of these various options you take, moving pages will create double redirects in any redirects that pointed to the original page location. These must be fixed; click on the "What links here" button of the new page location to check for them. It is the responsibility of the admin doing the move to fix these, though periodically a bot will fix any you miss.

When you remove an entry from this page (whether the move was accepted ot rejected), don't forget to remove the {{move}} tag from the page (alas, this has to be done manually). It's worth periodically checking either Category:Requested_moves or here to see if any pages missed this step. Checking either of these regularly has the side-benefit of finding pages where people added the {{Move}} tag to the page, but didn't realize they needed to edit WP:RM as well.

The discussion about articles that have been moved should be archived on the article's Talk: page, so that future Wikipedians can easily see why the page is where it is.

Admins volunteering to do tidying tasks should watch this page for new notices.

Notices

Please add new notices to the top of this section.

December 18

Eastern Front (WWII) → Great Patriotic War

  • 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. 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)
  • Oppose. The name Eastern Front is much more common in English. -- Naive cynic 15:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fremantle Dockers → Fremantle Football Club

  • The proper name of the team is the "Fremantle Football Club"; hoever a move was attempted but only done as a copy&paste. So Fremantle Dockers has the significant history up to the bad move, then Fremantle Football Club has history since. So a move with a history merge is what we need, I believe? --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 05:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 15

Arc language → Arc programming language

  • To follow de facto convention on programming language articles. Target has no significant history. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 19:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Naive cynic 20:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. This article's title should conform to the established convention. —ExplorerCDT 20:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New town → Planned city

  • See note on Talk:New town ~leif ☺ HELO 21:01, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Like some of the participants on the discussion on the Talk:New town page, I see no pressing reason or urgency for the move. Any confusion over the popularity of terms are solved by the redirects. The redirects work, directing anyone who wants Planned city and Planned community to New town. As the old adage goes, if it ain't broke...' In agreement with a few of the comments left by participants on the talk page, the term "new town" seems more prevalent than the more academic/ivory tower "planned city." Ergo, objection. —ExplorerCDT 20:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Harbor → Harbour

[proposed by User:202.61.116.8 ]

  • Oppose - unless the subject is clearly US or non-US, Wiki policy is not to favour US or non-US spellings (as this is arguably POV) but to leave articles where and how they are started. (As a non-US person, I'd favour Harbour, but that is the policy and I agree with it.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • See also discussion of color → colour below. Is this a troll? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object ALoan...Stop bickering over American English vs. British English spellings. That petty nonsense is against Wikipedia policy —ExplorerCDT 17:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, ALoan. I misread and thought you proposed this nonsense. —ExplorerCDT 17:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No offence (or should that be offense) taken. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia does not prefer international over US usage or vice-versa. —Tkinias 08:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Macau → Macao

[proposed by User:202.61.116.8 ]

  • Macao is the official English spelling. Macau is Portuguese, and an inofficial spelling in English.

Object Macau is now naming itself as Macau, and not Macao, just as we now refer to Beijing as Beijing, and not "Peking", the later of which is the "English name" until the Chinese reinvented the way their cities should be phonecised.--Huaiwei 19:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree Macau named itself as Macao in English (and Macao in Portuguese). Source: Macao government website. The same treatment is found in the article Political divisions of Portugal#Former regions under overseas provinces. -- 19:46, December 15, 2004, UTC

