Wikipedia:Requested moves

[[:|WP:RM]]

Please attempt to move the page in question yourself before requesting admin intervention

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

Remember, pages should be named in accordance with naming conventions.

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:

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

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]] &rarr; [[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 28

X sportspeople → X athletes

No need to be politically correct when a perfectly good word will do. Vacuum c 00:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I correcting the links above because User:Vacuum didn't link them properly, and the pages are redlinked (i.e. they don't exist). So, Vacuum, what's the problem? —ExplorerCDT 00:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suffolk → Suffolk, England

and as a consequence Suffolk (disambiguation) → Suffolk

Suffolk County, New York has a population of 1.4 million. It is twice the area and population of Suffolk, England. The capital of Massachusetts, Boston, is located in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. This county has a population of nearly 700,000. It is smaller than Suffolk, England, but has a greater population. In addition, a Google search for "Suffolk" [1] returns "Suffolk County" (New York), "Suffolk University" (Boston), and "City of Suffolk" (Virginia) as its top three matches. Carrp 23:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: Suffolk County exists as a disambiguation to cope with the two examples mentioned. violet/riga (t) 23:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't Suffolk, England also a county? The description in the article is "Suffolk (pronounced 'suffuk') is a large, low-lying county in East Anglia in eastern England". Also, in Boston, "Suffolk" is more commonly used than "Suffolk County" (which is more formal). For example, someone will usually refer to the Suffolk District Attorney or the Suffolk Jail. Carrp 23:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: Since Suffolk is not a shire like Oxfordshire, I think they do call it County Suffolk occasionally, and most of the American counties are "County of ______" when formally incorporated. —ExplorerCDT 23:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - The place in England is Suffolk, not Suffolk County. It seems to me that the places in the US are known as Suffolk County, not Suffolk, hence the acceptable use of the Suffolk County disambig. violet/riga (t) 23:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - You are correct that "Suffolk County" is the official name (at least in Massachusetts). The "County" is usually dropped during informal discussions. As for the county in England there is the Suffolk County Council here [2]. To be quite honest, I'm not going to push this issue any farther. If users are of the opinion that the Suffolk of England should exist at Suffolk without disambiguation, I will certainly accept that. Carrp 00:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - There is also Oxfordshire County Council, but there is no Oxfordshire County. This is because they are ALL called County Councils. But Suffolk is never Suffolk County. This is just not they way it is done in England. Yes I suggest you remove this request, as I believe you only did it to counter my proposal for Middlesex. Jooler 01:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        I did post this request in relation to your proposal for Middlesex, but I assure you it was not in response or retaliation. I was actually very interested in the Ceremonial counties of England article because I noticed almost all of the counties in my home state of Massachusetts are named after English counties (Middlesex, Essex, Suffolk, Berkshire to name a few). After reading the comments from this proposal, I have come to the conclusion that Suffolk County probably is the best disambiguation page. However, I still oppose the Middlesex proposed change. Carrp 01:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support...Consistency. —ExplorerCDT 23:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Then you should actually oppose, as virtually all the counties of England do not have ", England" as part of the title (Administrative counties of England). violet/riga (t) 00:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Wouldn't Suffolk (England) or Suffolk (UK) be preferable anyway (given naming conventions) (not that I wouldn't oppose that move too). Guettarda 00:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Entirely unnecessary. jguk 23:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are we still talking about cricket? I find myself having an Arthur Dent moment...where Slartibartfast shows him the history of Krikkit and he is thinking of Paul McCartney buying half of England. Where was I? Oh, yeah Oppose. Guettarda 23:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Naturally. Jooler 00:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolutions → UN Security Council Resolution

Greater consistency with Wikipedia naming conventions; consistency with article on UN General Assembly resolution -- Ian 22:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 27

World gazetteer → Gazetteer

Current article includes several types including World gazetteer, and Gazetteer is currently a redirect to World gazetteer. Nonenmac 21:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iraq interim government → Iraqi Interim Government

Should be moved to official (see transitional constitution and their official website) and most common name.--Pharos 20:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joseph John Thomson → J.J. Thomson

Google and every high school physics student in the world knows him better as J.J.--Pharos 19:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose...and the redirect as it stands works just fine for those who want to search for him as J.J. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. —ExplorerCDT 23:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the article be at the most common name, the one millions of students learn in school?--Pharos 01:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WCW → World Championship Wrestling

This should be done both to conform to naming conventions and because it has appeared on the talk page for several months with no objections. --Chrysaor 19:56, 27 Jan 2005

Support. -Sean Curtin 19:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Belligerent occupation → Military occupation

"Military occupation" is by far the more common term, per google and common sense--Pharos 19:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Support —Michael Z. 2005-01-28 01:08 Z

