🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/597267138
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requested moves
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RMCD bot (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 26 February 2014 (Updating requested pagemoves list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format.

February 26, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Antibacterial → AntibioticsAntibiotics – Various people have proposed this move would be right. The weight of the coverage of the topic is on "antibiotics" and not "antibacterial". Practically all other language Wikipedias use the term "antibiotics", and if anything, they have separate articles for antibacterials or antimicrobials. Right now English Wikipedia has no article for the concept of "antibiotics". This is an oversight. The term "antibiotics" currently links to "antimicrobial", which is completely inappropriate to meet the demands of the readership because that article does not present information about antibiotics in the sense for which the word is overwhelmingly used. While this article on "antibacterial" may need to exist, the content within it now is mostly about the concept of antibiotics. Perhaps "antibacterial" information could be moved to the antimicrobial article, or perhaps a new "antibacterial" article could be made, but in any case, there ought to be an article on English Wikipedia called "antibiotics".This used to be an article on antibiotics, but in 2010 it was moved by a single user to "antibacterial" seemingly without discussion. This user's rationale in the edit summary was "moved Antibiotic to Antibacterial: Follow MEDMOS (see ATC code J01). The article as currently written is only about antibacterial agents. Will add refs.", which at least is worth debating if it should stand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Stawamus → Sta7mesSta7mes – This page was moved on December 1, 2011, by User:Kauffner, without discussion Skookum1 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC), saying "moved St'a7mes to Stawamus over redirect: Move to English-language name. See discussion at Talk:Squamish people". The problem is that creates a namespace collision with the MOSTCOMMON meaning of "Stawamus" in English being a reference to the Stawamus Chief mountain/cliff that overhangs this village site (note also Stawamus Squaw) or of the Stawamus Elementary School as evident on [https://www.google.co.th/?gws_rd=cr&ei=0cENU5zjFcSrkwWDuYHwCA#q=stawamus+-%22stawamus+chief%22 this google for "stawamus -"stawamus chief". Stawamus Indian Reserve No. 24 does exist as an official name, but in modern usage the phrasing "Sta7mes Reserve" now prevails in local usage; . The spelling "Sta7mes" the original title of this article, which was stable from 2007 until 2011, and the use of "7" character is fine by existing romanization standards and practices despite being unfamiliar to people not used to seeing it and naming conventions for foreign languages also make room for situations like this; the romanization page in MOS does say "If an entity has a widely accepted conventional English name, that name is to be used." but there is no widely accepted conventional English name in this and similar cases; note also here. Other parallel articles using it such as Esla7an were not changed, though of course the '7' was used to discredit Skwxwu7mesh in the move that created the Squamish people title. The suggestion that "Stawamus" is an English-language name is, I might note rather pointedly, specious in the extreme, like other anglicizations of indigenous names, since it's only an English adaptation of an indigenous name; the premise that that anglicization's primary meaning is this village/IR is also specious and doesn't bear close examination; I've tried a search of the local newspapers, whose search pages don't lend themselves to this, but I know that "Sta7mes" IS found in English publications, and not just those of the Squamish Nation and it is definitely the preference in English by Skwxwu7mesh persons, including the article's author, and is also in use by not-necessarily Skwxwu7mesh residents of the area as on this page, where "who came to Totem Hall on Sta7mes Reserve to vaccinate..." provides an example of in-English usage.....the long-standing title here, created by a Skwxwu7mesh person, and not really an English name at all, was wrongly changed without discussion and should be reverted. The title Stawamus should be made into a disambiguation page, also. As to which part of the Talk:Squamish people discussion is being referred to by this article's mover, that's not very clear at all given all that is on that page, whether on that date or since. Skookum1 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 25, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Charles Worth → Charles Frederick Worth – This is a move back to the original title which was moved with no prior discussion on original talk page or this one. His House is called the "House of Worth" and he has always been know as Charles Fredrick Worth see [4] for example and [5]to see how other non museum sites also call him by his full name. [6] shows how the fashion industry and archives also use his full name. [7] shows how he is listed in other museums and [8] and [9]encyclopedias. To facilitate ease of searching there could be (in fact should have been) a Charles Worth redirect to Charles Frederick Worth. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2C-E-NBOMe → 25E-NBOMe – The title 2C-E-NBOMe should be changed to the accepted Braden-nomenclature (Mol. Pharmacol. 