  • Objection. Can anyone say waste of time? Both spellings are somewhat official, just based on different systems of transliteration. Macau seems to be the most prevalent. The redirect, as it currently stands, is sufficient. Google Test: 10,100,000 hits for Macau [1] and less, 4,100,000, for Macao [2]. 5:2 ratio. Test #2—Officiality in the English-speaking world: The Central Intelligence Agency spells it Macau [3], as does the U.S. Department of State [4], and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [5], and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [6]. Easy solution....just add a disclaimer (when necessary) saying (also spelled Macao). But that has already been done. So, I say again...can anyone say waste of time?—ExplorerCDT 20:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • ExplorerCDT, it is because "Macau" is the official spelling in Portuguese, which is co-official language with Chinese in Macao, and that's why the url is spelt as "Macau". The official English spelling used by the government is "Macao", see http://www.macau.mo/index_en.html . It uses the title "Macao, China" to join various international organisations, such as FIFA and Olympic Committee. (try look up on the websites of these organisations :-) ) -- 06:57, December 17, 2004, UTC
      • FIRST—SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! I hate talking to anonymous people. SECOND—the matter at hand... The Portuguese authorities reverted to the Macau spelling in the 19th Century. Subsequent to returning sovereignty to People's Republic of China, the Chinese Government ordered the official spelling of Macau would be Macao in English. English speaking nations, as I have enumerated above, use Macau officially, despite the order by the Chinese Government. As for FIFA, the Macanese team is called the Macau Football Association. Mind you, FIFA while international is a very franco-centric organization. And France, having close relations with China, and being sissies on the international front, generally accept the Chinese order. But this isn't the French Wikipedia. According to Google, there are 10 spellings as Macao Olympic Committee [7] and 43 for Macau Olympic Committee [8] . As for references to the International Olympic Committee and Macau, there are 2060 [9], International Olympic Committee and Macao there are 1100 [10]. Most institutions in Macau (especially banks and the University of Macau) ignore the Chinese order regarding spelling. But then again, Portuguese (which spells it with a u) is an official language in Macau, English is not. While you debate the spelling (despite most of the world officially settling for Macau), you did not respond to the fact that all the redirects as they currently stand suffice, averting any possible confusion that could result from the two spellings, and from what I have seen every page referring to Macau as the subject states a disclaimer referencing the alternative spelling. Again, waste of time. The reasons for legitimately requesting a move are lacking and your claim is (I fear) more for your aesthetic preferences rather than the facts surrounding its usage (which you seem to ignore), as I have referenced above. Lastly, a reminder, as in our end is our beginning: Sign your comments. —ExplorerCDT 08:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups → Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups

  • Critic is the improper term, critique is the proper term. Critic was copy pasted to critique.... So there's also duplicated content (not a redirect, yuck. The edit history is at critic, so that needs to be moved over. 132.205.15.43 03:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Washington, DC → Washington, D.C.

  • Move to standard rendering of name. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • That's a tough one. Standard according to whom? The postal abbreviation is DC, and people would probably rather see "New York, NY" than "New York, N.Y.", and certainly not "Tampa, F.L." But, of course, D.C. is also an initialism, and not merely a postal abbreviation. Can you cite a reference that states the D.C. is considered the official nomenclature? --Golbez 19:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Most people who follow style manuals and prefer formal usage would rather see New York, N.Y. Omitting the periods from state abbreviations is questionable usage; Chicago Manual of Style permits it for D.C. now (whereas dropping them was formerly unacceptable), but this is controversial. I don't know where the traditional state and territory abbreviations are recorded in law (or even if they ever were put into law), but they date to an era when dropping the periods simply was not done at all in English. It's essentially a question of following trendy, business- and military-style usage (no periods) or adhering to the traditional formal usage (with periods). (There is, BTW, no F.L.; the traditional text abbreviation is Fla., while the postal code is FL.) —Tkinias 08:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Intuitively, I'd agree, but the official District of Columbia government site at http://www.dc.gov/ consistently uses "DC," even in non-postal contexts. --LostLeviathan 02:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with move. DC stands for District of Columbia, as a former resident of the city, it was always "D.C." as taught in school growing up. Alkivar 02:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. D.C. is the abbreviation; DC is the postal code. It is common in sloppy usage to substitute postal codes for the traditional abbreviations (and, unfortunately, Federal Government Web sites are not known for their good usage of the English language). It's a bit like U.S.—dropping the periods just isn't acceptable in formal usage, even if one writes, for example, NATO. —Tkinias 08:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While "D.C." is the correct abbreviation, common usage overrides correctness. Dictionaries do not tell us how to use a word; they tell us how the word has been used in the past, and what the most common usage was at the time the dicitonay was written. Language, though, is more fluid and dynamic than anything written. So, while "D.C." may be correct, it has fallen out of favor and has been supplanted by the more common "DC". - UtherSRG 14:51, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