Middlesex, England → Middlesex

and as a consequence Middlesex → Middlesex (disambiguation)

Middlesex, England is the orignal meaning from which all others are derived and is still the primary unqualified meaning, as can be seen when clicking on Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Middlesex. Jooler

Oppose. Carrp 15:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No. Oppose strenuously. Leave as it is. Too many Middlesexes in the world to dedicate the name to only one...even if it is the origin. Heck, I've spent a lot of time in Middlesex, New Jersey (USA) (a borough) which is in Middlesex County, New Jersey. While it is probably not a problem that will happen with incredible frequency, I'd rather have the disambiguation at Middlesex for the chance that someday I'd ever search for any one of the myriad of subjects named Middlesex (including a few that aren't on this disambiguated list). —ExplorerCDT 15:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The number of references to Middlesex, England has been inflated by the agendas of some editors. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What does that mean? Jooler
Oppose. There are too many other notable uses of Middlesex for the one in England to get primary disambiguation. Although Susvolans indicates that there may have been some sort of intent behind adding mistaken links to Middlesex when they should have linked to Middlesex, England, I'm willing to allow that it may have been accidental. I appears that User:Mrsteviec created a lot of these links by adding a table to a whole lot of places in London (for example [3] and [4], two picked at random). Mrsteviec should have been more careful about checking the links in the table before plastering it all over these articles. But carelessness is not an argument for giving a page primary topic disambiguation. older≠wiser 18:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- This argument doesn't wash. Even without mrsteviec's links there were plenty of links pointing to Middlesex, meaning Middlesex in England because Middlessex without qualification usually means England. The same applies to Essex, Sussex, Norfolk etc.. Jooler
  - Comment: England isn't the extent of the English-speaking world. On the other side of the pond, we usually don't think of what is now a non-extant government entity near London. I heard names like Sussex, Essex or Middlesex, my first thoughts are to the counties in my native New Jersey, or in some contexts...mentions of Sussex and Middlesex lead me to thoughts of boroughs of the same name within those counties (ironically, neither being the seat of said counties which leads to much confusion). I hear Norfolk, and my first thought is to the naval base in Virginia, and the second to the naval vessel in Patrick O'Brien's novel The Far Side of the World (the basis for the 2003 film Master and Commander...etc.). There are Essexes, Sussexes, Middlesexes and Norfolks all over the face of this planet, and for different people in various locales they raise different associations. I would wager that someone in Northern New York will first think of Essex County, New York before they think of Essex in England. When in doubt, or when a name isn't exclusive to solely one singular interpretation (as is the case herein), disambiguation is in order. Heck, I haven't even started commenting on people who would be searching for the novel at the bottom of the list when they type "Middlesex" and click "Go." Thus, it is, in fact, your argument that doesn't wash, Jooler. —ExplorerCDT 18:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - My dear chap - Middlesex goes back to 704AD, thirteen hundred years. That means 1300 years worth of history, 1300 years worth of historical references on Wikipedia. That fact that there are numerous places called Middlesex is because of that history. I note BTW that when User:Stepp-Wulf added information regarding the provenance of the name for Middlesex, New York he used the unqualified link, presumably without giving it a second thought that it needed disambiguating. Jooler 18:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - In my native Massachusetts there are also Middlesex and Essex counties, so that's a few million more people who do not associate Middlesex primarily with Middlesex, England. Carrp 18:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support: Middlesex, England predates every other Middlesex usage. It's what I think of when I see Middlesex (and I'm in Iowa). I agree with Jooler's argument. Cburnett 19:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- To replace a disambiguation page, it's not a matter of just proving that one usage was first or has the majority of links. It's necessary to show that one usage is so overwhelmingly popular that the other uses are trivial by comparison. For example, there are several states in the US that have a city or town named London, but obviously the city in the UK is vastly more popular than any of them. However, in this case there seems to be a fair number of people (mostly from the US) who do not associate Middlesex with Middlesex, England. The English county is still the most important, but its usage isn't high enough to warrant replacing the disambigauation page. Carrp 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I find no guidelines that give your statements merit. Cburnett 19:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - You say "but its usage isn't high enough" but you don't say, what dictates what is and what isn't high enough usage. I reckon 1300 years worth of historical usage outweighs any other usage by a considerable margin. Jooler
    - Your first point is quite valid. It's difficult to quantify exactly what level of usage would be high enough. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation it states "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion" (emphasis is not mine). I read this to mean that in order to override disambiguation the usage should be extremely high, perhaps over 90%. Since there are tens of millions of Americans living in states with a Middlesex county, I don't think Middlesex, England is known as the "one and only" Middlesex. I don't mean to imply that Middlesex, England or its history isn't important. It's simply that disambiguation should be used in cases where there could be confusion, and from the votes thus far, this is one of those cases. Carrp 20:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Well here I make the same point as below. We are building an encyclopaedia not a gazeteer. Middlesex, New York has precisely 5 links at the moment (one of them from here), the rest are basically cross references. If you take out the cross references from the lins for Middlesex County, Massachusetts (most of which were generated by a bot from census data) then there are only about 5 actual encyclopaedic links. If you look at the links for Middlesex, England there are ~~more than 500~~ a lot of encyclopaedic links whilst Middlesex has ~~about 500~~ another load that should be pointing at Middlesex, London. This is the criterion of "usage" that appear to have neglected to take into consideration. Jooler 22:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        Ahem. Let's not distort facts, OK. There are (as of a few hours ago) exactly 166 links to Middlesex. Of those, 78 are genuine references in articles to Middlesex, England. 61 additional links are due to the table added by User:Mrsteviec around December 25-27, 2004. ALL of those links could have been avoided if a little bit more care had been exercised in constructing the table. The remainder of links are either not in the article namespace, i.e., Wikipedia pages, talk pages, user pages, or on similar disambiguation pages, e.g., Middletown. There are exactly 236 links to Middlesex, England, and ten of those are not in the article namespace. While there are more links to Middlesex, England than to the other Middlesexes, you do your argument a grave disservice by making such gross exagerations. older≠wiser 22:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