2006, 70(6), 1956-1964, doi:10.1124/mol.106.028720) which uses the format 25X-NBYYY, where '25' denotes that the two methoxy groups are in the 2 and 5 position, the 'X' is the 4-sustituent usually a halogen, alkyl or thioalkyl group and is named using the same nomenclature as Alexander Shulgin uses in Pihkal for '2C-X' compounds e.g. C for chlorine, D, for methyl, T2 for thioethyl etc. The N-benzyl part of the molecule is described by the 'NBOMe' which means 2-methoxybenzyl, 'NBF' means 2-fluorobenzyl, 'NBOH' means 2-hydroxybenzyl, 'NBMD' means 2,3-methylenedioxybenzyl etc.Other naming schemes include a combination of Shulgin and Braden nomenclature e.g '2C-E-NBOMe' and 'NBOMe-2C-E' both of which are non-canonical and contribute to the confusion between simple phenethylamines such as 2C-E and their N-benzyl counterparts i.e. 25E-NBOMe. Not only is it annoying that articles exist using alternate naming schemes, the use of the non-canonical terms makes it more difficult for users to distinguish between compounds that may be 100 fold more potent and this confusion has led to overdoses in the past. 109.56.219.194 (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 24, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Cheddar → Cheddar, Somerset – I can't believe this has never been brought up in the (checking here) almost thirteen years of this article's existence. (Seriously, look at the history. It was created just six days after 9/11.) The cheese is almost certainly what most people looking for when they search "Cheddar"; pretty much everywhere outside the UK (and arguably many if not most places within the UK as well, especially if the people in question don't live in the southwest part of the country), whenever the word Cheddar is used, it almost always refers to the cheese. In fact, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to argue that the disambig page should be kept as is and the Cheddar article should become a redirect to the cheese. Literally millions of people worldwide eat things with Cheddar cheese, while not nearly as many people would know about a relatively small town in England (especially with several larger and better-known cities and towns nearby, such as Bath) without having looked it up first. 128.206.196.188 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – OMICS Publishing Group → OMICS GroupOMICS Group – The mass of SPI/COI/sockpuppet editors have one good point, namely: OMICS has a variety of arms, of which publishing is just one (albeit the one with the best coverage in reliable sources). It would be more natural to retitle this article with the name of the central company; then any details about its various businesses can be included in a single article, rather than spawning stub/promotional/copy-vio articles about its non-notable branches. There was some initial discussion about this here. JBL (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 23, 2014

  • (Discuss) – DIE! → Die!Die! – Per WP:MOSTRADE. Evidently Wikipedia doesn't do funny spellings that the album or logo makes to appear as. This article should be moved. If every album on this whole site was typed exactly in the font or funny spelling that they appear on the album cover, articles all over this site would look like 2008 Myspace kid usernames. Second Skin (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Plymouth → Plymouth, DevonPlymouth, Devon – People who type in "Plymouth" may be wanting to look up any one of a number of different things, not necessarily the city in England. I'm sure a great number of them will want to look up the town in Massachusetts, of pilgrim fame. Others may want to find information on the car. Still others might want to know about any number of places (mostly stateside) and other things named Plymouth (for example, Plymouth is the name of a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA). By having the unqualified-name article head a disambiguation page instead of a "primary topic," it can be a general subject that can serve as sort of a "gateway" to more specific topics that happen to have similar names. 128.206.196.209 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 22, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Bistër → Peskovi – The title of this article from February 2009 to February 2014 was Peskovi. A couple weeks ago, bobrayner decided the way in which the move was done (five years ago) wasn't acceptable. In those five years, however, no one ever argued that Peskovi wasn't the best name. For most people, that would make Peskovi a stable title.So, I presented above why it should remain the title and received no dissent but was reverted because it is a 'controversial move' (so controversial that it lasted for five years). Though, if you're looking for bobrayner's rationale for using the current title, it doesn't exist.Here are the points I made above:*Searching "Bistër" mountain on Google books gives one, non-English, result.[16]*Searching "Peskovi" mountain gives nine results, of which three are based on Wikipedia and three are not in English [17]*For overall web searches, Bistër has 127 results*For overall web searches, Peskovi has 208 results*The source used in the article to confirm this mountain's existence uses the name 'Peskovi'As stated above, not much coverage of this mountain exists, but I do find Peskovi to be the best title. --Local hero talk 15:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 21, 2014

