Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 14:10, 23 January 2025

• WP:RM/TR
• WP:RMTR

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place. If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here. Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself. If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves.

• To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

  {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
  

  This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
• If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
• If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

• Blood-oxygen-level-dependent_imaging → Blood oxygenation level-dependent imaging (move · discuss) – Page is named with a common misabbreviation of BOLD. To correctly reflect the abbreviation in the original paper by Ogawa et al. 1990, PNAS, it should be blood oxygenation level-dependent. Skmri (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skmri there was a discussion back in 2017 leading to the current title. Even though the change is relatively small, it may be worth having a discussion to make sure this doesn't get reverted ASUKITE 15:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That discussion is regarding hyphenations, not the misabbreviation itself. Blood oxygen level is not the same thing as Blood oxygenation level. The page correctly refers to three papers by Seiji Ogawa in 1990 that first describe the phenomenon, all referring to it as Blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signal (paper 1, paper 2, paper 3). Skmri (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on this that the hyphenation it should most definitely be Blood oxygenation level–dependent imaging with an endash since "blood oxygenation level" is a multi-word phrase and is modifying "dependent". See WP:ENDASH. I'll leave the distinction between oxygen and oxygenation to the RM. Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree. Skmri (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion that would be wrong, because an en dash juxtaposes two things, explicitly meaning that the first doesn't modify the second. It's not a longer version of a hyphen. Given the meaning you're specifying, I think Blood-oxygenation-level dependent imaging is the closest you can get with that string of words while still being correct typographically. Either that or join everything except the last word with hyphens . . . which is the existing title with oxygenation substituted. But definitely no dashes.
Edit: Also, with just level-dependent joined, it can be taken as meaning level-dependent imaging of blood oxygenation, which isn't quite the same meaning. (Reading it that way, the dash looks like a typo for a hyphen.) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does use endashes this way, see WP:SUFFIXDASH. The potential confusion with "level-dependent" is exactly why it's done this way. Bensci54 (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I did see that, after commenting here. (I somehow missed that subsection the first time). I still don't think it achieves its object in this case. Maybe that's because of the different structure: in the suffix examples, the first part is a coordination (an A and B–suffixed C, traditionally A- and B-suffixed), where the suffix would be meaningful with either element, and there are only two of them. In this case there are three and they're not a coordination but each modifies the next (An A B C–suffixed D). So the grammatical structure is significantly less simple, and it's not immediately obvious to a reader how many of the three form a unit. They can work it out, but they shouldn't have to.I might start a discussion about that guideline, on the relevant MOS talk page. To my mind it's one which in cases like this will only work for a reader who knows about a relatively obscure punctuation usage. Punctuation should help the reader, not potentially hinder them, and ideally make the meaning intuitively obvious.In this case I think the key thing is for blood oxygenation level to be unambiguously identified as a three-word unit, which is best done by hyphenating it together. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Musiconeologist and Bensci54: if I've understood correctly, the sense we wish to convey is that this is imaging that is dependent on blood oxygen level. If that's indeed how it's supposed to scan, then per WP:SUFFIXDASH we should hyphenate the first order compound modifier ("blood-oxygenation-level") and then use a dash to compound that with dependent. Thus the final title would be Blood-oxygenation-level–dependent imaging. Can we agree on that and move it there accordingly? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me. It clarifies the structure into a nice hierarchy, and it's obvious the dash is being used like a "weak hyphen" to avoid the ambiguity of blood-oxygenation-level-dependent. I don't have to puzzle anything out. Any feeling of oddness about the dash is only equivalent to that of an unusual spelling, and my guess is that anyone who hasn't learnt about the different usages of "-, –, —" won't even notice. If they notice anything, it'll just be a longer hyphen. So it works: punctuation shouldn't be noticed, just do its job. Musiconeologist (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• John Vaughan Blake → Vaughn Blake (currently a redirect back to John Vaughan Blake) (move · discuss) – Common name for subject is Vaughn Blake; redirect blocking move Jweiss11 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Probably best to wait while the AFD plays out. 162 etc. (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• GNOME LaTeX → Enter TeX (move · discuss) – The developer of GNOME LaTeX has renamed the project to Enter TeX and the article should be updated to reflect the change. The old title should become a redirect. CameronLP (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • CameronLP, see WP:NAMECHANGES. C F A 19:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Stronghold: Crusader → Stronghold Crusader (currently a redirect back to Stronghold: Crusader) (move · discuss) – No mention of any : in the title MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@MimirIsSmart Colons are commonly used to separate subtitles from the main title of a work. See the end of WP:SUBTITLE. References in this article also show that the name with a colon is commonly used. Toadspike 10:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Astronomical catalog → Astronomical catalogue (currently a redirect back to Astronomical catalog) (move · discuss) – Because of See also links, hatnotes, and titles of listed catalogues, the spelling can can only be made consistent within the article if -ogue is used. There are four incoming redirects. Target page is a redirect, with one bot edit and no human edits since its creation. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Musiconeologist This is an WP:ENGVAR issue, so I don't think the article can or should be moved from the US spelling to the UK spelling. The links to articles titled "catalogue" are, in my opinion, not a problem. Toadspike 09:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't feel the article had an established spelling or English variant before I began editing, though there turned out to be more -ogs than -ogues. It was jumping about distractingly between the two, often in quick succession (see talk page), so I had to choose one or other and make it consistent. I chose -ogue as the most workable one and made that consistent throughout, meaning that the title now has the only occurrence of catalog. My impression is that the article started life as a stub using US spelling, then was added to largely by people using UK spelling, and that until now, nobody has tried to reconcile the two. There was no response on the talk page when I proposed standardising on -ogue.
  If it's relevant, the redirect Astronomical catalogue doesn't seem to be from a previous move, so this doesn't undo a previous decision as far as I can tell. I think it's the first attempt at a decision.
  My point about the links is that they can't be piped without getting things like See also , so they affect consistency within the article, not just between articles. Musiconeologist (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Musiconeologist Your assessment that this article started as a stub using US spelling is correct. MOS:RETAIN says that we should stick with the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. Even now, the article is not very long, which makes this tough to define, but I'd argue that this 2005 version or this 2008 version qualify. Both contain some discrepancies, but that is (in my opinion) not a problem, because uses of "catalogue" are for European-connected topics, like the New General Catalogue, Tycho-2 Catalogue, or Hipparcos, which are proper names and exempted from ENGVAR consistency per the second bullet of MOS:ARTCON. I am honestly surprised by how consistent the 2008 revision is with this. As far as I can tell, the Manual of Style requires that this article continue to use US spelling, since that is how it started, except when referring to proper names spelled with other variants of English. Toadspike 19:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's logical, even though I don't like the effects of changing to the other spelling. I left a request on the wp:WikiProject Astronomy page asking for input earlier, hoping to get a consensus on what to do. The MOS does add "in the absence of consensus to the contrary", and it's possible that some of the people who contributed to the article are there too, so I think I should wait for their input here before changing everything to catalog. It's hard to get a meaningful consensus either way without participation by people involved in the subject area. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrator needed