      - OK fair enough. I admit I didn't bother to count 'em, thanks for doing so. I apologise for exagerating, I just had a quick look and assumed that there were more than 500 links as 500 is the maximum that it shows and I had to scroll the page alot. The point is still valid. Jooler 23:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually, Cburnett, Carrp has a point with considerable merit. While it does not reference any particular Wikipedia policy, it explains and justifies the rationale for disambiguation pages. However, in his retort, Carrp did fail to qualify that the English county in question is a "former" English county. —ExplorerCDT 19:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Some corrections and qualifications required here. It is true that is is no longer an administrative county. In this context it was swallowed up by the expansion of London, much like New York City swallowed up Brooklyn. So most of it is now administered as a number of London boroughs and the rump was transferred to Berkshire and Surrey. However it is still used as a place designation, i.e. very many people still put Middlesex on their postal address. But this is somewhat beside the point - we are not building a gazeteer of current administrative regions. Middlesex in an encyclopaedic context is as 'real' as any other place with a 1300 year old ongoing history. Jooler 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        Likewise, correction is required. New York City didn't "swallow up" Brooklyn. If you used Dallas-Fort Worth as an example, you would be correct. However, your analogy is wrong. The five boroughs combined almost 200 separate towns and divisions into five boroughs (many of the place names still exist without the governments). But, Brooklyn still exists, with its own borough government, borough president, etc. But 1300 years or not, it is not the first thing I (and many others) think of when I (we) hear Middlesex which means quite obviously that it is not the dominate usage, and as such is not the frontrunner for being the only Middlesex worthy of monopolizing the name. Sure, we may acknowledge with a bit of education that our Middlesex wouldn't have the name if it weren't for your Middlesex. But your Middlesex doesn't even survive as a corporate entity anymore...so that does take a big bite out of the saliency of your desired outcome. —ExplorerCDT 22:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - No my analogy was correct, but only as far as I intended it to go. Brooklyn is now part of Ney York City. Middlesex is now a part of London. That was as far as the analogy was meant to go. What was the county of Middlesex is now part of Greater London. The County administration was disolved in 1965 and replaced with several london boroughs. Middlesex still exists, but not in an administrative sense. As several people have been pointing out there is still a Middlesex County Cricket Club. As far as Wikipedia is concerned Middlesex exists because we have very many articles that directly reference it, just like we have many articles referencing Troy which doesn't exist anymore. Would you suggesting that we should move Troy (disambiguation) to Troy on the basis that it no longer exists? Jooler 23:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        You're still wrong about Brooklyn. Brooklyn exists as a corporate entity, and has a government. The only thing swallowed during the 1898 consolidation of New York City was the county government for Kings County (which while it still exists was overlapped to become what is now Brooklyn's borough government). New York City is just an umbrella for five boroughs providing consolidated services like sanitation, police, fire, etc. that are cheaper shared than if each borough government provided it separately. However, each of the borough's retains a bit of autonomy through their own elected local governments (Council's and borough presidents) just like each of the counties in England have their own semi-autonomous County Councils...that is, except for Middlesex (England), because it doesn't exist anymore. How can you claim supremacy in this circumstance for an entity that was erased from the official roles four decades ago? As for Troy, I'd agree with that move. First, I'd remind you that there were like 9 or 10 cities called Troy at that site in Asia Minor, and secondly, I know more people from Troy, New York than I'll ever know from the metrics of Virgil and Homer. —ExplorerCDT 00:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Enough with the New York thing it is not relevant to this discussion, but to put a cap on it - Does Brooklyn still have a mayor? No. Ok - Does the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, have authority in Brooklyn? Yes - right end of story. Please don't nit pick with this it is very boring and irrelevant. Good god the fact that a place has lost its administraton is no reason to rip out the encyclopaedia page and stick it in the appendix. We don't relegate the Roman Empire because it fell, over a thousand years ago. We still have yorkshire, England at Yorkshire even though it no longer has a single administration. It doesn't become unimportant in encyclopaedic significance. Middlesex County, (wherever), USA - for sure is significant for someone living there but unless it has 'encyclopaedic significance on a par with Middlesex in England, you have no argument. This is, after all, an Encyclopaedia. You seem to be approaching this discussion with a distinctly personal agenda. Why do you keep talking about your subjective experiences? You know people from Troy, New York therefore Ancient Troy should be moved. You know people from Middlesex, New York, therefore no move for Middlesex, England. Jooler 01:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Main thing Middlesex means to me (and I am sure millions - or hundreds of millions - of other cricket fans throughout the world) is cricket. So I'll vote for Middlesex County Cricket Club as the primary meaning ;) - Guettarda 19:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I immediately think of Middlesex University. How about that for the primary one? ;) Timrollpickering 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - In Massachusetts, there's also Middlesex Community College [5]. There's no WP article for it (yet) but it has two campuses and thousands of students. Carrp 22:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Following the time-honoured Wikipedia tradition of basing all decisions on Google, Middlesex University would win. But, as a cricketing fan I can claim a billion Indians on my side (since cricket beats all else in the subcontinent); unless you can claim China, I win ;) (and even then I can argue the whole "English speakers" line). Guettarda 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Within the construct of a hypothetical analogy...I wonder if Jooler were a entomologist (a scientist who studies insects) would he/she propose moving Cricket the sport aside for Cricket the insect based on his personal desire to see his Cricket aggrandized? —ExplorerCDT 23:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        My Middlesex/Cricket? I abhore the game (apologies to those who loove it) and I've only rarely been to anywhere in Middlesex. I have no personal interest in this, I'm thinking purely from an usability point of view. Jooler
        And it's more useable with the status quo. —ExplorerCDT 00:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. -Sean Curtin 20:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Guettarda, jguk 20:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. violet/riga (t) 22:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Philip Baird Shearer 23:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Egyptian numeral → Egyptian numerals