  • (Discuss) – J. Alexander (model) → J. Alexander – J. Alexander is the highest-visited article of the three listed on the disambiguation page, and is the only one to go by simply J. Alexander (the restaurant is spelled J Alexander's, while the magician is spelled Jay Alexander.) I ask that the disambiguation page be renamed only for the technicality, although I feel that with only three articles listed on it, it doesn't serve a real purpose, especially since none of the articles have seen particularly high traffic. If this proposal is to go through, I would suggest replacing the disambiguation page with a hatnote at the top of all three articles, which I feel would be more effective for navigation. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 20, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Carrier people → Dakelh – Dakelh was the original title here, as created by User:Billposer who is the pre-eminent scholar in this particular field. The page was moved without discussion on June 28, 2011 by User:Kwamikagami. From what I understand of the field, User:Billposer chose the name Dakelh over Carrier people for various reasons, one of them being that "Dakelh" is accepted by some groups who do not use term "Carrier" and according to the new revisions to MOS, style adopted by the original/principal author of an article should be what is respected. That this was moved without discussion despite being a controversial change, and that this same move was part of a pattern of moving to allegedly "most common" names (that aren't, actually) means that reversion to the original title is proper and should be respected. Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cyprus oil dispute → Cyprus EEZ dispute – Rationale for the proposed page name change:
    1. Titles must not be misleading in itself:
    What is disputed is EEZs of the countries in the relevant region, not the oil. Oil is just in the "effect" part of the cause-effect relationship. "Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)" is in the "cause" part of the cause-effect relationship. Entitling as "Cyprus oil dispute" cannot provide the article to go robustly on its own. Oil is not disputed. (The existence of) Oil is already there: Levantan, Afrodite gas regions etc.
    2. Robust Titling:
    Somebody seems to start the article page without enough background on the topic covered. As a result, a little later, the page renamed from "Mediterranean oil dispute" to "Cyprus oil dispute". The new name ("Cyprus oil dispute") again is troublesome as explained above. Hence, once and for all to put the things robust, I suggest the above name change.
    Relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 19, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Joseph Schereschewsky → Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky – There has been an amicable Talk Page discussion and disagreement, though a move before consensus.To summarize:One interpretation is that the title of the article should be Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky, from which it was moved, because that is the Common Name: found almost without exception in web searches (Joseph is not found in those searches); in all but one of many Wikipedia articles; in his own published books; WorldCat authority page; standard reference works and encyclopedias both online and print; and in recent scholarship, including a recent scholarly biography.The searches:* Google Search + Joseph Schereschewsky on the first three pages gets only one hits for Joseph S., the rest are SIJS.* WorldCat Search = Joseph Schereschewsky returns books by or about SIJS. The items by "Joseph" are another person, his son.* WorldCat Authority Page = Schereschewsky, S. I. J. (Samuel Isaac Joseph) 1831-1906, doesn't give Joseph. The books by or about him use SIJS or initials, not "Joseph S."* Google Search "Joseph Schereschewsky -samuel", that is, to see how many hits there are for "Joseph S." without "Samuel," does indeed return a lot of hits, but many are to some other form of the name including "Joseph," not to "Joseph S."* Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church)#Calendar (October) gives SIJS.The other interpretation is that the article should not be moved back, but should remain Joseph: in an Anglican church prayer, for which there is one citation (online), quoted in two others, that he is called Joseph, which indicates that this is his common name and that the above argument is "pedantic." To quote::"Although they also include his full name, both THIS WEBPAGE and THIS ONE, which I am assuming are based on official Episcopal Church sources, refer to him simply in the prayers as Joseph Schereschewsky. This is a very strong indication that this is how he was commonly known by those who did actually know him."And::"It is not surprising that older and more formal sources include his full name. That was once common practice in older church sources with bishops. Such sources can be misleading as they can give the false impression that this was how bishops were normally known." Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC) ch (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Owekeeno people → Wuikinuxv – Wuikinuxv is the preferred modern usage by the government of these people themselves, over archaic renderings such as Owikeno, Oowekeeno, Oweekeno and others. Wuikinuxv was the title of this article until User:Kwamikagami moved it on July 24, 2013, claiming "common name" without actually even getting the archaicism he advanced correct. Because this was done by a speedy move, without discussion, and because the band government and the provincial government now use Wuikinuxv, this should be speedy reverted without much interloping. The cite for "Handbook of North American Indians" from 1978 might as well have been published in the Stone Age and is not credible for claims of "common name". Skookum1 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bibliography of encyclopedias → Bibliography of reference works – The exact definition of what is and is not an "encyclopedia" is more than a bit open to interpretation, and I don't know if a bibliography of encyclopedias is necessarily notable or of first priority, as most of the reviews I have seen refer instead to the broader topic of "reference works," which probably includes a few history works which have within them some content on a variety of encycledic topics. Therefore I suggest that the name of the article be altered to this slightly broader topic, which also seems to be more frequently discussed in the RS's. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Castle of São Jorge → São Jorge Castle – While the name in Portuguese directly translates to Castle of São Jorge, in English it's just not right. São Jorge Castle not only sounds right its correct by common practice of names in English (using the "X" of "X" is often awkward in English, spare names and officialities, i.e. Henry of Wales, City of San Jose). While I had originally opted for standardization amongst Portuguese castles, there is legitimate reason why this article should not follow this Castle of "X" plan, which I fully support for most other Portuguese castles, this is because the name of the castle is not toponymic. While it's completely reasoned to say the Castle of Beja, as it is the castle of the city of Beja, saying the Castle of São Jorge (saint George) makes no sense. I hope I have explained myself well and that we may change this. Apart from all this, in English its almost purely referred to as São Jorge Castle or Saint George's Castle, the former having higher popularity. Thank you. relisted Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
  • (Discuss) – George Mahon (accountant) → George Mahon (Everton FC) – George Mahon is better known as a founding father and former chairman of Everton Football Club than for being an accountant. He is most famous for his involvement in the football club's move from Anfield to Goodison Park. It would be more helpful to recognise his footballing role because people are more likely to search for information about him because of his part in the history of Everton Football Club. The history of Everton FC also involves a connection to Liverpool Football Club through the ground move from Anfield to Goodison Park. Supporters of both clubs associate George Mahon with Everton FC and not for being an accountant C3MC2 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wuwei Troop → Guards Army (Qing Dynasty) – "Guards Army" is the dominant translation in reliable sources, whereas "Wuwei Troop" cannot be found there. Per WP:TITLE, which states that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources", this page should therefore be renamed "Guards Army". Details: (1) A Google Books search for "Wuwei Troop" yields one work of fiction, a book based on Wikipedia, and an article translated from Chinese.[24] (2) A similar search for "Guards Army" AND "Wuwei" leads to all the familiar sources on the Boxer Uprising, in which the Guards Army played an important role.[25] (3) Searches for "Wuwei jun" (pinyin Romanization)[26] and "Wu-wei chun" (Wade-Giles)[27] reveal no alternative translation. (4) If the move is approved, we will have to write a hatnote and adjust the DAB page, but that's easy to do. Madalibi (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zhu Zhen → Zhu Youzhen – The name "Zhu Youzhen" and its Wade-Giles equivalent "Chu Yu-chen" are more commonly encountered in literature for this particular person than the names "Zhu Zhen" and its equivalent "Chu Chen". See e.g. The Cambridge History of China Volume 5 (2009), or The Structure of Power in North China During the Five Dynasties (1963). Typically, Chinese emperors change their given names once they become emperors for naming taboo reasons; it is also due to naming taboo that this new name cannot be used to call him during his time, or for several generations after his death. This is why historians typically prefer using original names for emperors: why use a name that nobody else in his time could use? Another point, it can be very confusing to use "Zhu Zhen" for the emperor as "Zhu Zhen" is also the name of a notable general (朱珍) who served this emperor's father Zhu Wen. Timmyshin (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kosovo → Kosovo (region)Kosovo (region) – As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONSISTENCY. The term "Kosovo" in our language generally refers to the country located roughly in the region of Kosovo, just as the word "Cuba" usually refers to the country that occupies the island of Cuba, which is why Cuba gets you the country and if you want to find out about the region it covers, you need to go to Geography of Cuba (where Cuba (island) redirects to). There are definite historic usages of the term to refer to the region, and even some current usages, just as a marine biologist might really not care about Castro but care deeply about a rare fish found near Cuba, the island; clearly Geography of Cuba should exist, but the country has clear primary topic. In truth, Kosovo is no different. This is not a situation like at Ireland, where one fixed region with a long history is now currently divided into two countries, each very notable even though the southern one is significantly more important. This is not Georgia, where two completely different states (and several other entities) share a name by historical accidents and neither one has gained primary topic. This is not even Macedonia, where a historic region only vaguely corresponds to the country that claims its name. There is no reason whatsoever to give primary topic to an area of land while excluding the only government that actually runs it. Again, look at Google News. Most of the results I got dealt specifically with the Republic and not the region; this is the totality of the first page of results I got. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] They all deal with the independent republic that governs Kosovo. Point of clarification; most of the information here should be merged back into the Republic of Kosovo article. Just like at Canada or even Serbia, the article containing the information on the government of the country needs to be at the main article for the country, and barring a profoundly good reason to ignore our strong desire for consistency in article titles, that should be at the base title, which is "Kosovo" in this case. We follow English-language use in reliable sources, and the country--not some abstract idea of a region apart from its government--is what people typically refer to when they use the word "Kosovo" in English. Red Slash 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Newport → Newport, Wales – This may be the largest or most important place called Newport, but that doesn't mean it's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Indeed, if you look at page views and coverage in sources, there's good evidence that not having the dab page at the base title is causing more trouble than it's preventing. Let's start with page views. This one had a respectable 15,083 views last month. But as we continue down the dab page, it becomes clear that the Welsh city isn't "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." In that same span of time, the three Australian places had 2070 views. 815 for the two Irish ones, 4944 for the English ones (this excludes electoral constituencies and places whose name isn't just "Newport," like Newport Pagnell). So far, that's 7829 views for the other pages. The Welsh lead crumbles as soon as we get to the US, however. Newport, Rhode Island's 13,784 views are pretty close alone, and without the benefit of being at the base title.What about sources? Maybe parochialism is promoting obscure places over a clearly prominent Welsh Newport. Nope. I gave up after going through the first 10 pages of results (!) for newport -wikipedia without seeing a mention of the Welsh city. My first thought was that this was at least partially attributable to Google Americanizing my results, but I tried the same search in a private browsing window and saw essentially the same results. In a Google Books search, the Rhode Island city predominates. I don't think that that city is a viable primary topic; I do think that this evidence, taken together, pretty clearly demonstrates that there isn't one.I wouldn't object to a more specific name to distinguish it from Newport, Pembrokeshire (perhaps another of the existing redirects), but since Pembroke, Wales already redirects here, I do think it's primary topic for that term. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rancho San Antonio County Park → Rancho San Antonio Open Space PreserveRancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve – The county park is a small thing, basically just the bit east of the water tank. The article currently states that the park is 3800 acres, but this is wrong; it's really only 165 acres (see this link). Most of the land and most of the hiking is in the open-space preserve but not in the park. Many of the specific features mentioned in the article are actually in the open-space preserve but not in the park (including both the pictures, I think, though I'm not quite sure of that). Alternatively, the articles could be de-merged (they were apparently merged about four years ago), as the park and the OSP do seem to be distinct entities, but that strikes me as going overboard given that there's no obvious transition when you leave the park and go into the OSP Trovatore (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Collapsed lung → Collapsed lung (disambiguation) – Of the three titles on this page, I would contend that the one people think of when they hear the phrase "collapsed lung" is Pneumothorax, the condition associated with a traumatic lung collapse due to an accident wherein the lung is punctured. The second, less prominent medical meaning, and the relatively little-known band, could even be addressed sufficiently in a redirect hatnote. However, with three topics, it is fair to keep the disambiguation page at a (disambiguation) title. Relisted. bd2412 T 17:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC) bd2412 T 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ aaronschool.org
  2. ^ a b The Times Picayune http://www.nola.com/katrina/pdf/072006_nolacharges.pdf. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ a b c Safer, Morley (26 September 2006). "Was It Murder?". CBS News. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
  4. ^ a b Okie, Susan (3 January 2008). "Dr. Pou and the Hurricane — Implications for Patient Care during Disasters". New England Journal of Medicine. 358: 1-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=597267138"