Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
RFC bot (talk | contribs)
Updating requested pagemoves list
Line 1: Line 1:
===September 06, 2009===
===September 06, 2009===
* ''([[Template talk:Globalize#Move request|Discuss]])'' — '''[[Template:Globalize]] → [[Template:Worldwide]]''' — I find it worrying that this move hasn't already been done. It's ironic and almost insulting that a template requesting a globalised view rather than a local one would itself promote American English over British English. I'm not saying all templates should be moved to neutral words, but it should be obvious why this one is an exception. [[User:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b>]] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">([[User talk:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">t</b>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">c</b>]])</sup> 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

* ''([[Talk:Glory of Hercales#Requested move|Discuss]])'' — '''[[:Glory of Hercales]] → [[Glory of Heracles]]''' — The title is misspelled. [[User:Parrothead1983|Parrothead1983]] ([[User talk:Parrothead1983|talk]]) 09:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
* ''([[Talk:Glory of Hercales#Requested move|Discuss]])'' — '''[[:Glory of Hercales]] → [[Glory of Heracles]]''' — The title is misspelled. [[User:Parrothead1983|Parrothead1983]] ([[User talk:Parrothead1983|talk]]) 09:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)



Revision as of 09:38, 6 September 2009

September 06, 2009

  • (Discuss)Template:GlobalizeTemplate:Worldwide — I find it worrying that this move hasn't already been done. It's ironic and almost insulting that a template requesting a globalised view rather than a local one would itself promote American English over British English. I'm not saying all templates should be moved to neutral words, but it should be obvious why this one is an exception. Greg Tyler (tc) 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Club Cienciano del CuscoCienciano — I noticed the page was moved to Club Cienciano del Cusco. The del Cusco just seems like the Peru of South America thing or United States of America. I feel that the article name is too long for a club known to everyone as Cienciano. It is the only Cienciano out there and well-known by everyone. Wikilinking Club Cienciano del Cusco will be a hassle, when typing Cienciano will be a breeze. A lot of articles already use the Cienciano wikilink. Also, when searching Cienciano on google, Cienciano gets the most searches. MicroX (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Communist Party of ChinaChinese Communist Party — CCP is definitively used most in scholarly literature and journalism on the Party. "CPC" may be a modern innovation, but it does not have support from the sources. Wikipedia's naming convention says: "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article", and "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize... Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." In this context it's obvious that Chinese Communist Party is what is most commonly used in English. Google returns over 800,000 for Chinese Communist Party, but 519,000 for Communist Party of China. There are 3,620 for the latter in google books, and 8,060 for CCP. There are 31,700 in google books for CCP, and 14,100 for CPC. The New York Times uses Chinese Communist Party 3,900 times, while it uses Communist Party of China not at all. Based on these calculations, "Chinese Communist Party" is at least twice as frequently used as "Communist Party of China." The move appears uncontroversial, and fully in line with wikipedia policy as quoted above. Asdfg12345 02:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Che Guevara (photo)Guerrillero Heroico — The only argument against moving this is that "Guerrillero Heroico" isn't the most widely used name in English. This is not true, as there is no other title used in English (with the possible exception of the English translation of Guerrillero Heroico). This picture, in English, is usually referenced with a description, rather than a name. So what we have now is not a name, but something someone made up. Redirects are useful things, so there isn't any reason to leave it at this non-title. ÷seresin 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 05, 2009

  • (Discuss)Dark dune spotsPlanum Australe albedo features — Discussion above provided a (very limited; only two editors involved) consensus for a merge of the content of old Martian spider and Dark dune spots article. The articles have been merged into Dark dune spots however, even if discussion was still ongoing and no consensus was reached on a merge under that title. The previous discussion failed to provide evidence of scientific consensus for dark dune spots being an accepted synonim of spiders while conjectures about their relationships have been made. As such the merged article as such is misleading. I think that moving the article under an umbrella term covering all these types of geological features could be less controversial and less confusing and provide a natural framework to discuss the still unproven connection between these features. The name "Planum Australe albedo features" is just an early proposal; the essence of the proposal is using a neutral term for an article encompassing both types of features. Cyclopia (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 04, 2009

  • (Discuss)Kopp-Etchells effectCorona effect — The current name is a neologism. Research has now shown that the phenomenon is referred to as "corona effect' (see refs in article). That name was previously a redirect to a different article and now redirects to this article; so it is a matter of swapping the article with its redirect. This requires administrator assistance. Boson (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tanimbar CorellaGoffin's Corella — The species has a very popular name of "Goffin's Cockatoo", which has been the stable name of this article for much of its course since it was started in 2003. It was changed to its current name in January 2009, after much discussion; however consensus can change; see WP:CCC. Cockatoos of the genus are known as Corellas, so I suggest the new name of this page is "Goffin's Corrella", which is the name Joseph Forshaw uses. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)White-cheeked AmazonKawall's Amazon — The species has popular name of "Kawall's Amazon", which has been the stable name of this article since the page was started in 2007. If there is no consensus supporting the new name, then the page move should be reverted. Further, white cheeks are not a notable feature of this parrot, so to me "white-cheeked" seems to be a bit of a misnomer. It has bare white skin at the base of its bill, which is not the same as white cheeks. In contrast, the Blue-cheeked Amazon clearly has blue feathers over its cheeks. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 03, 2009