Justification: This article refers to a collective system of numerals, not just the concept of a numeral; this collective system is referred to in the plural. Moreover, all other articles on specific numeral systems use the plural (e.g., Greek numerals; see full list at Numeral system). Overly strict adherence to the MOS is not called for in this particular case. —Nefertum17 13:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support Nefertum17 14:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support While this place is far from being the beacon of consistency (and I love to point that out...ahem...Main Page...naming convention regarding capitalization of the second word), I wish we were a bit more consistent. Thus, I support this small step towards a greater consistency. —ExplorerCDT 15:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose: While it talks about the collective system it also details the numerals themselves. There are many articles that may wish to link to the singular ("the letter looked like an Eyptian numeral", etc.) and it makes such linking much easier, as is the primary reason for having articles at the non-pluralised version. All numerals articles should be moved to the singular in my opinion. violet/riga (t) 18:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Violetriga, If that were a valid argument, I would not be able to instruct you to link it by typing this as Wikicode for that situation..."the letter looked like an [[Egyptian numerals|Eyptian numeral]] (sic)." And pardon me for saying that if you consider writing the link like that difficult (as opposed to "making such linking much easier"), then you are just plain lazy. —ExplorerCDT 23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Woah slow down! [[Egyptian numerals|Eyptian numeral]] is silly when it's possible to do [[Eyptian numeral]]s for my scenario. My argument is valid and I stand by my opposition to the move. violet/riga (t) 23:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Valid or not (and I stand by my discerning observation that it is not), [[Eyptian numeral]]s is as equally displeasingly unaesthetic and unnerving as is your repeated misspelling of EGYPTIAN. Lastly, if it were silly, my option wouldn't be available for use and in compliance with many people's standards of aesthetics.—ExplorerCDT 23:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Dear me. It is much better than your suggestion (which is obviously going to be acceptable in the wikicode though it still looks horrible) and I think you'll find it's called a "typo". When someone disagrees with you please discuss it with a decent attitude. violet/riga (t) 23:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        Typographical errors do not just happen twice in two separate locations at two separate times unless you simply do not know how to spell egyptian, or you cut and pasted an example I used the second time (quoting from your initial error) while ignoring or not comprehending what "(sic)" means. Well, Egyptian numerals and Egyptian numerals do the same thing aesthetically, the old programming used to leave the link blue and the s black which was unbalanced and ugly. Some older browsers still render it as if it were the old programming. But, if the article is pluralized and the link goes to the singular, you're not going to the right place, and for the sake of consistency in naming articles on numerical systems, this needs to be pluralized. Though, on a final note, do not deign to think I care what you observe my attitude to be. In other words, continue to have pity for yourself, because I won't. —ExplorerCDT 00:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