December 14

East Germany → German Democratic Republic

  • East Germany is an informal name. There seems to be agreement to move to the proper name. Rd232 23:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is contrary to Wikipedia naming conventions of using the mosr commonly used name. older≠wiser 01:13, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - see the naming conventions. -- Naive cynic 01:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is moved, shouldn't West Germany be moved also? Jonathunder 04:29, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
  • Object Naming conventions. Simple. —ExplorerCDT 07:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is my request - see also Talk:East Germany. The basic point is that, to take an example from above, "Ethiopia" is accepted by that government (and its people) as a correct short form of the official state title, "Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia". Nor does the use of the short form express a political POV, as for example, "Republic of Taiwan" does (compare Wiki treatment of Taiwan, Republic of China, Republic of Taiwan) - but it does in the case of East Germany, which is a term coined/adapted specifically to deny the legitimacy of a separate east German state. (Ostdeutschland - East Germany or eastern Germany - was used prior to 1945 to mean various territories to the east of the Elbe, including present-day Poland and beyond.) Of course it was also meant to avoid using the official name, "German Democratic Republic", partly to avoid having to bracket the thought "but that's not the one that's actually democratic" to an audience that frequently wouldn't know. But whilst newspaper and TV short-hand is reasonable, an encyclopaedia's job is not to accommodate ignorance but to combat it. Therefore the GDR page should be at, well, GDR, and the term "East Germany" should be explained on its own page. (Which, Jonathunder, is precisely what West Germany does.) On the wikipedia name conventions (which in these cases are NOT simple or unambiguous) - these suggest preferring common usage, but implicitly only where the short and the long form is equivalent. And whilst William Jefferson Clinton is substantially equivalent to and no more correct than the short form the man himself commonly uses (Bill Clinton), there is a good case that East Germany and GDR are not equivalent, even though they refer to the same entity. (Another comparison: we don't put Marks & Spencer under its informal name Marks and Sparks.) Finally, the wikipedia name conventions page states (last line) "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people." Rd232 12:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll concede Ethiopia isn't the best example but what about South Vietnam? There partition was considered offensive to many - should the Wikipedia article be retitled to avoid using the most common term in the English language? "East Germany" may have been a colloquial term rather than the formal one but Wikipedia has decided time and again to follow common usage, not try to change it. Timrollpickering 13:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • "The truth of a statement is not determined by the number of people that believe in it." (Samuel Johnson?) It would seem reasonable to link to the correct name from the colloquial term page, whilst focussing on the term rather than the entity there. But I agree that if there was a consistent and explicit policy on the subject I'd find it easier to accept "East Germany" as the title. (Though I'd probably still disagree. German Democratic Republic redirecting to East Germany - for obvious practical reasons - just gives me the willies. Overriding correct term in favour of colloquial; ouch.) Rd232 14:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There is also South Korea and North Korea. I'll venture that if reunification had not occured, the FRG article would be at West Germany and Germany would be an explanation of the division, much like Korea is now. older≠wiser 13:45, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well yes - because "West Germany" WAS the FRG. The FRG was the legal successor to the Third Reich, and did not change its legal personality at reunification. (This was one of the fundamental FRG government arguments - "We're the real German state, you 'over there' are just temporarily not part of it.") For Wikipedia, because Germany is the same state now as it was 1949-90, it might involve a fair bit of duplication to describe West Germany in a separate article. So it is reasonable to just point at FRG at Germany as is the case now. Rd232 15:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't understand your point here. East Germany WAS the GDR just as West Germany WAS the FRG. My point is that the common name of both would have been used rather than either "official" name. older≠wiser 15:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • My point was that the present German state (FRG) is the same as the one that existed 1945-1990, during which time it was often known in English as "West Germany". And if we were having this conversation in 1988 I'd still say it should be "FRG" and "GDR" not "West Germany" and "East Germany". Rd232 16:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • And I'm saying that under current conventions, both would be at West and East Germany rather than the formal names. older≠wiser 16:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
              • Your position was clear. I disagree that the convention is. And if it were clarified to match your position, I'd disagree with it too! (But would of course accept it.) Whatever the outcome on this particular move request (heading rapidly for "no"), isn't there somewhere on Wikipedia to develop a consistent and well-defined policy on the name issue? It is a specific problem where there is an issue of correctness, and it's not obvious that simply the most popular term should be used (instead of acknowledging and using the correct term). At least, it's not obvious to me, and I'd like a clear policy. (Clearer than what there is, especially for institutions.) Rd232 16:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Let me intercede here. We have a consistent and well-defined policy. Simply because you disagree with it does not mean that it is wrong. And to maintain that it's wrong because it doesn't jive with your sentiments...that the world should bend to your will just because...such a vagary the Germans—both East and West—would call Spinnerei. —ExplorerCDT 17:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • "We have a consistent and well-defined policy." - there's a convention, which is clearly stronger than I thought, but I maintain the written policy is not clear for institutions (it is, eg, for persons and most topics). "Simply because you disagree with it does not mean that it is wrong." - true. "And to maintain that it's wrong because it doesn't jive with your sentiments..." - my prerogative. Just as it's yours to dismiss my arguments by calling them "sentiments". ..."the world should bend to your will" - did I say that? I called for a clearer policy, is that really too much to ask? Rd232 18:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Of the 17 interwiki links on East Germany, fully 15 use GDR or DDR or an equivalent; two (Italian and Portuguese, neither with much content) use the equivalent of East Germany. (Declaration: in checking this I corrected two that were pointing at redirects.) Rd232 18:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What an article is titled in other languages is really not especially relevant for English as it does not tell us anything about what is the most common name in English. And besides, it is possible for the other languages to have established other naming conventions in which the official names are given preference--other language Wikpedias are not bound by the conventions developed on the English Wikipedia. older≠wiser 19:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • The point I was making was that whilst each language wiki develops its own rules and isn't "bound" by any others, the predominance of 'GDR' does suggest that just maybe there's a reasonable case for considering other criteria in conjunction with "the most common". But apparently no-one's interested in debating it even in a general way (non-specific to this page), so forget it, I withdraw the move request; I have better things to expend mental energy on and clearly this isn't going anywhere. :-( Rd232 20:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Australian immigration → Immigration to Australia