  • (Discuss)User:WHArchives/William WilletWilliam Willet — I have attempted to move my User:WHArchives/William Willet subpage page into the "live" Wikipedia space and rename it to William Willet. However, when I tried to move it, and rename it William Willet (because it is now a user page) I was unable to. A message in red came up explaining that there is another article with the same name. (This was not so when I created my William Willet user page.) I searched for the Wikipedia "William Willet" page, clicked on it and was directed to William Willett, Jr.. This article was originally "William Willet" (one "t") and renamed "William Willett, Jr." (double T) because (I assume) it was mistakenly named "William Willet" in the first place. Because this is the title of an historic individual I do not see how I can name my article anything else but "William Willet". ALSO, there is another article entitled: William Willett (double t). This is all rather confusing. Will it be possible to grant my request. Thank you for your help. WHArchives (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Extremaduran (línguistics)Extremaduran — or to "Extremaduran language", I'm relatively neutral as to which (on one hand, most language articles are called "X language", on the other, there isn't an article about the Extremaduran people and its creation is unlikely), but certainly the current title is not acceptable, and neither would be the version without accented "í". LjL (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 02, 2009

  • (Discuss)Corporación Digitel, C.A.Digitel GSM — I believe this article should be moved to Digitel GSM, having the current article redirect to that one as Digitel GSM is currently the actual name of the company and is the way it is being referred to in the article. i couldn't move it because the Digitel GSM article already exists and is a redirect. 22:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

September 01, 2009

  • (Discuss)-omicsOmics — The sources referenced and some of the external links use the spelling Omics. This spelling is in line with Wikipedia naming conventions, which generally discourage non-alphanumeric characters and prefer initial capital letters. It also draws attention to the phenomenon among biologists, as opposed to discussing the suffix as a suffix. (That is already handled at Wiktionary.) Omics is currently a redirect to -omics. Cnilep (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)YeomanYeoman (word) — Apparently the previous discussion was too entangled with another one to take. Here's a fresh start. This article is about the word, not any one concept, and therefore should not be at the base name. (In other words, because multiple concepts are discussed in this article, no one concept can be considered to be primary.) Powers T 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 31, 2009

  • (Discuss)Habilitation? — I'm not sure if "2nd doctorate" would be appropriate, but since I had the exact same question at the user below did back in July I figured that I'd ask for wider input. I would think that something like "Post Doctorate Degree" would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 30, 2009

Backlog

  • (Discuss)2012 phenomenon? — We've had a nice long discussion on the proper name for this page and I'd like to put it to a vote. Here's what I see as the facts:# The term "doomsday" or "end of the world" does not cover all the fluffy New Age stuff discussed in this article.# However, "2012 millenarianism" is a phrase we made up (I haven't seen it in our sources).# "Millenarianism" is hard to spell and remember. This is no small problem: one of our primary naming conventions is that "article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers".# Academics who discuss this objectively as a cultural phenomenon (rather than taking sides) seem to describe it as the "2012 phenomenon".# WP:NC: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." QED.Arguments against this move: # It could be misconstrued as giving credence to thoroughly non-scientific claims. My response to this is that the link from "phenomenon" to "natural phenomena" to "future event" is quite a stretch, and to make it you would have to ignore the entire content of the page.# I just moved this page. :) But that was a temporary measure, not based on consensus.So, please state whether you are for or against the move here, and if you are against propose an alternate name and cite policy for it. Shii (tock) 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)1 E-18 sAttosecond — "Attosecond" is a well known SI unit, and a word. The title in exponential notation is also recognizable, but could be written in many slightly different ways, and it really is a mathematical formula (1 times ten to the -18) plus an abbreviation ("s" for seconds). There are some other pages in this format - in the See Also links the 10^-19 page is still active, but the 10^-15 page has been redirected to orders of magnitude (time). I strongly believe that attoseconds deserve their own page because it is a place to compare quantities and (one hopes with further development) tools and techniques for measurement. That can be done if the page is about a notable SI unit "attosecond", but eventually someone would challenge the idea of having a page for every real number of seconds.I should note that I think this move shouldn't be controversial, but I wasn't sure - I'd have moved it myself but a separate article at Attosecond was merged into this one previously. I don't want to just merge back the opposite direction because this has the longer edit history. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]