German Expressionism → Expressionism (film)

These two articles cross-reference each other, but they are really the same article. They should become just one article, and the other should redirect to it. I would have done it myself but technically an admin is required. -- Danmaz74 11:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support Danmaz74 11:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, but I don't think you need an admin or a vote for this. Just manually merge the content into one of them and put #REDIRECT [[pagename]] on the other. Kappa 12:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you can just manually merge these articles and redirect one to the other. The editing history of both articles would be preserved this way (this is a good thing). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OPPOSE As the person who started resurrecting Weimar Culture yesterday, I can state unequivocably that the movement behind German Expressionism is not solely limited to Expressionism in film. What should happen is someone with knowledge about German Expressionism (which was truly unique within the movement itself) should redo the article to discuss German Expressionism more thoroughly across several media (art, music, literature, and in film etc.) with a dissection of where German Expressionism was within the entire global Expressionist movement examine its effect societally, and then discuss Expressionism in film at Expressionism (film) as the global phenomenon it truly was. I'll have the time for which I can contribute to that effort possibly after 1 February 2005. —ExplorerCDT 15:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Corollary — I'll admit though, a lot of what is at German Expressionism should have been discussed more thoroughly at Cinema of Germany/German film history which also (in my not-so-humble opinion) needs a considerable amount of work. —ExplorerCDT 15:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with ExplorerCDT. I have no objection to moving/merging/aligning some of the content between these two articles, since there is considerable overlap, but German Expressionism should not become a redirect to Expressionism (film) because despite the overlap, the two are not synonymous. older≠wiser 16:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rhind Papyrus → Rhind Mathematical Papyrus

There are a number of Rhind papyri, thus "Rhind Papyrus" for this specific one is meaningless. Amongst Egyptologists this particular papyrus is known as the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus. —Nefertum17 13:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support Nefertum17 14:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zenit rocket → Zenit

Four tiny articles are disambiguated at Zenit. One of them may as well get the main title. The rocket launch vehicle that's currently being used to launch several nations' satellites seems like the most prominent choice. —Michael Z. 2005-01-27 02:08 Z

Oppose. There have been too many different things named "Zenit" in Soviet Union and Russia. — Monedula 07:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. From where I come from, Zenit photocamera was much more popular that Zenit rocket ;) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also Oppose. —ExplorerCDT 15:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. To me, Zenit means FC Zenit Saint Petersburg, which I've just added to the list. sjorford :// 09:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 26

Voyska PVO → Soviet Air Defense

This is an English-language encyclopedia, and the articles must normally have English-language titles, unless the term is widely used in native spelling (or English term is absent). KGB is the latter case. Voyska PVO is not. "Soviet Air Defense" is a valid English term. "Voyska PVO" gives miserable 124 google hits, half of them being wikiarticle mirrors/reuses.

Category:Military of the Soviet Union has subcategories category:Soviet Air Force, category:Soviet Navy, not category:VVS, category:VMS; also Russian Ground forces, not Pekhotnye Voyska Rossiyskoy Federatsii or whatever (I am not military guy). Mikkalai 20:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support, but I can change my opinion upon compelling arguments against. Mikkalai 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:N328KF Opposes my move (reverted it, commenting: It was definitely better known as either Voyska PVO or PVO Strany, even to English speakers.). Mikkalai 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Reiterate opposition as noted above. We have KGB, which was the more well-known term. That is the case here also. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:30, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Support, tentatively. Shouldn't that be Soviet Air Defence Forces, or Soviet Air Defence Force, to include Voyska in the translation? —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
- Agreed; because I vaguely remember there was also Soviet civil air defense ("Grazhdanskaya PVO"), but I might be wrong. I will recheck when I lay my hands on a Cyrillic keyboard. Mikkalai 21:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I solved this one easily by moving it to Soviet Air Defence. No need to bother an admin at all, jguk 21:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot do so, unless you want an edit war. Please wait for voting. Mikkalai 21:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's been done already, and why would it cause an edit war? violet/riga (t) 21:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And while we are here: what is the preference: defence (British) or defense? Mikkalai 21:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are a few defense articles but there is no real preference, as long as it's consistent within the article. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try to solve a housekeeping task quickly, and someone decides to undo it and argue over the point some more! Well, that was worthwhile! jguk 21:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no big rush here. All names are accessible. We can talk for a reasonably long time. Mikkalai 22:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I've redone it - I don't understand why Mikkalai would request a move to a similar name and then complain when it's done. Please explain. violet/riga (t) 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And you should not have done this. Have some respect to the opposite opinion, please. Mikkalai 22:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But you supported the move?! How can it be an opposite opinion? What is wrong with the move? violet/riga (t) 22:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of why this was posted here, please don't move an article while it's move is under discussion. But thanks for making the reason self-evident! —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