  • There is no article at the target name. I accidentally moved the talk page, and now it won't let me move the article. There's been a comment about the move on the talk page for a day or so. Borofkin 00:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree.I prefer the name Australian Immigration, but this is just my opinion with no factual basis. Agree. Thats a good enough reason for me. SECProto 03:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Furthermore, "Australian immigration" doesn't specify whether it refers to immigration into Australia or immigration of Australians into other places, whereas "Immigration to Australia" is unambiguous. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 22:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It doesnt have to specify. The correct term for leaving a country is Emigration. SECProto 02:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know the difference between immigration and emigration, but immigration always involves two countries and thus technically the current title is ambiguous. Not that it matters anyways, since consistency is the more important issue here and is reason enough to change the title. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 03:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ahh. I reread your first post and i know what you mean now. whoops. SECProto 19:16, Dec 16, 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. [11]

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)

December 8

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

  • on par with the articles on Economy, Demographics, Foreign Relations, etc.
  • Political divisions of China should be a disambig page leading people to the article on political divisions of the Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Mongolia respectively.
  • Should all these articles be move to [[Xyz of the People's Republic of China]], with [[Xyz of China]] being the disambig page? -- 19:50, December 15, 2004
  • In the interests of NPOV, I would have to say yes. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 22:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • As a disambig page, or something about China in general, such as [[Culture of China]] or [[Cuisines of China]]. -- 07:55, December 16, 2004, UTC
  • Support. We should be self-consistent. -- Naive cynic 20:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 7

NBC → National Broadcasting Company

  • Please help me with move. National Broadcasting Company is the official name of NBC Universal's US broadcast subsidiary. Edwin 22:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Undecided. I'm inclined to agree with you, but I need better reasons to jump aboard. I don't see the need when the redirect as it currently is suffices...as is the case also with Columbia Broadcasting System redirecting to CBS, and British Broadcasting Corporation redirecting to BBC. The only one I've found, of the major American networks that breaks this mold is ABC which goes to a dsambig that lists American Broadcasting Company (FOX isn't an acronym, so they don't count). PBS and NPR redirect to the long form, but they're different anyway. Give me something more, and I'll change my vote, but I haven't been won over. —ExplorerCDT 07:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Explorer up there gave some good reasons to leave it alone. SECProto 19:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • The name should be the official name, also NBC could refer to the 'National Bowling Congress' or the 'Newfoundland Barbering Commission', National Broadcasting Company is clear, and doesn't leave many other options as to its identity. Edwin 21:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I guess you could make NBC a disambiguation page, but I'd say about 99,999 people out of 100,000 will be looking for the National Broadcasting Company, not the Newfoundland Barbering Commission or the National Bowling Congress. But, I guess this is trying to be all-encompassing, so an admin can go ahead and change it, but i'm not changing my vote :P SECProto 03:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose - isn't the National Broadcasting Company likely to be by far the most likely intended article? There is an NBC (disambiguation) article so I would leave this where it is. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Abbreviation is overwhelmingly more common, and other expansions are nowhere near as widely known. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 19:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=8523774"