A valid point, though I don't agree with the use of WP:RM as a discussion page (as per the talk page). violet/riga (t) 22:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When in doubt, go with the Canadian: defence. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

Support "defense". An additional bonus is, using "Soviet" allows to distiguish it from the post-Soviet time/space. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. A few English-speaking academics only use Voyska PVO in their tracts to pretensiously show off that they know Russian in a field where most of those involved know Russian with some level of respectable proficiency. Mention the Russian name in the text, but there's no reason to render the many of us who aren't proficient in Russian or the Russian names for these things trying to find it. KGB is the only exception to this rule. The status quo is about as ridiculous as saying we should rename the USSR article to CCCP. —ExplorerCDT 15:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Godfather, Part III → The Godfather Part III

I have the discussion started on all the talk pages for the Godfather movies, I've yet to get a reply (been just a day though). So I'll list the move here to attract people, Talk:The Godfather, Part III, to gain some kind of consensus. Please vote on the talk page linked here. Cburnett 22:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strenuously Oppose on principle until the discussion on this Requested Move is brought back here where it rightfully belongs and Cburnett follows the instructions for Requested Moves as enumerated above. —ExplorerCDT 23:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT: WHY WAS THIS DISCUSSION MOVED???? This page is here intentionally to discuss requested moves, not directing everyone away to another page for discussion. Bring the damn discussion back here. —ExplorerCDT

January 25

Third world → Third World

The term is normally capitalised, but the target page has been edited so needs an admin to do it. Rd232 18:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ditto for First and Second and forth world. Rd232 18:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support all three. I will do it, unless someone opposes here in the nearest 24 hours. Mikkalai 20:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

Support. Neutrality^talk 21:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Support all three. I can provide a little informaion on this, as I was involved in creating the mess. "Third world" has existed for an independent article for a long time. There was a redirect from "F&S world" =>"World" and "F&S World" =>"World" until the middle of October last year. The articles in the "F&S world" which replaced the redirect to the paragraph in World was not as detailed as the paragraph in World. As the subsection in the World article was not close to the top, the person who wrote the new article may not have realises the paragraph existed. (why don't redirects dynamically link to subsections in pages as they do if one manually clicks on them? Sigh!). So from October "Second world" and "Second World" contained different information as did "First world" and "First World". In December I copied the information from the World section into the "Second world" and redirected "Second World" =>"Second world". For consistency I did the same thing for "First [Ww]orld". I considered copying into "F&S World" but decided not to as the Third world page was already that way. Philip Baird Shearer 21:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support Cburnett 21:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. ExplorerCDT 15:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RSN → Real soon now

To allow for disambiguation page at RSN. It can be a computing TLA or be the abbreviation for Republic of Singapore Navy. -- Travisyoung 15:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
Support Cburnett 21:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Travis, next time please do not copy articles by cut and paste. In this way the history is lost. There is a function called "page move". Mikkalai 21:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crow (animal) → Crow

Crow is a crow. Other meanings are listed in Crow (disambiguation). — Monedula 10:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)`
Support - Crow is only a redirect to the animal anyway. - Estel (talk) 13:16, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
Support No reason for a redirect at Crow Cburnett 21:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. -- Itai 01:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

United States → United States of America

For the benefit of those who are aware of the earlier vote here, a modified vote was started by User:Cburnett at Talk:United States. -- Curps 10:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to vote, do not vote here, vote at Talk:United States
- I'd advise that you read the instructions for the Requested Moves process enumerated above, and the requested moves template placed on the talk page that states undeniably that the consensus is to be reached HERE. —ExplorerCDT 23:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 23

California Gold Rush → California gold rush

I don't think this fits any of the exceptions to the general rule calling for lower case after the first word in article titles. Jonathunder 01:32, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems like its arguably a proper noun as it describes a specific time period, not just any or all gold rushes in California--seems similar to Vietnam War instead of Vietnam war. Anyway, Klondike Gold Rush and Colorado Gold Rush should be included if the consensus is they should be moved. Then there's Victorian gold rush, List of people associated with the California gold rush, and Central Otago goldrush (which seems to have trouble deciding how it should be capitalized) that should be moved if the first three aren't. Niteowlneils 03:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose: The PBS link on the article [6] has "Gold Rush" and this particular article is about the Californian one, ergo "California Gold Rush". This would be like talking of wars. We capitalize "World War I" yet we don't "war" because the former is a proper name for an event. We capitalize "California Gold Rush" yet we don't "gold rush" for the same reason. Cburnett 20:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style (14th edition, 1993) says to lower case "California gold rush" (7.68 Events) Jonathunder 21:53, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

That's what a 12 year-old style guide says.....and only one style guide at that. Wikipedia has its own semi-loosely defined style guide so other style guides don't set precedent... Cburnett 22:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The latest (15th) edition of the Chicago Manual of Style is two years old, not twelve, and still advises that it's "the gold rush" (8.81). CMS is certainly not the only style guide that advises downcased style. - Nunh-huh 23:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Seems reasonable enough. Chicago Manual of Style and the Wikipedia MoS seem to agree on this, at least. --Sketchee 05:54, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia MoS says to capitalize proper nouns, which this seems to be. Also, FWIW, my dead-tree Random House Encyclopedia capitalizes it when talking about a specific gold rush, as in "Klondike Gold Rush". Niteowlneils 18:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a proper noun, and one we're pretty consistent in capitalizing. ADH (t&m) 08:35, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Proper oun, plus make the other adjustments Niteowlneils specifies to make things align. - UtherSRG 13:50, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
OPPOSE for the same reasons as those above, proper noun, etc. —ExplorerCDT 15:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fruityloops → FL Studio

Fruityloops is the former name of a software package; FL Studio is the current name. —tregoweth 19:42, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Might as well keep the article up to date. Niteowlneils 18:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 18

Music history → History of music

A long while ago, the content of History of Music was moved to Music history. However I feel that history of music is better - if for no other reason that it seems to follow the convention (History of painting or whatever). Was originally suggest on WP:COTW, which Music history is currently a candidate for. Would have moved it myself, but unfortunately History of music has a brief, and long gone, history. - Estel (talk) 14:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the article remains at Music history since that is the convention within the field itself. Hyacinth 21:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move. The standard WP form is "history of..." music history would be the study of the history of music, (like evolutionary biology is the study of evolution) so we could have two pages, but the page describing what happened as opposed to who studies it and why should be at history of music. Dunc|☺ 12:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The distinction you're looking for is between history and historiography. Rd232 06:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Dunc has me convinced. grendel|khan 19:14, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Oppose. Pointless move. It is false and misleading to claim that there is a "standard WP form" for names of history articles. Cultural history, Social history, Intellectual history, Military history, Islamic history, Jewish history but History of Christianity (and many other examples, such as History of Europe). See Wikipedia:WikiProject History. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. This seems quite reasonable. Jonathunder 22:20, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Support. History of music seems to just flow better if spoken. Dunc also makes a solid point. abomination 06:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

oppose. "History of music" and "music history" are not entirely the same concepts. - UtherSRG 02:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Music History seems correct enough. At least, there hasn't yet been a strongly convincing enough argument to support the change IMHO. The average college class on the subject would be Music History as would the degree on the subject (although there's probably some variation between schools). The museum is the Museum of Music History. Maybe if it was another subject such as History of (Adj) Music, I'd support this kind of change for clarity but that's a different can of worms. It seems like the other way is more leaning toward "[The] History of music", which seems like it would be about the "history". --Sketchee 06:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. But the content as it is at the moment seems to be more "history of music" - 'The origin of music are lost deep in prehistoric times'. Though the borderline is quite... skewed. - Estel (talk) 08:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Immediately after that sentence however, the rest of the 'paragraph' is about the first musical instruments amd songs, not of the history itself. The difference is probably too semantic for the amount of information that's there. We could split the article into two very sad stubs, but the introduction also reads more toward what I've known as a "Music History" class type subject. Oh well, I'll leave the difference up to the vote. Both types of subjects will probably be presented under some names eventually in a much better way than this short uninformative version. --Sketchee 09:06, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Move that section related to History of music, and leave the text relating to Music history where it is. A poor solution, as Sketchee says, but the most correct one. Noisy | Talk 09:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that material relating to the study of music history should be at music history, while the actual summary of the history of music should be at history of music. john k 20:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Completed, but can't move yet

The below entries have passed their discussion period time and can be considered closed. However, a technical glitch prevents the move from being completed. When the glitch is fixed, these will be processed.

January 19

Airbus Industrie → Airbus

Airbus Industrie ceased to exist in 2001 with the establishment of the Airbus Integrated Company (Airbus S.A.S.). Airbus is the natural name to search for and link to - as suggested by "naming conventions". Plus of the several hundred links to Airbus Industrie all but 9 are redirected from Airbus. -- Mark 01:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

support - although I'd also support a move to Airbus Integrated Company or Airbus S.A.S. - UtherSRG 13:12, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
support - accurate and simpler -- Solipsist 15:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Proteus (Talk) 16:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. — Ford 22:30, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

January 15

`Ashtart → Astarte or Ashtart

I'd do this myself, except that the page histories are such a mess that my privileges aren't sufficient to sort the whole thing out. No such thing as "ASCII spelling" exists; ASCII is an encoding mechanism, and the backtick, apparently used here to represent a glottal stop, has no meaning on its own—least of all in the English language. The English name of this well-known deity is most commonly Astarte (through the Greek) but more accurately Ashtart; both of these are widely used by scholars and either are thoroughly acceptable to me. ADH (t&m) 11:25, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

prima facie. Should go to Astarte. Rd232 00:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments: (a) the mark you reference is being used to represent not the glottal stop but a pharyngeal consonant, more commonly represented (as in the rest of the article) with ‘ or ^c, and (b) ASCII is in fact a character set, and the author clearly means that, using only characters available in ASCII (thereby excluding the characters I cited), the name with the pharyngeal is best represented as `Ashtart, which is accurate, I would say. It needs clean-up (Englished), to be sure.
— Ford 01:53, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- ... which I have now done. The version that ADH is referring to is here.— Ford 03:27, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- The pharyngeal consonant I'm familiar with, but only as a superscript letter c, and the backtick is not a left single quote. Even accurate transliterations are only preferable when an English-language name is not common (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)), which is clearly not the case here. ADH (t&m) 03:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  - Common transliteration in cases where ‘ (pharyngeal fricative) and ’ (glottal stop) are not available — when the character set is confined to ASCII, that is — is to use ` for ‘ and ' for ’. I have seen that convention for quotation marks, for Semitic phonemes, and in other situations as well. You may have missed it elsewhere on the web. But it was pretty clear from the article itself that ‘ (for the pharyngeal) was being used, so it could not have been too difficult to figure out what ` was standing in for. And your last comment may support Astarte, but it argues against Ashtart, which is neither as accurate nor as common.
    — Ford 03:46, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
Support. I get 50 times more hits on the classical Greek Astarte than Ashtart (with or without the backtick), so I'd prefer a move to Astarte. Editors should avoid introducing ad hoc spelling conventions into Wikipedia, especially where, as in this case, the entity in question already has a well established name known to English language readers and in use by English language scholars. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I went to implement this, but got blocked by the compression bug. I feel there is significant history to Astarte so the following steps should be taken:

Delete Astarte
Move `Ashtart to Astarte
Undelete Astarte to restore history.
Edit Astarte to restore proper version, if needed.

- UtherSRG 14:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

January 12

Courts of Canada → Canadian court system

I merged the Courts of Canada article with the original Canadian court system as they were pretty much the exact same thing. The better of the two was Courts of Canada so I kept that one, however the Category name is "Canadian court system" so it would be more appropriate to name the article according to that title -- PullUpYourSocks 02:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. This seems sensible. Jonathunder 02:47, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Oppose - this move disagrees with the general direction given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries to use "Entity of Country". -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Oppose: but not because of the guidelines (that say to not enforce them on those actively editting an article) that Netholic posted. Randomly picking an external link (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/) the title is "Courts of British Columbia". And other random court links I chose. It's clear the sites use "Court of" so I guess the category needs to be changed to match. Cburnett 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Articles are "X of Y" where it makes sense; such is not the case here. ADH (t&m) 04:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Pointless move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support either of the two suggested names. -Sean Curtin 05:51, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Support the article is about the court system not just the courts. - SimonP 04:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Then perhaps Court system of Canada? -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  - Looks like PullUpYUourSocks liked this suggestion and moved the article. It seems that the only thing needed would be to merge the history of Canadian court system with Court system of Canada. -- Netoholic @ 06:35, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  - Once the compressed block issue is done, this can be done:
    1. Delete Court system of Canada
    2. Move Canadian court system to Court system of Canada
    3. Restore Court system of Canada
    4. Edit historical version to be current, if needed.
  - - UtherSRG 02:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)